* m 
 
 \ • * 
 
 • m 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 #> G '* 
 • • • 
 
 * 
 
 - 
 
 # « • • .# • # 
 
 I ^ • • • • • 
 
 • ■ # 
 
 v.v/.v«\% vXv 
 
 YV 
 
 w.*«v. :• * • • • • ■ 
 
 * • • 
 
 • • • * 
 
 # • • • • * 
 
 Xop y/ J 
 
 • ft # * * • ♦ 
 
 # # * • * • • 
 
 # # * $ f • 
 
 • • * • • *i # v**^. 
 
 • • 
 
3P 
 
 * 
 
 prf* 
 
 $ \\\t Stftbgfaf &,, . 
 
 '*% 
 
 PKINCETON, N. J. 
 
 ft 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 
 I 
 
 Agnew Coll. on Baptism, No. ' 
 
TREATISE 
 
 ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 LY TWO PARTS. 
 
 DESIGNED AS A REPLY TO THE ?~ rEMEHSS AND REASONINGS OF THg 
 
 REV. ADONIRAM J VDSON, Jun. A. M. 
 
 As exhibited in his " Sermon, preached in the Lai Bazar Chapel, 
 
 Calcutta, on Lord's-Day, September 27, ISIS," and 
 
 recently republished in this Country. 
 
 BY ENOCH POXD, A. M. 
 
 ^PASTOR OF THE COXGREGATIOXAI, CHURCH IH WARD, (MASS.) 
 
 X * Truth has been usually elicited by controversy." 
 
 ROBERT HALL, 
 
 SECOND EDITION, REVISED AXD I3irROVED, 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM MAN5INO. 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1G19-. 
 
District of Massachusetts, to xv.it ■: 
 
 Pistrict Clerk's Office. 
 
 BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the thirteenth day of April, 
 A. D. eighteen hundred and eighteen, in the forty-second year of 
 the Independence of the United States of America, Enoch Pond, 
 of the said District, has deposited in this Office, the Title of a Book, 
 the Right whereof he claims as Author, in the words following, to 
 icit : 
 
 " A Treatise on the Mode and Subjects of Christian Baptism* 
 In two Parts. Designed as a Reply to the Statements and Reason- 
 ings of the Rev. Adoniram Judson, Jan. as exhibited in his 
 4 Sermon, preached in -the Lai Bazar Chapel, Calcutta, on LordV 
 Day, September 27, 1812, 1 and recently republished in this Coun- 
 try. By Enoch Pond, Pastor of the Congregational Church in 
 Ward, (Mass.) * Truth has been usually elicited by controver- 
 sy. 1 Robert Hall" 
 
 In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, 
 entitled, w An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing 
 the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprie- 
 tors of such Copies, during the times therein mentioned :" and also 
 to an Act entitled, u An Act supplementary to an Act, entitled. 
 An Act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies 
 ©f Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such 
 Copies, during the times therein mentioned ; and extending the ben~ 
 efits thereof to the Arts of Designing, Engraving and Etching His- 
 terical and other Prints.'" 
 
 JNO. W. DAVIS, 
 Clerk of the District ef Mussachusctis, 
 
 
>* 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 THE mere suggestion of the ensuing Treatise will 
 probably excite in some minds inquiries such as these-— 
 44 Why should any thing farther be written on the subject 
 of Bafitism ? Why should more be attempted, where eve- 
 ry thing that can be said has been repeatedly said already ? 
 Why revive a controversy which has been so long protract- 
 ed, and to &o little purpose '"—The writer answers, that, 
 should the charge of reviving this controversy fall on him, 
 he sees not at present any cause for alarm. lie is not 
 conscious of an undue predilection for religious toairo- 
 versy. He- ardently desires the day, when ** watchmen" 
 and watched " shall see eye to eye " Still, when he re- 
 Sects that the labours of the best of men have been in 
 many instances controversial, and that no inconsiderable 
 portion even of the Sacred Volume is of the same de- 
 scription ; he cannot admit that under existing circum- 
 stances religious controversy is universally to be depie- 
 cated. He accedes to the sentiment of the immortal 
 Bacon, who considered it M weak divinity, to account con- 
 troversies an ill sign in the church. In ignorance ar.d 
 implied belief," says he, " it is easy to agree, a3 colours 
 agree in the dark. If any country decline into atheism, 
 then controversies wax dainty ; because men do not think 
 religion worth the falling out for, 1 '* 
 
 But is the present revival of this controversy properly 
 chargeable to the writer ? When Mr. Judson wrote and 
 published his Sermon, with the avowed design of trans- 
 mitting it to America, he well knew that he was treading 
 on controversial ground ; and he had every reason to ex- 
 pect, unless he supposed it would force universal convic- 
 tion, that some one in his native country would attempt a 
 reply. 
 
 Besides the usual reasons which are adduced to justify 
 publications like he present, there are some which seem 
 to render the ensuing discussion peculiarly necessary. 
 
 * Works, vol. iii. p. 59, in Chri&t. Observ. vol. x. page 100, 
 
IV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The circumstances under which the Discourse before us 
 has been brought forward, will unavoidably throw it into 
 the hands of many who have never attended to the subject 
 of which it treats,* Such ought to have it in their power 
 to judge of the matter fairly. They ought to be able to 
 look at it on more than one side. Were no answer given 
 to this Discourse, they would readily conclude that none 
 could be given. These considerations, more than any 
 drawn from the work itself, have appeared to demand 
 that it should be examined.! 
 
 Mr. Judson is a person whom, for several years, I have 
 been accustomed to respect. It is with pain I find myself 
 under obligations to contrcyert what he has advanced. It 
 is particularly painful, that I am to become the instru- 
 ment of communicating facts which seriously implicate 
 his moral character. His particular friends may rest as- 
 sured that I have no pleasure in detraction, and that it 
 would afford me the highest happiness, could the myste- 
 ries of his conduct be fully developed, and the charge 
 which in the ensuing pages lies against him be fairly. 
 removed. 
 
 My object has not been merely to furnish a reply to Mr. 
 Judson. I have designed to exhibit a summary view of 
 the evidence in favour of the Pedobaptist cause. 
 
 My references are to the second American edition of 
 the Discourse, published by Messrs. Lincoln & Ed- 
 mands, Boston. 
 
 * M The interest which that event (referring to Mr. Judson's 
 change of sentiments) has excited in the Christian community, at- 
 taches an importance to this Discourse, and cannot fail to secure 
 it a general circulation." (Review of Mr. Julso.\'s Sermon in 
 Amer. Bap. Magazine, vol. i. page 21.) 
 
 t " I have thought and said," says the Rev. Dr. Worcester, 
 in a letter to the author, " that Mr. Judsox's Sermon ought to be 
 answered ; not so much on account of its intrinsick force, as of the 
 extraneous circumstances which serve to give it a currency and in- 
 fluence, to which it is not justly entitled." 
 
A TREATISE, &c. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 On the Mode of Christian Baptism x 
 
 Section I. 
 
 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 I: 
 
 N the first words of Mr. Jud son's pamphlet, 
 he informs us that he " was by education and pro- 
 fessiona Pedobaptist ;" that "during his passage 
 from America to India, in the spring of 1812, he 
 began to doubt the truth of his former senti- 
 ments ;" and that li after his arrival in that coun- 
 try, and before he communicated the exercises of 
 his mind to any of the Baptist denomination, he 
 became" an established convert to the peculiarities 
 of the Baptist faith.— Pedobaptists would glad- 
 ly indulge the hope, that these pretensions are 
 sincere — that Mr. Jud son was influenced in this 
 matter by a sense of duty and the fear of God. 
 They cannot, however, repress the opinion, after 
 a deliberate investigation of concomitant circum- 
 stances, that his change is, to say the least, a very 
 mysterious event. 
 
 His professed object, in transmitting his Dis- 
 course across the ocean, was to furnish " his dis- 
 tant friends in America with a more full and sat- 
 I* 
 
6 
 
 isfactory statement of the reasons of his change, 
 than could be made in private communications." 
 But his Pedobaptist friends are not satisfied with 
 these reasons. They see not how they could have 
 induced his present belief. It is admitted that he 
 has advanced nothing materially new, in support 
 of the Baptist cause. The statements he has 
 made have been made before. The reasonings 
 he has employed have been employed before. 
 And in the course of his theological education, it 
 would seem he must have known this. The ar- 
 guments he has now advanced and pronounced 
 conclusive, he must have previously examined 
 and pronounced unsound. The representations 
 he has now made, with apparently the utmost 
 confidence, he must have previously considered, 
 and pronounced incorrect. 
 
 It is somewhat remarkable in the case of Mr. 
 Judson, that he should be changed to precisely 
 such a point* Having begun to waver, why did ho 
 waver just so Jar, and no farther ? Without 
 communicating his " exercises to any of the 
 Baptist denomination," why did he at length 
 fasten on those very topicks, which constitute the 
 peculiarities of the Baptist faith? At a period when 
 his own circumstances were greatly perplexed, 
 and when liable to imagine that some new expe- 
 dient might improve them ; how came he to co- 
 incide so exactly with those Missionaries among 
 whom Providence had thrown him, who were 
 now prosperously established, and engaged in 
 their benevolent work ? 
 
 Another remarkable circumstance respecting 
 .Mr. Jud son's change, is the concealment of his 
 vieivs from his missionary brethren. He certain- 
 ly could not have renounced Pedobaptist priori- 
 
pies without a struggle. He could not have been 
 honestly brought to decide, that those ministers 
 with whom he had ever associated were not reg- 
 ular ministers of Christ ; that those churches 
 with which he was connected, on which he was 
 dependent, and to which he was under solemn 
 obligations, were not regularly constituted 
 churches of Christ ; that his reverend father and 
 most intimate Christian friends had never been 
 baptized in the name of the Trinity, or rightly 
 professed the Christian faith ; yea, that he him- 
 self had constantly fostered that, which (pursued 
 to what he deems its direct consequences) is 
 " the most pernicious practice which ever infest- 
 ed and laid waste the vineyard of the Lord" — 
 he could not possibly have been brought to such 
 a decision, without a deep inward conflict. How 
 strange, then, that the conflict never became visi- 
 ble ! that it was neither observed by, nor revealed 
 to, his missionary companions ! Here is a band 
 of brothers, going forth with the gospel to a land 
 of idols, not only under peculiar obligations, but, 
 it should seem, peculiarly disposed, to maintain 
 an intercourse the most frank and open ; and yet 
 one of them passes through a scene of the utmost 
 mental trouble ; dissents from the church order 
 of his ancestors, supporters, and associates ; and 
 is at length on the point of a complete separation 
 from them, and has never made to them the 
 slightest intimations of what had passed, and 
 was passing in his mind ! !"* 
 
 # In confirmation of this statement, we refer the reader to the re- 
 port of the Prudential Committee of the A. B. C. F. M. for 1813 ; 
 inserted in the Panoplist for September of the same year. It ap- 
 pears from this report, that Messrs. Newell and Ji'dsos, v.ith their 
 wives, left this country on board the same ship, and arrived at Cal- 
 cutta, June 17, 1812. Messrs. Hall, Nott, and Rue, with the 
 
8 
 
 It would be well if the mystery of this event 
 were now fully disclosed. It would be well if 
 the truth would suffer me to stop here. Gladly 
 would I be released from that most unpleasant 
 task which lies before me. Impelled, however, 
 by a high sense of duty and of my sacred obli- 
 gations to the cause of truth, I must proceed to 
 a disclosure of facts, which, for the honour of 
 the Christian ministry and the Christian name, 
 it is with reluctance I become the instrument of 
 spreading before the world.. 
 
 It will be recollected by many, that soon after 
 the intelligence of Miv Judson's change had 
 reached America, it was hinted in certain circles, 
 that this had been induced by resentment* He 
 had received, previously to his leaving the coun- 
 try, a solemn reprimand or admonition from the 
 Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions ; 
 and the affront occasioned by it had induced him 
 to desert them. Rumours like these at length 
 found their way into the East, and reached the 
 ears of Mr. Judson. In answer to them, he 
 addressed a letter to the Rev. Dr. Baldwin, 
 
 wife of Mr. Nott, left the country soon after, on board another 
 ship, and arrived at Calcutta the eighth of August of the same year, 
 Before the arrival of this latter ship, Messrs. Newell and Jtdson 
 had been ordered away ; and Mr. Newell with his wife had actu- 
 ally sailed for the Isle of France. He left Mr. JoDsotf, say the 
 Prudential Committee, u without any knowledge of his change." — 
 Four days after Mr. Newell 1 s departure, the other brethren ar- 
 rived at Calcutta. They were there in company with Mr. Judson, 
 nearly three weeks, when, on the 27th of August, he left them to go 
 to Serampore, for the purpose of being immersed'. Kis brethren,. 
 even at this last moment, were totally " unapprized of the object of 
 his visit" to Serampore, M and received their first intelligence on the 
 
 subject, two days afterwards, from Dr. MarshmA-jv.'" ! ! ! We 
 
 cannot forbear adding a word ortwo more. A letter was written, 
 about twenty days after Mr. Judsox's immersion, and signed by Mr. 
 Rice, wherein mention is made of what had happened, as a u try- 
 ing event." Yet within less than four weeks of the date of this let- 
 ter, Mr. Rice had /ollvwed htm ! ! 
 
9 
 
 from which the following is faithfully extracted, 
 " I would simply state, that the American Board 
 of Commissioners never gave me a repri- 
 mand. In proof of this, / can appeal to any 
 of the members. Furthermore, I never had 
 
 THE MOST DISTANT IDEA THAT THE BoARD 
 THOUGHT ME DESERVING OF A REPRIMAND. 
 
 When I left my native land, it afforded me much 
 comfort, that I came out under the patronage of 
 such men"*— Let the publick compare these 
 solemn and unequivocal assertions with the follow- 
 ing official statement of facts, communicated in a 
 letter to the author, by the Corresponding Secre- 
 tary of the American Board of Commissioners for 
 Foreign Missions. 
 
 Salem, March 17, 1318. 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 Your letter, requesting " an official statement 
 of facts, respecting a reprimand or admonition 
 which Mr. Judson received from the American 
 Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions," 
 was duly received, and has been submitted to the 
 Prudential Committee, for advisement. 
 
 It is a maxim with the Board, and with the 
 Prudential Committee, to be religiously circum- 
 spect and tender in regard to characters connected 
 with the sacred cause of Missions, and to make 
 no unnecessary exposures or animadversions. 
 On this maxim thcv have acted, and stiil wish to 
 act, in relation to Mr. Judson. As, -however, 
 he has seen fit publickly to appeal to the Board, 
 and " to any member," and his appeal has been 
 backed by an earnest and reiterated challenge on 
 
 * Mr. Judso-Vs Letter to Dr. Baldwi.v, dated Rangoon, Dec, 
 S3, 1U15, inserted in the Bap. Miss. Magazine, vol. iv. p. 346. 
 
10 
 
 tlie part of his friends, it seems due, in justice to 
 the Board and to truth, that a simple and concise 
 statement of facts should be exhibited. 
 
 In the beginning of the year 1811, Mr. Jud-- 
 20N was sent by the Prudential Committee to 
 England, for purposes distinctly specified in his 
 instructions. In that mission, what he was in- 
 structed not to do, he did ; and what he was in- 
 structed to do, he neglected. On his return, in 
 July of the same year, he kept himself aloof from 
 the Prudential Committee, made no regular re- 
 port of his doings, and assumed the management 
 of matters in his own way. At the meeting of 
 the Board at Worcester, in the following Septem- 
 ber, his answers to questions,, his conversation, 
 and deportment, were in the same spirit and man- 
 ner which had marked his previous proceedings. 
 
 Great dissatisfaction was expressed by every 
 member present ; and it became a very serious 
 question whether Mr. Judson should not be dis- 
 missed. After deliberation, however, it was re- 
 solved, that he should be in a formal and solemn 
 manner admonished. The admonition* was 
 
 ACCORDINGLY ADMINISTERED IN PRESENCE 
 
 of the Board. Mr. Jud son was much affect- 
 ed — appeared to yield to the admonition — made 
 concessions, and gave assurances— and was con- 
 tinued under the patronage of the Board. 
 
 Yet after all this,, and even after a passage had 
 been engaged for him, with others, to India, in 
 the February following, his deportment was such, 
 that it again became a serious and most trying 
 
 * An admonition may have respect either to danger or to actual ojfencs* 
 In the latter case, which is the case here, the term is precisely of the 
 same import as reprimand. In another communication from the Rev- 
 erend Secretary, he says, u Mr. Jvdson aw admonished aiidrc*7imMid°- 
 ;d in. solemn form.?' 
 
II 
 
 question with the Prudential Committee, whether 
 he should be permitted to go. And it was not 
 without great heaviness of heart, many fears, and 
 -particular but tender cautions, not to him only, 
 but to the other Missionaries respecting him, that 
 he was finally sent out** 
 
 The sequel is pubiickly known. The ultimate 
 issue is with Him, to whose sovereign wisdom, 
 and power, and goodness it belongs, to overrule 
 the wayward dispositions and actions of men for 
 the advancement of his own glory and kingdom. 
 
 Yours, Rev. and dear Sir, with very affection- 
 ate respects, S. WORCESTER, 
 
 Cor. Sec. A. B. C. F. M. 
 Rev. Enoch Pond. 
 
 * " What emotions,"" says the Baptist Reviewer of Mr. JrasO^'s 
 Sermon, "what emotions must he have ftlt, conscious as he was of 
 having followed the dictates of truth, and that, if l ever there was an 
 action performed from one single motive, unblended with any minor 
 considerations, his baptism was an action of that description*' ! what 
 emotions must he have felt to hear in that distant land, that l the 
 prevailing opinion among his Pedobap&st friends in America 1 was, 
 6 that shortly before he sailed, he received a reprimand from the 
 Board, which so offended him, that he resolved to have nothing more 
 to do with them; and in no way could he escape so honourably as 
 by becoming a Baptist !' So far from having received a reprimand, he 
 declares * he hud not (he most distant idea that the Beard ever thought him de- 
 jerving of one ;' and we are very much mistaken, if Mr. Judson did not 
 stand high in the estimation of the Board, both as a scholar and a preach- 
 er, when he sailed from America.' 51 Is. this Reviewer mistaken, or 
 
 not ? " To what motive, then, 11 he continues, " can we attrib- 
 ute the circulation of such a report ? If Mr. J. had received a repri- 
 mand, he surely must have known it. But he positively asserts that 
 he did not receive one ; and ' for the truth of his assertion, appeals to 
 any member of the Board. 1 Is it possible to believe he would have 
 made an assertion which he knew to be false, and which he must 
 have known c any member of the Board 1 could easily prove to be 
 false ? If his character had been disgraced in the estimation of his 
 friends, by aBy conduct before, or any change of sentiment after, 
 his departure from America, he must certainly have known that the 
 denial of a fact so notorious would only involve him in still greater 
 disgrace. We are compelled to believe the report is unfounded, 
 From whatever source it originated, we fear it was designed, by at- 
 tributing his change to an improper motive, to counteract the imr 
 
12 
 
 To this official and unequivocal statement of 
 facts, what will Mr. Judson reply? To deny 
 the smallest particular, would be to contradict a 
 body of men, which yields to none in America in 
 point of respectability and worth. To quibble and 
 equivocate on the meaning of certain words,would 
 discover the opposite of an honest, humble spirit ; 
 and, instead of exonerating him, would in the es- 
 timation of the candid confirm his guilt. To 
 pretend forgetfulness of the fact he has denied, 
 would present a forgetfulness perfectly unac- 
 countable, and excite the suspicion of an attempt 
 to impose upon the publick. In short, we see 
 but one course which Mr. J. can dutifully pursue. 
 He must retrace his steps. The credit of Con- 
 gregationalism does not require that he should re- 
 turn to his former sentiments ; but the credit of 
 religion does imperiously require, that he humble 
 himself, and be willing to confess the truth. 
 
 It will perhaps be asked — What connexion has 
 -the preceding statement with the subject under 
 consideration? Admitting Mr. J. was repri- 
 manded ; what influence could this have on his 
 subsequent change ? — We answer ; he evidently 
 suspected, w^ere the fact admitted, that it would 
 be supposed to have influenced his change ; or 
 he never would have endeavoured to hide it, by a 
 denial of the truth. — Those who have attended 
 to, and who credit, the preceding representation, 
 vrillfear that Mr. J. possesses naturally a proud, 
 unstable, aspiring temper ; and none need be in- 
 formed, that mortified pride and cramped ambi- 
 
 prcssion which that change was likely to make on the minds of the 
 community. Whenever we are satisfied that in this we are mistak- 
 en, we shall be ready to acknowledge it." (Amer. Bap. Magazine, 
 
 vol. i. p. 26.) Is not this Reviewer mistaken again ?— We hope 
 
 the pledged acknowledgment will not be long delved. 
 
13 
 
 lion arc powerful stimulants of revenge, — How- 
 ever, as the publick now possess the facts, we 
 leave them to their own conclusions. Those 
 who know Mr. Judson best, will doubtless de- 
 cide with the most correctness. 
 
 Forbearing to offer any farther remarks on his 
 change of sentiments, we proceed to examine 
 more closely the Discourse itself. The author 
 acknowledges, that " for many of the testimonies 
 he has inserted, he is indebted to Mr. Booth's 
 Pedobaptism Examined." — We have doubted 
 whether this acknowledgment justifies all the use 
 which he has made of that publication. Every 
 reader has a right to know how much of any- 
 work is to be accredited to its ostensible author. 
 Can every reader know this of the work before 
 us? What are " the testimonies" for which he 
 acknowledges himself indebted f Are they mere- 
 ly the quotations which he has transcribed ? or 
 do they include that host of references which in 
 some instances we find in the margin ? And for 
 how many of these testimonies is he indebted to 
 Pedobaptism Examined ? — In short, what part of 
 the work is to be accredited to Mr. Judson, and 
 what to Mr. Booth ? There ought to be no 
 foundation for questions like these. The very 
 face of the Discourse should completely preclude 
 
 them. There evidently is in this Sermon a 
 
 great (not to say needless) parade of learning. 
 We hope it was not Mr. J ud son's design to be 
 accredited with all this learning himself; but we 
 are sure a great proportion of his readers are in 
 danger of mistaking the truth. If he is a modest 
 man, he will wish therefore it should be stated, 
 that nearly all- his quotations and references, un- 
 less it be those of a verv modern date, are traiiS- 
 2 
 
14 
 
 cribed, verbatim et literatim, from Mr. Booth 
 and others; and that a great proportion of the 
 learning displayed in the work is not originally 
 his own.* 
 
 If we understand Mr. J. he has somewhat nar- 
 rowed the ground of controversy respecting the 
 mode of baptism. He has honourably abandon- 
 ed some sources of argument, which in former 
 times have been deemed essential. 
 
 He gives up, in the outset, the baptism of John, 
 as being a Christian ordinance. He expressly 
 asserts, that our Lord "instituted the ordinance 
 of baptism" after his resurrection, and " when he 
 commissioned his disciples to proselyte all na- 
 tions." (P. 3.) 
 
 He admits that " the phrase, went into the wa- 
 ter, does not imply in itself that the subjects 
 were immersed. It is one thing," says he, "to 
 go into the water, and another thing to be im- 
 mersed." (P. 9.) 
 
 He also admits, that the being "buried with 
 Christ in baptism," mentioned in the epistles to 
 the Romans and Colossians, has no reference to 
 water baptism. In this passage, says he, " the 
 apostle is speaking of spiritual circumcision, and 
 spiritual baptism?' (P. 28.) Hence all the re- 
 generate have been " buried with Christ in bap- 
 tism," whether they have received water baptism 
 in any mode, or not. 
 
 Whatever the Baptist brethren in America, 
 some of whom have laid very exorbitant stress 
 
 * We had the curiosity to spend an hour or two in comparing Mr. 
 Judso> t, s Sermoto with u Pedobaptisin Examined. M We directly 
 discovered between sixty and seventy quotations with their references, and 
 nearly forty references where there were no quotations, which were 
 manifestly transcribed from this learned work ! These quotations and 
 references must have cost Mr. Booth more labour than to write a 
 folio. All the credit he has for them, is crowded into less than three 
 init finitely and ejpuxtaaUly constructed lines,!! 
 
15 
 
 on these conceded topicks, may think of Mr. 
 Judson, we frankly confess here is evidence of 
 his candour. We sincerely hope his admirers 
 will go and do likewise. Let them leave at length 
 the waters of Enon and Jordan, on the banks of 
 which they have been so much accustomed to 
 stand. Let them cease the very moving but un- 
 meaning declamation, which they have repeated 
 on nearly every baptismal occasion, about " fol- 
 lowing their Lord and Master into the liquid 
 grave."* 
 
 Before any thing be offered on either side re- 
 specting the mode of baptism, it is important that 
 the point in controversy should be precisely as- 
 certained. While this remains undetermined, 
 conviction is impossible. 
 
 The question at issue in this part of the sub- 
 ject, is not whether immersion is a valid mode of 
 baptism : this we may admit. Nor is it whether 
 this mode is preferable to all others ; for we are 
 willing that those who prefer immersion, even in 
 our own churches, should be indulged. Nor is it 
 whether immersion was frequently practised in the 
 early ages of Christianity : this we have no neces- 
 sity or disposition to deny. We do not say that 
 neither of these points is questionable ; but neither 
 
 * The reviewer of Mr. Judsos's Sermon in the Baptist Magazine 
 41 considers it a great confirmation of the doctrine" he has espoused, 
 " that its advocates always advance the same arguments in its sup- 
 port. There is no contradiction or collision between them. — Not so," 
 says he, M with the advocates of Pedobaptism. They are ever at 
 variance among themselves." What one affirms, another abandons. 
 — We could name a writer (a) in defence of the Baptist cause, who 
 has laboured hard to prove that the baptism of John was a Christian 
 ordinance. This, Mr. Judson does not believe. We could name a 
 number of writers, who have nearly builded their ideas of exclusive 
 immersion on the phrases, went into the uater % buried by baptism, &c. 
 The opinion of Mr. Judson respecting these phrases has been ex- 
 pressed above. — " Happy is he that condemneth not himself ia 
 that tiling which he alloweth." (Rom. xiv. 22.) 
 
 (a) Rev. Dr. Baldwin, Editor of Bap. Magazine.^ 
 
16 
 
 of them is the precise question in dispute. The 
 point at issue is in few words this — Is immersion 
 essential? Mr. Judson contends, that the idea 
 of immersion enters into the very " nature of 
 baptism ; that the terms baptism and immersion 
 are equivalent and interchangeable." (P. 14.) 
 He evidently supposes immersion essential to the 
 ordinance. This, then, is the point to which his 
 reasonings ought to tend. All he can offer, to 
 show that immersion is a valid mode ; or even 
 the most proper mode ; or that it was frequently 
 practised in ancient times ; carries no conviction 
 to us. Let him prove, what we deny, that im- 
 mersion is essential to baptism, and the controver- 
 sy is at an end. 
 
 The burden of proof, in this case, manifestly 
 lies on him. His is the labouring oar. " It is 
 not necessary for us to urge one argument," t® 
 prove the negative of the proposition in debate. 
 It is incumbent on him to prove the positive. — 
 We are willing, however, to wave every advan- 
 tage which might be derived by subjecting him to 
 such an arrangement. We wish to examine the 
 subject fairly. And we shall proceed, in the en- 
 suing sections, to prove that immersion is not es- 
 sential to baptism, and to obviate the objections 
 which Mr. Judson has been able to throw in the 
 way. 
 
 Section II. 
 
 F roof that Immersion is not essential to Baptism. 
 
 1. The rite of immersion is not calculated for 
 universal practice. It cannot be administered 
 with prudence and convenience, if indeed it can 
 
17 
 
 be administered at all, in every situation, and to 
 all persons. — Places have been discovered which 
 are already inhabited, where collections of water 
 sufficient for this mode of baptism would not 
 once occur, in travelling perhaps hundreds of 
 miles.* — There are other places which swarm 
 with inhabitants, where, amidst mountains of ice 
 and almost perpetual snow, immersions must be 
 inconvenient, imprudent, and often impracticable. 
 Yet the religion of Christ will one day penetrate 
 those arid, and these frozen regions. Their mis- 
 erable inhabitants will yet be baptized, in the 
 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Will 
 they be immersed ? Were three thousand to 
 come forward at once, in either of the situations 
 to which we have alluded, (and such a scene has 
 been once witnessed under the gospel dispensa- 
 tion,) would they, could they be immersed ? — 
 
 The thing speaks for itself. f- We may take 
 
 another very common instance. A person is in a 
 
 * See Campbell's Travels across the Continent of Africa.— 
 Jerome, who resided in Palestine, represents th.it country as M very 
 ill supplied with water, and subject to great droughts." (Corn, in 
 Amos, cap. iv.) 
 
 t The following very pertinent and ingenious remarks Me extract- 
 ed from Dr. Austin's rejoinder in his controversy with^lr. Mer- 
 rill. (See p. 41.) — "In besieged cities, where there are thou- 
 sands and hundreds ef thousands of people ;. in sandy deserts, like 
 those of Africa, Arabia, and Palestine ; in the northern regions, 
 where the streams, if there be any, are shut up with impenetrable 
 ice ; and in severe and extensive droughts, like that which took 
 place in the time of Ahab ; sufficiency of water for animal subsist- 
 ence is scarcely to be procured^ Now suppose God should, according 
 to the predictions of the prophets, pour out plentiful effusions of his 
 Spirit, so that all the inhabitants of one of these regions or cities shall 
 be born in a day. Upon the Baptist hypothesis, there is an absolute 
 impossibility they should be born into the kingdom while there is 
 this scarcity of water ; and this may last as long as they live. And 
 these thousands and hundreds of thousands of Christians must re- 
 main all this while, and perhaps die, without having the consolation 
 of professing their faith in Christ, or once supping with their Divine 
 Pvedfee^ler. ,, 
 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 low and declining state of health. He loves his 
 Saviour, and wishes to obey his commands. He 
 wishes to be baptized in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus, and, in remembrance of him, to come to 
 his table. But to be immersed, he is sensible, 
 would be little better than self-murder. Must 
 he, then, be debarred from the ordinances of 
 the gospel ? On the scheme we oppose, this 
 must inevitably be his lot. Can this scheme, 
 then, be consistent with truth ? Has the Lord 
 Jesus, who designed his religion to be universal, 
 appended to it, and made essential, a rite which is 
 so ill fitted for universal practice ? 
 
 2. The signification of water baptism furnishes 
 a strong argument in favour of some other mode 
 beside immersion. Water baptism is unques- 
 tionably an emblem of spiritual baptism. Hence 
 the mode of water baptism may be expected to re- 
 semble the mode of spiritual baptism, or the 
 manner in which the Holy Spirit is said to descend 
 upon the heart. This is uniformly by pouring or 
 sprinkling, " I will pour out my Spirit unto you. 
 1 will pour my Spirit on thy seed. I will pour 
 out my Spirit upon all flesh. He shall come 
 clown lJte rain on the mown grass. So shall he 
 sprinkle many nations. I will sprinkle clean wa- 
 ter upon you, and ye shall be clean."* — This 
 pouring out, and sprinkling of the Holy Ghost, is 
 called the baptism of the Holy Ghost. \ And of 
 this baptism of the Holy Ghost, water baptism is 
 the instituted emblem. How plain, then, that 
 affusion and sprinkling are legitimate and proper 
 modes of water baptism. 
 
 * Prov. i. 23 ; Is. xliv. 3; Joel ii. 28; Ps. lxxii. 6; U. lii. IS j 
 Eeek. xxxii. 23. 
 
 t Comp. Acts i. 5. with h, 16, 17 j and x. 45, with xj. 16, 
 
19 
 
 In order to evade this argument, Mr. J. seems 
 to suppose that none were ever baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost, except on the day of Pentecost ; and 
 that at this time the Spirit was so copiously pour- 
 ed out, that believers were really immersed in it.* 
 (P. 8.) But every real child of God has been 
 baptized with the Spirit, " By one Spirit are we 
 all baptized into one body." (lCor. xii. 13,) 
 He must prove, therefore, that every Christian 
 has been overwhelmed with Divine influences — 
 has been immersed in the Spirit, as he shrewdly 
 enough supposes the favoured multitude were on 
 the day of Pentecost ; or he has done nothing 
 towards invalidating the argument he has called 
 in question. 
 
 3. " The word which denotes the ordinance of 
 baptism" does not u uniformly signify immer- 
 sion." — We agree with Mr. J. that the whole 
 controversy respecting the mode of baptism rests 
 very materially on the meaning o^his word. 
 " Had the Greek word |3*ir1/§» been translated in 
 the English version of the New Testament, there 
 would have been no dispute among English read- 
 ers concerning its import." (P. 3.) — Why then, 
 we ask, was it not translated ? On the scheme 
 of Mr. J. no answer can be given to this inquiry, 
 which will not be a reflection on the translators. 
 Will he say they did not know the import of this 
 word ? Then they were inadequate to their great 
 undertaking. Will he say that, knowing it, they 
 chose not to give it ? Then they weakly shrunk 
 from the duty assigned them, and are in a degree 
 chargeable with all the evil that has ensued. 
 
 *How long must the Spirit be poured upon a person before he can 
 be said to be immersed in it ? To be immersed in a fluid is (im- 
 ©ergi) to be plunged into it, and not Barely to be covered milk it J 
 
20 
 
 Why was not this Greek word translated ? Oa 
 the ground we have taken, the whole matter is 
 plain. It was because the translators knew of no 
 word in the English language which precisely 
 answered to it in signification. They did not 
 render it immerse, because they knew it did not 
 uniformly signify immerse* And they did not 
 render it sprinkle, because they knew it did not 
 uniformly signify sprinkle. They rather prefer- 
 red, by transcribing the word, to leave it as they 
 found it, and thus leave every one at liberty to 
 practise that mode of baptism which he esteemed 
 the*best. The fact, that not only the translators 
 of our Bible, but translators and lexicographers 
 generally, have chosen to transcribe, rather than 
 translate this word, is proof conclusive that they 
 have not considered it as uniformly implying im- 
 
 mersion. 
 
 * 
 
 There are three sources from which light may 
 be gained, B regard to the signification of dispu- 
 ted terms, viz. etymology, authority, and general 
 use. 
 
 It is certain, from the etymology of the Greek 
 word j3a7rji'f», that it does not uniformly denote 
 immersion. It is confessedly a derivative from 
 the word |3air7». This latter does not always sig- 
 nify immerse. The learned author of Letters ad- 
 dressed to Bishop Hoadley in defence of Ana- 
 baptist principles, expressly concedes, " that 
 j3flwr1» signifies to sprinkle,"* and that it " is not 
 used in the Septuagint in any one place, whero 
 the very frequent ceremony of washing the whole 
 body occurs."f — It is evidently used in the Sep- 
 
 * BWIj'^w, in the language of Icet.an\d, is rendered skire, to 
 ileamc. (Robinson's Hist, of Bap. p. 17.) 
 t Letters, pp. 27, 28. 
 
21 
 
 tuagint in a number of places, where it cannot 
 denote immersion. 
 
 Lev. xiv. 6. " As for the living bird, he 
 (the priest) shall take it, and the cedar wood, and 
 the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall (j3*\|/«) tinge 
 them in the blood of the bird that was killed." 
 Were all these articles immersed in the blood of 
 one dead bird ? 
 
 Ezek. xxiii. 14, 15. " When she saw the 
 
 images of the Chaldeans exceeding in dyed 
 
 (iragaZoivlx) attire upon their heads," &x. Are 
 not the ideas of dying, and of immersion, perfectly 
 distinct ? 
 
 Dan. v. 21. " His body was wet (ISotQn) 
 with the dew of heaven. 5 '* Was the body of 
 Nebuchadnezzar immersed with the dew ? or 
 was it not rather sprinkled with it ? 
 
 Other Greek writers furnish us with many in- 
 stances wherein j3a,7rl« cannot denote a total im- 
 mersion. 
 
 Homer. " The lake was tinged (&xtPiz[q) with 
 the purple blood. "y 
 
 Aristophanes.' " He," Magnes, " used the 
 Lydian musick, and shaved his lace, (fix7r\o(Mm) 
 smearing it with tawny washes. "± 
 
 Aristotle speaks of a substance, which 
 " being pressed (pacifist) staineth the hand. "J 
 
 Mr. Walker quotes the following sentence 
 from Schrevelius' and Robinson's Lexicons. 
 " He indeed (j3.W]«) baptizeth the bottle, but it 
 never goeth under the liquid water, "f — In view of 
 these examples, to which others might be added, 
 
 * See also Job ix. 31 ; Maith. xxvi. 23 ; Rev. xix. 13. 
 
 t In Reed's Apology, p. 118. 
 
 £In EmvAKLs'i Candid Rvasvu.-.&c. p. 84. 
 
22 
 
 how much weight can be attached to the unsup- 
 ported assertions of Mr. J. that " immersion is as 
 much the appropriate meaning of the Greek word 
 fionrlu, as of the English word dip or immerse ;" 
 and that " the inspired penmen have used no other 
 word beside this and its derivatives to convey the 
 idea of immersion, nor have ever used this word 
 in any other sense." (P. 3.) 
 
 Mr. J. supposes that ((3*t7i2J») " the word deno- 
 ting baptism, is derived from the verbal of this 
 primitive word (|3W!w) by a change in the termi- 
 nation which never affects the primary idea*" 
 He supposes, therefore, that (hnrJ^co as strongly 
 implies immersion as |3aA. (Pp. 3, 4.)— We 
 have proved that (3ar7w does not always signify 
 immerse. Hence, were we to admit the justice 
 of his criticism, the conclusion would be entirely 
 in our favour. It would be proved that j3Wl/£<*, 
 the word denoting baptism, did not uniformly 
 imply immersion* Very far, however, are we 
 from admitting this. We do not believe that 
 this primitive and derivative are synonymous.— 
 To suppose it, as he has done,^ is to affect mate- 
 
 * Mr. J. in a note (p. 4.) does indeed labour to establish 
 a distinction between $ovrrt\Zu and ftamu. " The termina- 
 tion ££«," says he, " in Greek derivatives, is precisely of 
 the same import as the termination fy, in English deriva- 
 tives ;" and M conveys the additional idea of causing or 
 making." Accordingly he renders ct Qccrrra, to immerse ; 
 /3a:rT&;, immersed ; £a7rn$<>, to make immersed, to im- 
 merse." — But here is either no distinction, or a perfectly 
 false one. If @a,Tnu signify immerse, and fiunr'^** immersc y 
 then there is no distinction at all. And to suppose that 
 @ot<?rru signifies immerse, and ^xtttI^co make immersed, is to 
 set up a distinction which has no good foundation. Let us ap- 
 ply this new rendering of ftxTrr'^u to two or three passages. 
 u I indeed make you to be immersed with water, but ho 
 shall make you to be immersed with the Holy Ghost and 
 
23 
 
 rially the first principles of language. -Beafti^u is 
 not only a derivative, it is a diminutive. It con- 
 veys the idea of a total immersion less strongly 
 than does its primitive, (WIw. In proof of this, 
 we cite the following respectable authorities. 
 
 Dr. Doddridge. " In this diminutive and 
 derivative form, it (j3«?rl*£«) may signify any meth- 
 od of washing."* 
 
 Dr. Scott. " The word fiavKQa certainly is 
 not synonymous to |3tarb ; but being a diminutive 
 from it, may, according to the analogy of the lan- 
 guage, signify to plunge in, or to bedew with 
 water, without any exact distinction. "t 
 
 Dr. Reed. " Bonrlify is a derivative, termina- 
 ting in /£«, and therefore, according to gramma- 
 rians, a diminutive -."J 
 
 Mr. C. Buck. " The term pot^u is only 
 a derivative from Pawrlw, and consequently must 
 be somewhat less in its signification." J 
 
 Dr. Worcester. " Bwrrlity 1S a derivative 
 from j3a7r7« ; but it is a general principle or rule 
 in the Greek language, that derivatives in itu are 
 not limited to the original meaning of their primi- 
 tives, but have uniformly an extended meaning." \\ 
 
 We have proved that fGWlw does not always 
 signify immerse. We have now proved that 
 tSawI/fw is a diminutive from it, and less strongly 
 implies immersion, than does its primitive, fiairh. 
 
 with fire. (Luke iii. 16.) " The same is he, who 
 maketh to be immersed with the Holy Ghost." (John i. 
 33.) M As many of us as were made to be immerse! into 
 Jesus Christ, were made to be immersed into his death. w 
 (Rom. vi. 3.) 
 
 * Lect. vol. ii. p. 376. t Note on Matth. iii. 9. 
 
 t Apology, p. 127. J Theol. Diet. vol. i. p. 61. 
 
 |j Letters to Bald. p. 125. See also Sweat's " Critical Invest 
 Ration of the Mode of Baptism," passim. 
 
24 
 
 We have certainly proved, therefore, from the 
 etymology of this word, that it cannot uniformly 
 denote a total immersion. 
 
 Let us in the next place have recourse to au- 
 thority. Let the testimony of the learned be ad- 
 duced to prove, that baptism does not uniformly 
 imply immersion. 
 
 Alstedius. " The term baptism signifies 
 both immersion and sprinkling, (aspersionem,) 
 and of consequence ablution."* 
 
 Zelenus. " Baptism signifies dipping, and 
 also sprinkling "\ 
 
 Bfza. "They are rightly baptized who are 
 baptized by sprinkling." -\ 
 
 J. Wicklifee. " It matters not whether 
 persons are dipped once, or three times, or wheth- 
 er water were poured upon their heads, "f 
 
 Wh i taker. "The word j3aWl/f» signifies 
 not only to dip, but also to tinge or xvet."j 
 
 Mastricht. " Baptism signifies washing, 
 either by sprinkling or dipping. "f 
 
 Leigh. "Baptism is such a kind of wash- 
 ing as is by plunging ; and yet it is taken more 
 largely for any kind of washing, even where there 
 is no dipping at all."f 
 
 Lightfoot. " The application of water is of 
 the essence of baptism ; but the application of it 
 in this or that manner, speaks but a circum- 
 stance. "J 
 
 Dr. Featly. "Christ no where requireth 
 dipping, but only baptizing ; which word He- 
 sychius, Stephanus, Scapula, and Bud- 
 id j:us, those great masters of the Greek tongue, 
 
 * Encyclop. lib. xxv. sec. iii. loc. xl. 
 t In Reed's Apology-, pp. Wl — 114. 
 £ Horac Hebruicae iu iMutth. iii. 
 
25 
 
 make good by very many instances out of the 
 classick writers, importeth no more than ablation 
 or washing."* 
 
 Dominic us. " In baptism there is something 
 essential, as the washing ; and something acci- 
 dental, namely, the washing in this or the other 
 manner."f 
 
 Wit si us. " We are not to imagine that im- 
 mersion is so necessary to baptism, that it cannot 
 be duly performed by pouring water all over, or 
 by aspersion ."J 
 
 Calvin. " Whether the person baptized be 
 wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, 
 or whether water be only poured or sprinkled 
 upon him, is of no importance."^ 
 
 Dr. Owen. " Baptism is any kind of wash- 
 ing, whether by dipping or sprinkling." \\ 
 
 Flavel. " The word baptize* signifying as 
 well to wash as to plunge, a person may be truly 
 baptized that is not plunged."^ 
 
 Dictionary of the Bible. "To baptize 
 is to sprinkle or wash one's bodv sacramen- 
 tally."** 
 
 Glas. " Immersion cannot be called baptism, 
 any otherwise than as it is a mode of washing 
 with water."! \ 
 
 Ainsworth. "To baptize is to wash any 
 one in the sacred baptismal font, or to sprinkle 
 ( "inspergere J on him the consecrated waters."!! 
 
 * Contra Anabap. in P. Clark's Candid Reasons, &c. p. 130. 
 i" Distinct, iii. Qusest. i. art. 7. + CEcon. Foedar. voL iii. p. 392. 
 $ Institutes, vol. iii. p. 343, edit. N. Haven. 
 ]| In Heb. ix. 10. T Works, vol. ii. p. 432. 
 
 ** Edit. 1661 , art. Bap. dcf. 3. See also Esowy's and Calmet's 
 Diet, of Bible, in art. Baptism. tt Diss, on la. Bap. p. 25. 
 
 Xt English-Latin Diet, in art. Bap. See also Cole's Lat. Die. 
 and ScxREVELii Lexicon Grceco- Latin iud, in art. Bent. 
 
 3 
 
26 
 
 Dr. Scott. " Some contend that baptism 
 always signifies immersion ; and learned men 
 "who have regarded Jewish traditions more than 
 either the language of scripture or the Greek 
 idiom, are very decided in this respect. But the 
 use of the words baptize and baptism in the New- 
 Testament, cannot accord with this exclusive in- 
 terpretation."* 
 
 Dr. Adam Clarke. " To say that sprink- 
 ling is no gospel baptism, is as incorrect as to say 
 immersion is none. Such assertions are as un- 
 christian as they are uncharitable.— Those who 
 are dipped in water in the name of the Trinity, 
 I believe to be baptized. Those who are washed 
 or sprinkled with water in the name of the Trin- 
 ity, I believe to be equally so ; and the repetition 
 of such a baptism, I believe to be profane. 
 Others have a right to believe the contrary, if 
 they see good."f 
 
 This list of quotations need not be enlarged. 
 The authority of men can do no more in proving 
 that the word, denoting baptism, does not uni- 
 formly signify immersion. 
 
 But it will be said, that Mr. J. pleads authority 
 on his side. He has adduced a number of wit- 
 nesses, and those from among the Pedobaptists 
 themselves, to prove that immersion is essential to 
 baptism. (Pp. 5, 6.) 
 
 In respect to these quotations, and indeed to 
 his quotations generally from Pedobaptist au- 
 
 * Comment, in Mattb. iii. 6. 
 I Comment, in Mattb. iii. 6. and Mark wi. 16. See also Dod. 
 Fam. Expos, in Acts viii. 38 ; Henri's Comment, in Rom. vi. 4 ; 
 and Pool, in 1 Cor. x. 2. The following authors I find also refer- 
 red to, as testifying that immersion is not essential to baptism : — 
 LnHER, Vossius, ZajtchhtS, Hesychius, Bcddjrus, Stefha- 
 ms. Scapula, Passor, Martut, &c. See sis© HojauflS? Sys# 
 Divin. vol, iu p. 304, fee. &c. 
 
27 
 
 thors, we beg leave to submit the following 
 remarks. 
 
 Mr. J. does not seem herein to have treated 
 either the publick or his witnesses fairly. In se- 
 lecting small quotations from large works, where 
 saving clauses, qualifying sentences, &c. are 
 omitted, authors may easily be made to speak a 
 language which they never intended, and unfair 
 impressions may be left on the publick mind. 
 Mr. J. has left the impression, and we fear he de- 
 signed to leave it, that those learned men, whose 
 testimony he has adduced, really supposed im- 
 mersion the only valid baptism. He ought to 
 have known and to have acknowledged the con- 
 trary. We certainly knew* that a number of 
 his witnesses, and we seriously believe that ail of 
 them, considered baptism perfectly valid, when 
 performed by pouring, washing, or sprinkling. 
 Mr. Booth, from whom nearly all the quotations 
 of Mr. J. in this place as well as others, are ser- 
 vilely copied, particularly " desired his reader to 
 observe, that no inconsiderable part of these 
 learned authors have asserted, that the word bap- 
 tism signifies pouring or sprinkl'mg, as well as 
 immersion."! Mr. Booth's treatment of his 
 witnesses has been generally reprobated as unfair ; 
 but in comparison with that of Mr. J. it was can- 
 dour itself. This latter gentleman has taken up 
 the writings of the dead, separated from them 
 sentences which they perhaps incautiously drop- 
 ped, and spread these before the world as their 
 prevailing sentiments. He has thus tortured 
 those who can no longer speak for themselves, to 
 utter a language which they never intended. If 
 
 * Compare the authors we have quoted and referred to, with those 
 Mr. J. has quoted, p. 5. t In Reed's Apology, p. 110. 
 
23 
 
 he has allowed them to declare what they con- 
 sidered the truth, he has not allowed them to de- 
 clare what they considered the whole truth.— 
 With these things in view, the quotations of Mr. 
 J. on which he seems to have so much relied, 
 have lost all their force. The question between 
 him and us, is not whether immersion be baptism, 
 or whether this mode be preferable to any other ; 
 but, Is it essential P With united voice, his wit- 
 nesses will answer, No ; and thus answering, they 
 instantly desert him, and stand arrayed on the 
 other side. 
 
 Mr. J. supposes his quotations the more con- 
 vincing and forcible, because they have been 
 chiefly taken from " Pedobaptist authors." — 
 " Their concessions," says he, " could not have 
 been influenced by attachment to their religious 
 system, but must have resulted from a conviction 
 of truth alone." (P. 5.) With equal justice, he 
 might have reasoned farther. He might have 
 said within himself — " These learned men, not- 
 withstanding their concessions, persist in the 
 practice of infant baptism, and in baptizing oth- 
 erwise than by immersion. They must be sup- 
 posed to have reasons which satisfy their minds. 
 They must be supposed to have strong reasons, 
 which their concessions do not affect. They 
 must be supposed to consider Pedobaptist prin- 
 ciples so solidly foundedy that they can safely give 
 up to us more ground than we had reason to an- 
 ticipate. And are not these learned characters 
 capable of determining whether 'their principles 
 are solidly founded or not ?" — In short, had Mr. 
 J. reasoned as far as he might have done, from the 
 fact that his witnesses are chiefly Pedobaptists, he 
 would have seen in this fact, not the weakness of 
 
29 
 
 their fortress, but presumptive evidence of its 
 impregnable strength.* 
 
 We now pass to consider the import of the 
 term (3a7r?»'£w, as exhibited in its general use. It 
 is certainly used, by writers sacred and profane, 
 to signify something less than a total immersion 
 in water. 
 
 Porphyry mentions " a river in India, into 
 which if an offender enters, or attempts to pass 
 through it, he is immediately baptized up to his 
 head."f 1° tQ ^ s instance f&w&'£« evidently cannot 
 signify immersion. 
 
 Mr. Sydenham quotes the following sentence, 
 as delivered by the oracle — " Jlaptize ((Wl^s) 
 the bottle ; but it is not right to plunge it wholly 
 under water. "J Here, again, fWI/£w cannot sig- 
 nify immersion. 
 
 Ohigen-, speaking to the Pharisees of the 
 w T ood on the altar, over which water was profuse- 
 ly poured at the command of Elijah, (see 2 Kings 
 xviii. 23,) expressly says that this wood was bap- 
 tized.^ This term, then, was used by Origex, 
 one of the earliest Christian fathers, to signify 
 pouring. 
 
 Eusebius mentions a fountain near the church 
 at Tyre, where the people washed, previous to 
 their entering the temple. This washing, he ob- 
 serves, " resembled baptism."\\ 
 
 * The author is certain that this remark will correctly apply to 
 one at least of those Whom Mr. J. has quoted, (p. 28) — he inearth his 
 learned and revered instructer, Dr. Em^oxs. If this distinguished 
 divine has conceded some things which he perhaps need not," in re- 
 gard to the substitution of baptism for circumcision, his discerning 
 mind still sees ample reasons to justify him in the belief and prac- 
 tice of Pedobaptism. 
 
 f Bx7r}i^s]y.i (A&xgt X£$z\r\;. See Reed's Apol. p. 1 17. 
 jln Reed's Apology, p. 117. J See Appen. to Dr. Wax.l's 
 Reflections on Gale. jj Hist Ecc. lib. x. cap. 4. 
 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 4< It was a common expression of the ancient 
 fathers, concerning the martyrs who had shed 
 their blood in bearing witness to the Christian 
 faith, that they were baptized with their own 
 blood. "# Were they actually immersed in their 
 own blood ? Or were their bodies merely tinged 
 or wetted with it ? 
 
 The apostle Paul informs us, that the whole 
 congregation of Israel "were baptized unto Moses, 
 in the cloud, and in the sea." (1 Cor. x. 2.) If 
 it is difficult to say how these persons were bap- 
 tized, it is not difficult to say how they were not. 
 The bottom of the sea was made dry ground be- 
 fore them, and they walked through the midst of 
 it with unwetted feet. (Ex. xiv. 21 — 29.) It is 
 hence absolutely certain, that they were not im- 
 mersed in water, — Mr. J. may tell us of the pro- 
 priety of " representing their situation, with the 
 sea on each side, and the cloud covering them, as 
 an immersion in the cloud and in the sea ;" (p. 8.) 
 but if he can clearly explain how they could be 
 immersed in the waves, while they were securely 
 walking on dry ground, we shall doubtless con- 
 sider him a very extraordinary writer. 
 
 The apostle also informs us, that the service of 
 the sanctuary under the former dispensation con- 
 sisted, among other things, in " divers washings" 
 or ((WIkt/xok) baptisms. (Heb. ix. 10.) The mote 
 of these baptims is clearly taught in the context. 
 He proceeds directly to state, that the unclean 
 were then sprinkled with the blood of bulls and of 
 goats ; that " Moses took the blood of calves, 
 and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and 
 hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the 
 
 * Hemmesway, ia Rfi^p 1 * Apologj, p. 1G5, 
 
31 
 
 people;" and that "he likewise sprinkled with 
 the blooi, the tabernacle, and all the vessels of 
 the ministry." Is it not then evident, that, by- 
 divers baptisms, the apostle intended these divers 
 sprinklings ? Or, if we suppose him to refer to 
 the Jewish purifications generally, some of which 
 consisted in bathing, he must have referred to 
 their sprinklings as well as bathings, and must 
 have used the word baptisms to denote other 
 modes of applying water, than a total immersion. 
 
 Mr. J. replies, that " since numerous immer- 
 sions were prescribed in the Jewish ritual, this ap- 
 plication of the word baptisms by the apostle 
 Paul affords no reason for ascribing to it any oth- 
 er beside its usual import." (P. 7.) Is it then 
 sufficient, Mr. J. that immersion is the usual im- 
 port of the term baptism ? This evidently must 
 be its invariable import, or your Anabaptist prin- 
 ciples are without foundation. And does the in- 
 variable or even usual import of this term require 
 us to limit, if not pervert, the apostle's phrase, to 
 denote merely the immersions which the Jewish 
 ritual prescribed ? To say this, is to take for 
 granted what ought to be proved, and what needs 
 an hundred fold stronger proof than has ever yet 
 been given to the Christian publick. 
 
 It is said " of the Pharisees and all the Jews," 
 that " when they come from the market, except 
 they wash, or (fiocTrl^wloci) be baptized, they eat 
 not." (Mark vii. 3, 4.) And when a certain 
 Pharisee had invited our Lord " to dine with 
 him, he marvelled that he had not first washed, 
 or (££a7rVG») been baptized before dinner." 
 (Luke xi. 38.) Was it a custom with all the 
 Jews to be immersed before eating ? Or did the 
 Pharisee marvel that our Lord was not immersed 
 
32 
 
 before dinner ? — If the case does not sufficiently 
 speak for itself, it is easy to prove all that we 
 need respecting it. It is easy to prove, and from 
 the highest authority, that immersions were not 
 statedly practised before their meals, but merely 
 a washing of their hands. 
 
 Matth. xv. 2. " Why do thy disciples trans- 
 gress the tradition of the elders? For they wash 
 not their hands when they eat bread" 
 
 Mark vii. 3. "The Pharisees and all the 
 Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not ; 
 holding the tradition of the elders." 
 
 Maimonides. " A man shall not need to 
 wash his hands as oft as he eats, if he do not go 
 abroad, or meddle with business, or go to the 
 market, or avert his mind another way ; but if he 
 do, he is bound to xvash his hands as oft as there 
 is need of washing."* 
 
 Dictionary of the Bible. "The He- 
 brews did not so much as eat, nor even sit down 
 to a table, till after they had washed then hands, 
 by pouring water, from their fingers' ends up to 
 their elbows, "f 
 
 Calmet. " The precise professors among the 
 Hebrews washed their arms up to their elbows, 
 when returned home from market, or out of the 
 street ; fearing they had touched some polluted 
 thing or person. "J 
 
 In view of these quotations, is it not undenia- 
 bly certain, that the baptisms which the Jews 
 practised previous to their meals, and which the 
 Pharisee marvelled that our Saviour should neg- 
 
 * See Scott, in Mark vii. 3. + In art. Purification. 
 ^Dic. of Bible, in art. Baptism. See ai«o Grotius, in Pool's 
 Synopsis, in Luke xi. 38 ; and STACKHorsE^ Hist, Bible, vol. 5, 
 p. 440. 
 
33 
 
 lect, were merely a xvashing of the hands ? And 
 is here not sufficient evidence, that the term de- 
 noting baptism is used to signify something dif- 
 ferent from a total immersion ? 
 
 Mr. J. indeed supposes, that it was a custom 
 w r ith the Jews to immerse themselves before eat- 
 ing ; and in confirmation of this, he quotes Mai- 
 monides and Scaliger. (P. 7.) His quota- 
 tion from Mai mo n ides is not at all to his pur- 
 pose. The opinion of this learned Rabbi has 
 been given above. Nor is the testimony of 
 Scaliger much more in point. The Evan- 
 gelist says of " all the Jews," that " except they 
 be baptized, they eat not ;" while Scaligeh 
 does not intimate that dipping prevailed, except 
 among "the more superstitious part" 
 
 It is also said by the Evangelist (Mark vii. 4) 
 that " there be many other things which the Jews 
 have received to hold, as the washing;, or (j3**-- 
 liVjuaff) baptisms, of cups, and pots, and brazen 
 vessels, and of tables." — \i it is likely that, in 
 washing, they immersed their small cups, is it atall 
 likely that they immersed their pots and kettles, 
 their brazen vessels and their tables ? Do we find 
 this the most convenient method of washing such 
 articles ? And especially should we, if, alter the 
 Jewish custom, we reclined at our meals,* and, 
 of consequence, were obliged to construct our 
 tables much larger than they are at present ? Ac- 
 cordingly Pool determines, in view of the word 
 baptism in this verse, that " it does not always 
 denote immersion, but sometimes washing only, 
 or even sprinkling." \ 
 
 * '-Which leaded on his breast at tvpfur^ (John xxi. 20.) 
 t Synopsis in loc. 
 
34 
 
 The Jews derived this custom of frequently- 
 baptizing their domestick utensils, not from the 
 law of Moses, but " the traditions of their el- 
 ders*" (See v. 5.) Hence Mr. Jud son's refer- 
 ences to the law of Moses, to prove that these 
 baptisms were uniformly immersions, are per- 
 fectly irrelevant. 
 
 Our blessed Redeemer, in view of his ap- 
 proaching sufferings, repeatedly spoke of a bap- 
 tism that awaited him. " I have a baptism to be 
 baptized with." (Luke xii. 50.) How was he 
 baptized ? Neither, I apprehend, by being im- 
 mersed m suffering, nor by having j&owra/ on him 
 the vials of Divine wrath. There is no necessity 
 of giving to this passage any figurative interpreta- 
 tion ; and a figurative interpretation should never 
 be given without manifest necessity. " The body 
 of the blessed Jesus was truly and literally bap- 
 tized. He was wet and washed with his own 
 tears, and sweat, and blood, when in the garden, 
 when scourged, and when nailed to the cross. 
 This was the baptism." And in this sense the 
 passage furnishes decisive proof, that baptism 
 may be performed otherwise than by immersion. 
 
 To the instances here adduced what will Mr. 
 J. reply ? It certainly is incumbent on him — it is 
 incumbent on all who consider immersion essen- 
 tial to baptism, to show that in each of them im- 
 mersion is clearly implied. Should only one es- 
 cape — should only one instance be found of a lit- 
 eral baptism where there was no immersion, the 
 whole Anabaptist theory would be overthrown. 
 
 Mr. J. has offered but one remark directly 
 bearing on the point now before us, which has 
 not been sufficiently examined already. He ob- 
 serves, speaking of fionflty — "In figurative ap- 
 
35 
 
 plications, this word, like all others, is probably 
 used with some freedom. But should a few in- 
 stances of this kind be found, would they be 
 sufficient to invalidate the force of evidence re- 
 sulting from the proper and general use of the 
 word ? What law will bind the subject, if he is 
 at liberty to fiepart from the proper and general 
 interpretation of the principal term, and affix to 
 it a signification which is drawn from some rare 
 figurative application?" (P. 4.) — In answer to 
 these inquiries, it will be sufficient to propose 
 two or three others. In what way shall the lite- 
 ral signification of a word be ascertained, if per- 
 sons are allowed to pronounce every signification 
 figurative, which does not precisely square with 
 their pre-conceived opinions? Is not this the 
 manner in which the Socinian clears himself of 
 the divinity of Christ ? Is not this the very 
 course which the heretick and schismatick have 
 uniformly followed ? And admitting the propri- 
 ety of this course, will it be possible, at this day, 
 to establish any one doctrine of revealed religion ? 
 We have now fully examined the Greek word 
 QourKty. We have considered its etymology, ad- 
 duced respectable authorities, and traced it in its 
 general use. And we invariably arrive at the 
 same conclusion — it cannot uniformly signify im- 
 mersion. This conclusion places another on an 
 immoveable basis — immersion cannot be essential 
 to Christian baptism. 
 
36 
 
 Section III. 
 
 Proof that Immersion is not essential to Baptism. 
 
 ■4. " THE circumstances attending the instan- 
 ces of baptism recorded in the New- Testament, 
 plainly indicate" some other mode besides " im- 
 mersion." — Mr. J. adduces these circumstances, 
 to show that immersion is essential. " John bap- 
 tized in the river Jordan, and in Enon, because 
 there was much water there. Philip and the eu- 
 nuch went down both into the water" (P. 9.) — 
 Strange ! that in examining " the circumstances 
 attending the instances of baptism recorded in the 
 New- Testament," he should notice but one c in- 
 gle instance in which baptism is allowed to be a 
 Christian ordinance! Why did he not consider 
 the baptism of the three thousand, of Paul, of 
 Cornelius, and the jailer, and show that the cir- 
 cumstances attending these plainly indicated im- 
 mersion ?— Let us, however, follow him, and ex- 
 amine the baptism of John. That this great re- 
 former and prophet baptized at Jordan and Enon, 
 is no conclusive evidence that he practised im- 
 mersion. The convenience of those multitudes 
 which constantly thronged him, made it necessa- 
 ry that he should reside in the vicinity of " much 
 water. "* — Many circumstances of his baptism 
 seem inconsistent with immersion, and render it 
 nearly certain that he practised some other mode. 
 He baptized " in the wilderness" as well as at 
 Jordan. (Matth. hi. 1.) He baptized with water, 
 as well as in it. (Mark i. 8.) He baptized in the 
 
 * M Much water 11 does not necessarilj imply deep water. (Sec 
 2 Ckron. xxxii. 4.) 
 
open fields, where there were no accommodations 
 for a change of apparel. And above all — he bap- 
 tized vast multitudes in a short space of time. 
 His ministry could not have continued more than 
 a year and and an half. In this period, he baptiz- 
 ed " Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region 
 round about Jordan." (Matth. iii. 5.) Some of 
 our opponents have estimated, that he baptized 
 at least 500,000 persons. In order to immerse 
 these in one year and an half, allowing only a 
 minute for the immersion of each, lie must have 
 been constantly in the water every da}", for more 
 than fifteen hours. Is it credible that he should 
 do this ? Especially is it, since we are assured 
 that he " did no miracle ?" (John x. 41.) Is it 
 credible, then, that in ordinary cases John baptiz- 
 ed by immersion ?* 
 
 Mr. J. has also noticed the circumstances of 
 the eunuch's baptism. Suppose we at once 
 grant that the eunuch was immersed. This 
 would be merely granting that immersion is bap- 
 tism — a point which we have no necessity to call 
 in question. We, however, see no reason to 
 suppose that the eunuch was immersed. No 
 circumstance indicates it, except it is said that 
 both he and Philip went down into, or [ilg] to 
 the water; and afterwards came up out of, or (k) 
 from it. (Acts viii. 58.) And these they might, 
 and probably would have done, had the eunuch 
 been sprinkled. f 
 
 The baptism of the three thousand next claims 
 our attention. The scriptures aiford us not a 
 
 *Dr. Guise supposes that John baptized by sprinkling. (See 
 Prac. Expo.?, in Matth. iii. 6. — See a'ko Chai'li:.' on the Sa- 
 craments, pp. 1 II — 118.) 
 
 t See He-vhy's Gpnimentary on the place. 
 
 4 
 
38 
 
 single incident that would lead to the conclusion 
 that this multitude were immersed. On the con- 
 trary, they furnish many circumstances which in- 
 dicate the necessity of some other mode. The 
 occasion was unexpected ; the multitude were 
 principally strangers, and had made no previous 
 preparation for a change of garments ; they were 
 in Jerusalem, "twenty miles from Jordan and 
 Enon ;" no publick baths had been engaged, or 
 could be, as the whole city was violently oppos- 
 ed to the Christians ; no mention is made of their 
 leaving the place, not even the house where they 
 were assembled ; and above all — the time was 
 short. The apostles came together at " the third 
 hour," or nine o'clock. Besides the discourse 
 cf which we have an epitome in the Acts, it is 
 said they " testified and exhorted with many oth~ 
 er words." (Acts ii. 40.) Three thousand were 
 awakened, convinced, converted, professed their 
 faith in Christ, and concluded to be baptiz- 
 ed. All these transactions could not possibly 
 have passed in less than four hours. Five hours 
 now remained ; and three thousand were to be 
 baptized by twelve men. Could they be im- 
 mersed ? Bating the time which must unavoida- 
 bly elapse in repairing to the water, and making 
 the necessary preparations ; were each of the a- 
 postles to be constantly employed, but a trifle 
 more than a minute could be allotted for the im- 
 mersion of each. — In order to avoid these diffi- 
 culties, Mr. J. observes, in the first place, it is not 
 recorded that the three thousand " were baptized 
 the same day, but that they were added to the dis- 
 ciples." (P. 7.) It is recorded that " they who 
 giadly received the word were baptized." (Acts 
 ii. 41.) And were any added to the disciples 
 
39 
 
 who did not " gladly receive the word ?" If not, 
 none were added to the disciples who were not 
 baptized. — He farther suggests, that, were they 
 all baptized the same day, it would not be impos- 
 sible for the twelve, assisted by the seventy, 
 and perhaps by the hundred and twenty, to ad- 
 minister the ordinance by immersion. (P. 7.) 
 Were, then, the whole hundred and twenty, fe- 
 males as well as males, officially qualified to ad- 
 minister baptism ? — The whole chapter makes it 
 evident, that none were employed in this matter 
 but the twelve apostles. When Peter lifted up 
 his voice and preached, it is said he stood up 
 " with the eleven." (Acts ii. 14.) And when the 
 multitude " were pricked in their heart/' they 
 sought for direction "to Peter, and the rest of 
 the apostles" (V. 37.*) There cannot, there- 
 fore, remain a doubt, that the three thousand 
 were baptized the same day they believed, and 
 by the hands of the twelve apostles. They were 
 undoubtedly baptized in the house where they 
 first assembled, and probably by affusion or 
 sprinkling^ 
 
 In the baptism of Paul, nothing looks like im- 
 mersion, but every circumstance appears against 
 it. He had been three days in Damascus, 
 "without sight, and neither ate nor drank." 
 (Acts ix. 9.) Ananias comes in, and salutes 
 him as a Christian brother. Immediately he rises 
 up, and receives the ordinance of baptism. And 
 after baptism, " when he had received meat, he 
 was strengthened." He does not repair to a riv- 
 er or a bath, or even leave the room ; nor is it 
 
 * Compare Acts i. 26, with ii. 1. See also ii. 42, 43. 
 t Witsius' CEcon. of Gov. voL iii. p. 392. See also Reed's 
 Apology, pp. 215—219; and Dr. T. Scott, in Acts ii. 41. 
 
40 
 
 likely that in his weak state he was able to leave 
 it; but there he rises up, and is baptized.— 
 With the precise mode of Paul's baptism we do 
 not pretend to be acquainted ; but we do suppose 
 it almost demonstrably certain, that he was not 
 immersed. 
 
 The instance of Cornelius and his family is 
 equally convincing. They believed, on the 
 preaching of Peter ; the Holy Ghost fell on them ; 
 and the astonished apostle, perceiving the event, 
 exclaimed — "Can any man foibid water, that 
 these should not be baptized, who have received 
 the Holy Ghost, as well as we?" (Acts x. 47.) 
 " Can any man forbid water" — i. e. that it should 
 be brought? <; Is not this the most natural and 
 obvious meaning — an idea which the form of 
 words and mode of expression instantly and fully 
 excite in our minds ? Accordingly there is no 
 hint of their going abroad, or of any other prepa- 
 ration in order to baptism, than that of bringing 
 a little water into the room. The history leads 
 us to believe that they were baptized, at the very 
 juncture when Peter commanded it, and in the 
 very apartment where they were then assem- 
 bled."* 
 
 The circumstances of the jailer's baptism prove 
 as conclusivelv as evidence of this nature will ad- 
 mit, that he and his family were not immersed. 
 " They were baptized at home, at midnight, and 
 at the very same hour in which they believed."! 
 (Acts xvi. 33.) We have abundant reason to 
 suppose, that during the whole transaction, Paul 
 and Silas never left their prison. They would 
 
 # Dr. Osgood. See also Dor. Fani. Expos, on Acts x, 47 ; an$ 
 "Wiutby in loc. 
 
 tDr. Latjircf , s Di«courses T p. 21. 
 
41 
 
 not leave it the succeeding day, till those who had 
 unjustly apprehended and beat them, came and 
 honourably brought them out. Shall it be be- 
 lieved, then, that they left it in a clandestine man- 
 ner the night before, regardless of the very strict 
 charge the jailer had received to keep them safely, 
 and this, too, at a moment when every one was 
 awake, and the whole city had been roused and 
 terrified with an earthquake ? Shall it be suppos- 
 ed that in their bruised and distressed condition 
 of body, they exposed themselves to the dangers 
 and the damps of night, and went abroad, and in- 
 to the water, for the purpose of immersion ? The 
 thing is absolutely incredible.*— Accordingly 
 Mr. J. does not even pretend, that Paul and Silas 
 went out of the prison. His theory is, that the 
 prison was furnished with a bathing place, or 
 "tank of water." (P. 7.) If the Spirit of God 
 had informed us that there was in this prison a 
 collection of water, sufficiently large, and in per- 
 fect preparation, for the immersion of a whole 
 family, we should doubtless have believed it. 
 But Mr. J. will excuse us if we do not feel the 
 force of his conclusion, because the yard of the 
 prison in Calcutta, and (as he says) the " prison 
 yards in the east, as well as the yards and gardens 
 of private houses, are usually," at the present 
 time, "furnished with tanks of water,* 5 thatthere- 
 fore there was, more than seventeen hundred 
 years ago, such a collection of water in the prison 
 at Philippi. 
 
 We have now examined the circumstances of 
 some of the principal instances of baptism record- 
 
 * See Faavzl's Worlds, vol. ii. p. 132 ; and Dr. T. Scott, in Acts 
 xvi. 32. 
 
 4* 
 
42 
 
 ed in the New-Testament, and we are greatly 
 mistaken if they do not clearly indicate some oth- 
 er mode besides immersion. 
 
 5. Immersion was never considered essential 
 to baptism, till the appearance of the Anabaptists, 
 in the sixteenth century.* That immersions, 
 have been practised in nearly every age of the 
 Christian church, and that they have been more 
 generally practised at some former periods, than 
 they at present are among the Congregationalists 
 of New-England, I see no reason to deny. Nor 
 do I see any reason to doubt, that they have 
 more generally prevailed at some former periods, 
 than they did in the days and under the ministry 
 of the apostles. Persons have net unfrequently 
 been ready to overdo in the externals of religion, 
 while they have done little or nothing in respect 
 to religion itself. The Pharisees, not satisfied 
 with the yoke of the ceremonial law, must add 
 to it " the traditions of the elders." Peter, not 
 satisfied with that degree of washing which his 
 Master saw was proper, exclaimed — " Not my 
 Feet only, but also my hands and my head." (John 
 xiii. p.) And some Christians in past ages, not 
 satisfied to be baptized by affusion or sprinkling, 
 which is as much as their Saviour requires, must 
 
 *Mr. J. quotes the venerable President of the Council ©f Trent, 
 testifying to the existence of the Anabaptists so early as the fourth 
 century. (P. 35.) — An Anabaptist is one who re-baptizes. We free- 
 ly admit, then, that there were those in the fourth century, and have 
 been ethers at different periods, who administered and received a 
 second baptism. Seme have been re-baptized, because they doubt- 
 ed the purity of the church in which they first received baptism. 
 Tiiis was particularly the case with the Donatists. Some have beea 
 re-b;-ptized, because they doubted the qualifications of the officer 
 m ho first administered to them the ordinance. In this sense Ana- 
 baptisru has been practised in the church of Piome. But 1 can find 
 no instance of a second baptism, because (he first teas not immer- 
 >-o/K till the appearance of the Anabaptist, in the sixteenth century, 
 
43 
 
 be plunged completely under water. Yea, in 
 some periods of the church, persons have not 
 been satisfied even with this. They must be im- 
 mersed three times. They must be immersed 
 naked. They must have water applied to their 
 faces subsequent to immersion. They must be 
 attired in white for a certain number of days af- 
 terwards, in token of their purity.* These facts 
 are adduced, to show the propensity there is in 
 man to perform more than is needful in the ex- 
 ternals of religion. It is owing to this propensity, 
 that immersions have, in some ages, more gener- 
 ally prevailed than it can be made to appear they 
 did under the ministry of Christ and his apostles. 
 
 We propose it, however, as an indubitable fact, 
 that immersion never has been considered essen- 
 tial to baptism, till within a few centuries of the 
 present time. We say essential; for this, it will 
 be recollected, is the precise point in dispute. 
 
 That immersion was not deemed essential to 
 the ordinance in the early ages of the church, ap- 
 pears from those very quotations which Mr. J. has 
 made to prove the contrary. — It is a self-evident 
 truth, that when that which is essential to a thing 
 is wanting, the thing ceases to exist. Remove 
 roundness from a ball, and it is no longer a ball. 
 Remove hardness from a stone, and it is no long- 
 er a stone. And, on the same principle, if im- 
 mersion is essential to baptism, where there is no 
 immersion, there is no baptism. Accordingly, 
 if the primitive Christians had considered immer- 
 sion essential to baptism, when they could not 
 have practised immersion, they would have prac- 
 
 *See WiTSitrs' CEcon. of Cov. vol. ill . p. 394; Vossn Disput. 
 i. de Bap. 1h. 9; Dr. Lathrop^ Dia. on Bap. p. 23 ; Dr. R-EEd's, 
 Apol. p. 80; Judsox's Sermon, p. 15, 
 
 
44 
 
 tised nothing. Did they pursue this course ? 
 Never — if we may, credit the witnesses of Mr. J. 
 He quotes Venema, where, speaking of the 
 third and fourth centuries, he says, " aspersion 
 was used in the last moments of life ; where 
 there was not a sufficient quantity of water ;" and 
 "in cases of necessity." He quotes Salma- 
 sius, testifying that " persons confined to their 
 beds were baptized in a manner of which they 
 were capable ; the whole body had water poured 
 upon it." (P. 12.) Here is conclusive proof that 
 the primitive Christians did not consider immer- 
 sion essential to baptism. 
 
 But, says Mr. J. " those who were thus bap- 
 tized by pouring, were called clmicks, not Chris- 
 tians, and were prohibited the priesthood." 
 (P. 10.) Those who were baptized on their beds 
 in sickness were called clinicks, from the Greek, 
 xAiVrj, a bed ; but was this inconsistent with their 
 being called Christians ? Nov atian was called 
 a clinick ; was he not also called a Christian ? 
 Could he be bishop of Rome, tilt first Christian 
 church, and not be called a Christian ? — But the 
 clinicks were afterwards canonically prohibited 
 the priesthood. Why ? Mr. J. has not explicitly 
 answered this question ; though he is careful we 
 should understand it was because they had not 
 been immersed. He certainly had the means of 
 being better informed. The reason why they 
 were prohibited the priesthood.was, their sincerity 
 was questioned. They had not made that open 
 profession which was deemed necessary. They 
 had not gone forth in face of a persecuting world, 
 and taken upon them the Christian name. " Bap- 
 tism, in that age of the world, exposed persons to 
 the most dreadful persecutions ; especially if they 
 
45 
 
 undertook the work of the gospel ministry. If, 
 
 therefore, any person neglected baptism until vis- 
 ited with sickness, this neglect of duty rendered 
 his character liable to suspicion." Accordingly 
 the council of Neocasarea decreed the following, 
 viz. "He who is baptized when sick, ought not 
 to be made a priest ; for his coming to the faith 
 is not voluntary, but from necessity ; unless his 
 diligence and fidelity do afterwards prove com- 
 mendable, or the scarcity of men fit for the office 
 do require it."* 
 
 I can find no evidence that either the lawfulness 
 or validity of clinick baptism was ever disputed. 
 The case of the clinicks, therefore, and the sum 
 of the quotations we have adopted from Mr. J, 
 instead of proving, what he intended, that im- 
 mersion was hi primitive times considered essen* 
 tiallo baptism, incontestable prove the contrary. 
 Mr. J. has the following quotation from Bishop 
 Taylor. (P. 12.) "It was a formal and sol- 
 emn question made by Magnus to Cyprian", 
 whether they are to be esteemed right Christians, 
 who were only sprinkled with water, and not 
 washed or dipped." — It was no question, then, 
 in the early days of Magnus and Cyprian, 
 whether washing be a lawful and valid mode of 
 baptism. And why was it a question whether 
 those should be esteemed right Christians who 
 were only sprinkled with water, unless there were 
 persons then who claimed to be esteemed right 
 Christians, who had' been baptized by sprinkling ? 
 But let us hear the answer of Cyprian, as also 
 quoted by Mr. J. (P. 12.) " In the saving sa- 
 craments, when necessity obliges, and God grants 
 
 * la Reed's Apology, p. 2.45. 
 
46 
 
 his indulgence, fdivina compendia J the shortest 
 ways of transacting divine matters* confer the 
 whole on believers." — Had we no other parts of 
 Cyprian's answer but this single sentence, we 
 could scarcely wish for a more formal declaration, 
 that he did not consider immersion essential. 
 Happily, however, we have more of his answer at 
 hand. " I would use," says he. '.' so much mod- 
 esty and humility, as not to prescribe so positively, 
 but that every one should have the freedom of 
 his own thoughts, and do as he thinks best. For 
 the contagion of sin is not, in the sacrament of 
 salvation, washed off, by the same measures as 
 the dirt of the skin and of the body is washed 
 away. There is no necessity of soap, or of a 
 large pool, or fish-pond. It is in another way 
 that the breast of a believer is washed ; after 
 another manner that the mind of man is by faith 
 cleansed." Here follows the sentence which Mr, 
 J. has quoted. Cyprian afterwards proceeds to 
 argue in favour of aspersion, by quoting and ap- 
 plying these words of the prophet : " I will 
 sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
 clean. "f (Ezek. xxxvi. 25.) A fter-this ac- 
 count of the matter, Mr. J. is welcome to every 
 advantage he can possibly derive from the testi- 
 mony of this learned father. And it ought to be 
 noticed, that Cyprian is nearly the only author 
 of any considerable antiquity ± whom he has quo- 
 ted in this part of his work. 
 
 Hitherto we have examined the subject chiefly 
 by the help of Mr. Jud son's quotations. We 
 have proved that immersion was not, in the primi- 
 
 * This is the translation adopted by Doctors Lathrop and Reed. 
 
 t In Reed's Apology, p. 245. 
 £ CYPRIAN flourished within 159 ye«rs of the apostolick age. 
 
47 
 
 tive ages, deemed essential, by those very witness- 
 es whom he has adduced to prove the contrary. 
 
 The following facts and testimonies will place 
 this truth in (if possible) a still more clear and 
 convincing light. 
 
 Iren^us mentions a sect of Christians, who 
 baptized " by an affusion of water mixed with 
 oil."* 
 
 Lawrence baptized two persons, Romanus 
 and Lucillus, by affusion.\ " A little while be- 
 fore he suffered," he also " baptized with a pitcher 
 of water one of his executioners. "J 
 
 Nov ati an became a Christian about one hun- 
 dred years after the apostles ; and when visited 
 with sickness, baptism was administered to him, 
 according to the custom of those times, by affu- 
 sion or sprinkling '."J 
 
 BasilidesIs mentioned by Eusebius as hav- 
 ing been baptized in prison. § 
 
 Constantine the Great, " being clothed 
 with a white garment, and laid upon his bed, was 
 baptized in a solemn manner by Eusebius, Bish- 
 op of Nicomedia."[| 
 
 Antiquity furnishes us with a number of en- 
 graved representations of baptism, in which the or- 
 dinance evidently was administered by affusion.^ 
 
 Stephen II. Bishop of Rome, decreed in the 
 year seven hundred and fifty three, that pouring, 
 m some cases, should be considered vaiid bap- 
 tism.** 
 
 * Advers. Hjeres. lib. i. cap. xxiii. 
 t In W. StrAeo de Rebus Ecc. cap. xxvi. 
 4: Wall's Hist. In. Bap. pp. 356,353, 357. 
 i Hist. Ecc. lib. vi. cap. iv. 
 g Duns's Hist. Ecc. vol. ii. p. 84 ; also Millar's Hist, of Prop, of 
 Chris, vol. i. p. 392. * Hist, of Bap. p. 111. 
 
 ** Concilia Labbei, tom.vi, p. 1650. 
 
Liudcerusis said by Ma b i l lon to have bap- 
 tized a little infant, by pouring on holy water.* 
 
 W. Strabo, who flourished in the ninth cen- 
 tury, considered pouring a valid mode of bap- 
 tism. f 
 
 "Estius, referring to times long before the 
 year thirteen hundred, witnesseth that pouring 
 had been much in usc."% 
 
 Bonavekture, who was born about the year 
 twelve hundred, " saith that in his time pouring 
 was much observed in the French churches, and 
 some others. "J 
 
 The Author of Letters to Bishop Hoadley, a 
 learned and professed Baptist, admits that " for 
 thirteen hundred years successively after the apos- 
 tles, sprinkling was permitted upon extraordinary 
 occasions."^ 
 
 Mr. Robinson, also a learned Baptist, admits 
 that " before the reformation, sprinkling was held 
 valid" baptism, " in cases of necessity. "|| 
 
 Pouring was anciently the established mode of 
 administering baptism to children in the Nethir- 
 tods.f 
 
 The form cf baptism among the English exiles, 
 in the reign of Queen Mary, was for the minister 
 to " take water in his hand, lay it on the chad's 
 forehead;' 8cc.** 
 
 Calvin. " Nothing: of the substance of ban- 
 tism is wanting, while the symbol of water is 
 
 * Acta Sanctor. p. ii, cap. 7. t De Rebus Ecc. cap. 26. 
 % In P. Clark's Scrip. Grounds of In. Bap. pp, 128, 129. 
 i Plain Account. &c. p. 16. 
 i| Hist, of Bap. p. 116. This necessity is ('timed by Dr. Ltxdivood, 
 who wrote An. 1420, to be • r of death; a state of hostility; 
 
 an incursion of thieves; an obstruction of the road; a legal disa- 
 bility ;■' tzc. Proviuoidle. lib. iii. lit. 25. 
 
 1 Vid. Stat. Synod Leodinensis, An. 1287. 
 ** See Book of Forms, &c. 
 
49 
 
 made use of, for the ends which Christ hath ap- 
 pointed. The substance being retained, the 
 church from the beginning enjoyed a liberty of 
 using somewhat different rites"* 
 
 Zelenus. "Dipping was formerly more 
 used, especially in the hot countries of Judea ; 
 but this mode was not universally practised, or 
 essential to the ordinance of baptism."* 
 
 Zanchius. " As, in a matter of liberty and 
 indifferency, the church sometimes followed one 
 ceremony, and sometimes the other, as she judg- 
 ed most expedient."! 
 
 Dr. Wall. "In extraordinary occasions, 
 baptism, by affusion of water on the face, was by 
 the ancients counted sufficient baptism." Of 
 this, says he, there are " many proofs" — " In the 
 fifth century, baptism was administered in France 
 indifferently, by immersion and aspersion "% 
 
 Dr. Doddridge, speaking of the primitive 
 ages, says, " I suppose immersion was often, 
 though not constantly, used."} 
 
 Pres. Will ard. " Though in the primitive 
 times the ceremony of immersion was the most 
 frequently used, yet in the colder regions where 
 religion was entertained, they used aspersion." \\ 
 
 Dr. Reed. " We do know that dipping and 
 sprinkling were both practised in the second cen- 
 tury ; and each practice hath been continued 
 from that period to the present time."^[ 
 
 * In PvEEd's Apology, pp. 240 and 113. 
 t In P. Claris Scrip. Grounds of In. Baptism, pp. 123. 129. 
 % Wall's Hist. In. Baptism, pp. 356, 353, 357. 
 k Fam. Expos, on 1 Cor. i. 16. 
 jj Lectures on Catechism, p. 846. 
 T Apol. for Inf. Bap. p. 239. A work which we can heartily rec- 
 ommend, and to which we acknowledge ourselves deeply inde't ted, 
 
 5 
 
50 
 
 Dr. Lath r o p. " So far as the practice of the 
 ancients is of weight, it proves all that we con- 
 tend for. We don't say that immersion is unlaw- 
 ful, or a mere nullity. We say it is not necessary ; 
 that affusion is sufficient ; and so said the ancient 
 church"* 
 
 In view of these authorities, the publick will 
 be able to judge of the opinions and practices of 
 the saints of other times, in respect to baptism. 
 That they have frequently baptized by immersion, 
 we see no reason to doubt ; but that they ever 
 have considered this mode essential, we positively 
 deny. In short, we have no account that im- 
 mersion was, in any age, or by any sect, suppo- 
 sed essential to baptism, till the appearance of the 
 Anabaptists in the sixteenth century. f We may 
 safely conclude, therefore, that such an opinion 
 in respect to this ordinance, is not conformable to 
 the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 Mr. J. has but two arguments in favour of ex- 
 clusive immersion, which have not already been 
 considered, and, it is believed, refuted. " The 
 idea of immersion," says he, " is the only one 
 which will suit all the various connexions in 
 which the word" denoting baptism " is used in 
 the New- Testament." J (P. 9.)— Will the idea 
 of immersion suit all these various connexions ? 
 Take but a single instancy. " John indeed bap- 
 
 * Discourses on Bap. p. 23. See also Dod. Fam. Expos, on 
 Acts viii. 35; Scott's Comment, on Matth. ii. 6, and Rom. yi. 4; 
 Lightfoot's Horse Hebraicae, in Matth. iii. ; Dr. A. Clarke's 
 Comment, on Mark xvi. 16 ; Hop. Sys. DJ7. vol. ii. p. 304 ; and 
 AniYDii Lex. Autiq. Eccles. p. 66. 
 
 t See Dr. Worcester's Letters to Dr. Baldwin, p. 123. 
 
 % A considerable part of what Mr. J. has offered under this, hi* 
 fifth particular, is taken verbatim from Booth's Pedobaptism Exam- 
 ined. See chap* U. pp. 37, 38. He ought toiave quoted, and giy- 
 e» hjia credit. 
 
51 
 
 tized with water." (ISa^m Wal*. Acts i. 5.) 
 Is it less improper to speak of an immersion with 
 
 water, than of-a sprinkling or washing in it ? 
 
 In this argument it is taken for granted, that the 
 word " used to denote the ordinance of baptism 
 has one uniform meaning, which is applicable in 
 every instance." (P. 9.) But this proposition 
 really needs proof. We do not believe that 
 the "word denoting " baptism has one uniform 
 meaning, which is applicable in every instance." 
 We do not believe, in other terms, that there is 
 but one valid mode of baptism. The idea of wet- 
 ting, without doubt, enters constantly into the lit- 
 eral meaning of this word ; but persons may be 
 wetted \\\ different modes, and in each be equally 
 baptized. — There is probably no one word 
 14 which will suit all the various connexions i:i 
 which the word denoting baptism is used in the 
 New-Testament." This fact should convince 
 us, that no r recise mode of applying water has 
 been enjoined, or is essential to the ordinance. 
 
 Mr. J. adduces the practice of the Greek 
 church, " who certainly understand their native 
 language better than foreigners," as proof that 
 immersion is essential to baptism. (P. 9.) — 
 The signification of words varies with every age. 
 This remark is so common, and so obviously true, 
 that instances to justify it need not be adduced. 
 The word j3a«rl/£a may not convey precisely the 
 same idea to a modern Greek, that it conveyed 
 in the days of Homer or of Paul. While, there- 
 fore, it is true, that the Greeks " understand 
 their native language better than foreigners," it 
 may not be true that they better understand the 
 meaning of this word, as used by the writers of 
 the New-Testament. 
 
52 
 
 But we deny that the Greeks consider immer- 
 sion essential to baptism. Probably this is the 
 mode in which they usually administer the ordi- 
 nance ; but they frequently administer it in other 
 modes.* This is proved from those very quota- 
 tions which Mr. J. has made to disprove it. He 
 has introduced Dr. Wall, who testifies that 
 " they hardly count a child, except in case of sick- 
 ness, well baptized without immersion." (P. 10.) 
 This necessarily implies, that in cases of sickness, 
 if not in others, they do count their children 
 " well baptized" though they have not been im- 
 mersed. It implies, therefore, that in their opin- 
 ion immersion is not essential ; and this is all for 
 which we contend. 
 
 We conclude this part of our Treatise with 
 two obvious deductions. 
 
 1. If immersion is not essential to baptism, 
 then for any to be re- baptized because they have 
 not been immersed, is altogether unjustifiable. 
 Baptism is now the seal of God's immutable cov- 
 enant. Wherever it has been administered, it 
 implies that God has promised. Hence the vir- 
 tual language of a second baptism is — " We will 
 not believe our Maker, unless he will promise a 
 second time"\ 
 
 We do not charge all who have been re-bap- 
 tized with this impiety. Their palliation is, they 
 have done it ignorant ly. 
 
 2. If immersion is not essential to baptism, 
 then for those churches who practise immersion 
 to refuse communion with those who do not, is 
 altogether unjustifiable. Alas! what dissensions 
 
 * See P. Clark's Scrip. Grounds of Inf. Bap. p. 12G. 
 t It is submitted, whether a second baptism does not necessarily 
 imply, a taking rf the ho>y name of God in vain. 
 
among brethren — what schisms in the church — 
 what rents in the seamless coat of Christ — have 
 been occasioned by this bar and bone of conten- 
 tion, the principles of close communion ! Bless- 
 ed Redeemer ! is not the period at hand, when 
 the members of thine own body shall no longer 
 be torn asunder ; and when the children of thine 
 own house shall be willing to sit down together, 
 at the same table and feast of love I 
 
 END OF PART I, 
 
 4 
 
 5* 
 
PART II. 
 
 On the Proper Subjects of Christian Baptism. 
 
 | -™ 
 
 IXTRODUCTIOX. 
 
 THERE is unhappily a difference of opinion 
 between us and the Baptist brethren, in respect 
 not only to the mode, but the subjects of Chris- 
 tian baptism. It is important, in the very com- 
 mencement of the present discussion, that this 
 point of difference should be precisely understood. 
 It is not, whether unbaptized adults, who give no 
 evidence of faith, are proper subjects of the ordi- 
 nance. We agree with them that they are not. 
 Hence we agree with them in admitting the full 
 force of those precepts which enjoin repentance 
 and faith on adults, in order to baptism. Neither 
 is it, whether those unbaptized adults who give 
 evidence of faith are proper subjects. We agree 
 with them that they are. The sole point of dif- 
 ference between us and them, in respect to the 
 proper subjects of baptism, is this — JFe affirm, 
 and they deny, that those children who are under 
 the care of believing, covenanting parents, should 
 he baptized** 
 
 *It will perhaps be said, that we differ from the Baptists in another 
 important point. Jh:y affirm^ and we deny, that these believers who have 
 been baptized in infancy, should b: re-baptized. But why do they affirm 
 that such should be re-baptized ? Because they consider infant bap- 
 tism "wrong. And why do we deny that such should be re-baptized? 
 Because we consider infant baptism right. The difference, there- 
 fore, respects infant baptism only ; and the point is left precisely 
 as we have stated it abov«. 
 
55 
 
 To establish and defend what is here affirmed, 
 is our principal object in the ensuing remarks. — 
 It will be necessary, in some of the lirst sections, 
 to attend to subjects that have rather an indirect, 
 though an important, bearing on the point under 
 consideration. We claim herein the indulgence 
 of the Christian publick. 
 
 Section I. 
 
 The Visible Church of Christ the same, under 
 every dispensation, and in every age, 
 
 41 My Dove, my undefiled is but one ; she is the only one of her 
 Mother." Cant. vi. 9. 
 
 1. THE identity of the visible church of Christ, 
 in every period of the world, may be argued from 
 the identity and perpetuity of the real church. — 
 As a visible saint is one who appears to be a real 
 saint, so the visible church, in its most extended 
 sense, is a body which appears to be the real 
 church of Christ. Can we, then, conceive of 
 two distinct visible churches, while we admit the 
 identity and perpetuity of the real church ? In 
 other words, can we conceive of two bodies visi- 
 bly distinct, which yet appear to be the same ?* 
 It is manifest, from the absurdity of such a sup- 
 position, that if the real church has been the 
 same in all periods of the world, this must be true 
 also of the visible church. 
 
 * Mr. J. admits the perpetuity and identity of the real church of 
 God. (P. 28.) He admits, also, that there existed a visible church 
 in the family of Abraham. (P. 29. et alibi.) Still he denies that' this 
 is the same body as the visible church under the present dispensation. 
 (P. 28.) Here, then, are two distinct visible churches ; or two bodies 
 visibly distinct, which yet appear to be the same I 
 
B6 
 
 2. The visible church has ever been the same, 
 since it has ever been a gospel church. That the 
 visible church is at present on a gospel founda- 
 tion, need not be proved. And that the church 
 of Israel stood on the same foundation, is as cer- 
 tain as that it was in any sense a church of God. 
 For why should God separate any people from the 
 world to be his church, and not place them on a 
 gospel foundation, unless it were to damn them ? 
 But if the visible church has ever been a gospel 
 church, has it not ever been essentially the same ? 
 
 3. The visible church, under both dispensa- 
 tions, has been equally the church of Christ. 
 Under both, it is represented as the bride of 
 Christ,* Must it not, then, be the same, under 
 both? Or, did our adored Redeemer, " on his 
 publick appearance, cast off his anciently beloved 
 Zion, notwithstanding her elevated hopes and 
 joyful songs, and notwithstanding his solemn 
 protestations that he would never forsake her, and 
 take to himself another bride ?" 
 
 It is represented, under both, as the house of 
 Christ. That same Jesus, " whose house are we" 
 as Christian professors, builded and possessed 
 that house or church in which u Moses, as a ser- 
 vant, was faithful." (Heb. iii. 2 — 6.) 
 
 It is represented, under both, as the flock of 
 Christ. He who is now styled " the great Shep- 
 herd of the sheep" is spoken of in the Psalms 
 as "the Shepherd of Israelii 
 
 Indeed it is represented, under both, as the 
 property of Christ. The same glorious person- 
 age who hath " bought us with a price" when ht 
 
 *Jer. iii, 14; Rev. xxi. 9. 
 t Ps, lxxx. 1 ; Heb. xiii. 20. 
 
57 
 
 appeared in the church of Israel, is said to have 
 " come to his own?'* 
 
 But if the visible church, under both dispensa- 
 tions^ has been equally the church of Christ, has 
 it not been, under both, the same ? 
 
 4. The visible church, under both dispensa- 
 tions, has professed the same religion, — It will 
 not be questioned that the Jewish brethren were 
 professors of religion. Nor will it be questioned 
 that they professed the true religion which God 
 gave them.f '- Thou hast avouched the Lord 
 this day," says Moses, " to be thy God, to walk 
 in his ways, to keep his commandments, and to 
 hearken to his voice." (Deut. xxvi. 17.) I ask, 
 then, has not true religion been invariably the 
 same ? Has there, since the fall, been more than 
 one way from earth to heaven ? If, then, the 
 church, under both dispensations, has professed 
 the true religion, has it not, under both, profess- 
 ed the same religion ? Hence, has it not, under 
 both, been essentially the same church ? 
 
 5. The visible church has been constantly sub- 
 ject to essentially the same requirements. As 
 God now requires his people to be holy, for he 
 is holy ; so he anciently required the same. 
 " Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord 'your God ain 
 holy. "J As he now requires his people to love 
 him with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength ; 
 so he anciently required the same. " Thou shalt 
 love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
 with all thy soul, and with all thy might. "§ As 
 
 * John i. 11 ; 1 Cor. vi. 20. 
 t Mr. J. concedes that "the Jews, as a nation, professed to rest 
 in Christ." (P. 29.) Dr. Baldwin does the same. See his works 
 ©n Baptism, pp. 240 and 242. % 1 Pet. i. 16 ; Lev. xix. 2. 
 
 i Mark xii. 30 ; Deut. vi. 5. 
 
58 
 
 he now requires his people to believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, so he anciently required the same. 
 Else why were the Jews cut off for unbelief? 
 (Rom. xi. 20.) As he now requires his people 
 to " do good to all," shun every vice, and 'Move 
 their neighbour as themselves ;" so he anciently 
 required the same. " Thou shaltlove thy neigh- 
 bour as thyself. Do justice, love mercy, and 
 walk humbly with thy God."* 
 
 Let us here stop one moment, to consider 
 some of Mr. Jud son's assertions respecting the 
 qualifications for membership in the church of 
 Israel. " To be descended from Abraham," 
 says he, " in the line of Isaac and Jacob, was 
 sufficient to introduce the subject into this 
 church." (P. 30.) — If it was sufficient to intro- 
 duce him, it was not sufficient to continue him 
 there. The Jews were not broken off because 
 they were not the "descendants of Abraham, in 
 the line of Isaac and Jacob ;" but" because of 
 their unbelief" — " Persons of Gentile extrac- 
 tion," he adds, " who were purchased by 
 Jews, or wished to enjoy the privileges of Jews, 
 could be introduced into this church by circum- 
 cision. Whether any other requisite to admis- 
 sion was appointed by God, we are not inform- 
 ed." (P. 30.)— -Does Mr. J. believe that a Philis- 
 tine, for instance, who continued a professed wor- 
 shipper of Dagon, could become a regular mem- 
 ber of that church which, he admits, u professed 
 to rest in Christ " merely by receiving the exter- 
 nal mark of circumcision ? — In a word, the visi- 
 ble church has been subject to essentially the 
 same requirements, under both dispensations. 
 
 •.Mark xii. 31 : Let. xix. 18 ; Mic. vi. 8. 
 
59 
 
 Is not this good evidence that it has ever been 
 the same ? 
 
 6. Essentially the same promises were made to 
 the visible church under the former dispensation, 
 which are made to it now. — God now promises 
 his people all needful temporal blessings ; and to 
 his ancient covenant people he promised the 
 same.* He now promises his church that he 
 will never leave her, or cease to be her God ; 
 and to the church of Israel he promised the same. 
 " Fear thou not, for I am with thee ; be not dis- 
 mayed, for I am thy God."f He now promises 
 to preserve and defend his church ; and under 
 the former dispensation he promised the same. 
 4i The Lord of hosts will defend Jerusalem, and 
 passing over, he will preserve it." J He promi- 
 ses to build up the present visible church ; and 
 to the church of Israel he promised the same. 
 £< I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O vir- 
 gin of Israel ! I have loved thee with an ever- 
 lasting love."$ He has promised to give the 
 kingdom to his little flock under the gospel ; and 
 to his ancient Zion he promised the same. 
 " Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens 
 thy nursing mothers ;" and " the nation and king- 
 dom that will not serve thee, shall perish." || Is 
 it possible that the subjects of such similar prom- 
 ises should be perfectly distinct ? 
 
 * Matth. vi. 33 ; Lev. xxvi. 3—6. 
 t Matth. xxviii. 20; Rev. xxi. 7; Is. xli. 5. 
 }2 Thess. iii. 3; Matth. xvi. 18; Is. xxxi. 5. 
 f Acts xv. 16 ; Jer. xxxi. 3, 4. 
 ]j Luke xii. 32 ; Is. xlix. 23, and lx. 12. The apostle Paul fre- 
 -quently quotes the promises made to the ancient church, and applies 
 them to the Christian church. See particularly 2 Cor. vi. 16 — 18, 
 ami vii. 1. Having quoted, in the last of the sixth chapter here re- 
 ferred to, some of the promises made to the ancient church, he be- 
 gins the seventh by saying — u Having, therefore^ these promises, let us 
 
60 
 
 7. The church, under both dispensations, has 
 been subject to similar discipline. The direction 
 of Christ now is — " If thy brother trespass against 
 thee, go and tell him his fault." Formerly it 
 was — " Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine 
 heart ; thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neigh- 
 bour, and not suffer sin upon him."* The di- 
 rection of Christ now is — " If thy brother repent, 
 forgive him." Formerly it was — " When the 
 offender shall bring his sin- offering, and in token 
 of repentance lay his hand upon its head, the vic- 
 tim shall be slain, and he shall be forgiven."! 
 The direction of Christ now is — " If the offend- 
 er will not hear the church, but continues pre- 
 sumptuously obstinate, let him be cut off, and 
 become to you as an heathen." Formerly it 
 was—" The soul that doeth aught presumptu- 
 ously, and -will not hearken to the priest, nor to 
 the judge, the same hath reproached the Lord, 
 and that soul shall be cut off from his people. "+ — 
 Does not this similarity of discipline under both 
 dispensations very clearly indicate that the church 
 has been essentially the same ? 
 
 8. The church, both before and after Christ, 
 has used, in some respects, the same forms of 
 -worship* We refer particularly to the Psalms. 
 These were anciently the songs of Zion. They 
 were statedly used in the church of Israel. Nor 
 has the visible church ever laid them aside. Even 
 the Baptists themselves, who seem so much in- 
 
 cleanse ourselves." fee. How could he represent the Corinthian 
 church as hiving these promises^ and as being under consequent obliga- 
 tions to cleanse themselves, unless he considered them the same 
 body with the ancient church, to which these promises were made ? 
 
 ^-^Iatth. xviii. 15; Lev. xix. 17. t Luke xvii. 3; Lev. iv. 
 
 JMatth. xviii. 17 ; Numb. xv. 30; Deut. xvii. 12. 
 
61 
 
 terestcd to degrade the ancient church of God, 
 have never ceased to sing her Psalms. Is not 
 here striking evidence that the church has ever 
 been the same ? Can those religious bodies be 
 perfectly distinct, which can consistently and 
 statedly adopt the same forms of worship ? 
 
 9. The visible church in all ages has con- 
 sisted of similar characters, and been marked by 
 similar vicissitudes. Both before and since the 
 Christian era, it has been made up "of good and 
 bad members — of real saints and hypocrites. " 
 Some of the best of men, and some of the worst, 
 have from time to time, under both dispensations, 
 been found within the pale of the church. " Re- 
 vivals and declensions, divisions and sects, defects 
 and excellencies, have existed in it, and been 
 common to it, in all past ages ; which fact shows 
 its identity in each and every period of time, from 
 its commencement to the present moment."* 
 
 10. Under both dispensations, the church has 
 been spoken of and addressed in similar lan- 
 guage. — Christ said of his ancient covenant peo- 
 ple — " I will declare thy name unto my brethren ; 
 in the midst of the congregation I will praise 
 thee." Of his professing people it is still said — 
 " He is not ashamed to call them brethren."^ In 
 the following language God addressed his ancient 
 church — " If ye will obey my voice, and keep 
 my covenant, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure 
 unto me v above ail people. And ye shall be un- 
 to me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." 
 In similar language he addresses his church 
 now — " Ye are a chosen generation, a royal 
 
 *D. Pouter's Diss, on Baptism, pp. -24, 25, 
 t Ps. xxii. 22 : Heb.ii. 11. 
 
62 
 
 priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people."* 
 God said of his ancient church — " I will walk 
 among you, and will be your God, and ye shall 
 be my people." He says of his church now — 
 " I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I 
 will be their God, and they shall be my peo- 
 ple."!— Is not the? identity of the church clearly 
 taught, in this similarity of language which God 
 has held respecting it, in every age ? 
 
 11. The prophecies of scripture clearly evince, 
 that the present visible church is the same with 
 the church of Israel. — John the Baptist predicted 
 of him who should come after him, not that he 
 should destroy ; but that he should " thoroughly 
 purge his floor." (Matth. iii. 12.) Christ did 
 indeed purify his church, but he never destroyed 
 it.f —Our Saviour predicted, that many should 
 " come from the east and from the west, and sit 
 down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the king- 
 dom of heaven," while " the children of the king- 
 dom should be cast out into outer darkness." 
 (Matth. viii. 11, 12.) — By the phrase, " kingdom 
 of heaven," we cannot here understand the king- 
 dom of future glory ; for none of the children of 
 this kingdom will ever u be cast out into outer 
 darkness." The phrase, then, must denote in this 
 place, as it does in many others, the visible 
 church. Hence the prediction of our Saviour 
 was, that when the Jews, " the natural branches," 
 were broken off, the Gentiles should come, and 
 sit down in the same visible church " with Abra- 
 
 * Ex. xix. 5, 6 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9. t Lev. xxvi. 12 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16. 
 % TLe period of Chrisfs advent is spoken of by the apostle Paul 
 as " the time of reformation." (Heb. ix. 10.) On the theory we op- 
 pose, this must have been to the ancient church a time, not of refor- 
 mation, but destruction. Reformation necessarily implies the continu- 
 ance «f the thicg reformed. 
 
63 
 
 ham, Isaac and Jacob.' ' — In the parable of the 
 vineyard, Christ clearly foretold, that the same 
 vineyard, or church, in which the Jews had done 
 wickedly, should be taken from them, and given 
 to others. " The kingdom of God shall be 
 taken from you, and given to a nation bringing 
 forth the fruits thereof."* 
 
 In proof of the same point, we might adduce a 
 multitude of quotations from the prophecies of 
 the Old-Testament. Whoever will peruse can- 
 clidly the sixtieth chapter of Isaiah, and indeed 
 all the ancient predictions of the in- gathering of 
 the Gentiles, will be satisfied that they relate, 
 not to the building up of a new church under the 
 gospel, but to the enlargement of the very same 
 church which then existed in Israel. — The force 
 of this part of the argument Mr. J. endeavours to 
 evade. " Some of these prophecies," says he, 
 11 relate to the final conversion and restoration 
 of the Jewish people." Suppose they do; will 
 the converted, restored Jews be distinct in their 
 church standing from the converted Gentiles ? 
 " Others," he adds, " belong to the true church 
 of God, the perpetuity and identity of which no 
 one denies." (P. 28.) In answer to this remark, 
 we quote but one passage out of many. The 
 prophet Isaiah, addressing the church, says — 
 " The children which thou shalt have, after thou 
 hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, 
 The place is too strait for me — give place to me, that 
 I may dwell. Then thou shalt say in thine heart, 
 Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my 
 children, and am desolate, a captive, removing to and 
 fro ?" (xlix. 20, 21.) Will Mr. J. pretend, that this 
 
 *Mark xii. 9 ; Luke xx. 16 ; Matth. xxi. 43, 
 
64 
 
 prediction belongs to the real, as distinct from 
 the visible church of God ? Has the real church 
 ever lost any of its children ? Has any real saint 
 ever fallen away ? — It cannot be denied that this 
 prediction relates to the visible church of Israel ; 
 and establishes the fact, that converted Gentiles 
 under the new dispensation are children and mem- 
 bers of this very church. 
 
 12. The sameness of the church under both 
 dispensations is certain, from the declarations as 
 well as the prophecies of scripture. The apostle 
 abundantly teaches, in the eleventh chapter of 
 Romans, that the believing Gentiles are graffed 
 into the same olive tree from which the unbeliev- 
 ing Jews were broken off, and into which the re- 
 stored Jews shall be grafted again. — What shall we 
 understand by the " olive tree ?" Jeremiah, ad- 
 dressing the churchy says — " The Lord called thy 
 name a green olive tree ; fair, and of goodly 
 fruit." (xi. J 6.) Of the church in Israel, the 
 prophet Hosea says — " His branches shall spread, 
 and his beauty shall be as the olive tree." (xiv. 6.) 
 " The olive tree," therefore, represents the visible 
 church of God. From this, the unbelieving Jews 
 were broken off. Into the same, the believing 
 Gentiles were graffed. And into the same, the 
 restored Jews will at length be graffed again. 
 The sameness of the church, therefore, under 
 both dispensations, is in this chapter incorite stably 
 established. 
 
 How does Mr. J. interpret this instructive al- 
 legory ? " The olive tree," he says, " may rep- 
 resent the Messiah, as presented in the promises." 
 And how did the Jews, as a people, belong to the 
 
65 
 
 Messiah ? By profession* he answers — " the 
 Jews, as a nation, professed to rest in him." 
 (P. 29.) If, then, he will be consistent, he will 
 proceed and say. — " When the Jews were broken 
 off, they renounced their profession of faith hi 
 Christ. When the Gentiles were grafted in, they 
 came forward, and made the same profession 
 which the apostate Jews had renounced. And 
 when the posterity of Abraham shall be graffed 
 in again, they will be re-united to Christ, by the 
 same profession ." If this interpretation is more 
 favourable than ours to Mr. Jud son's system, 
 he is welcome to every advantage he can possibly 
 derive from it. We will only insist that he should 
 
 abide by it, and be consistent with himself, 
 
 We purpose to introduce but one passage more. 
 The apostle, addressing his Ephesian brethren, 
 says — u Wherefore remember, that ye, being in 
 
 time past Gentiles in the flesh were without 
 
 Christ ; being aliens from the commonwealth of 
 Israel t and strangers from the covenants of prom- 
 ise, having no hope, and without God in the 
 world." (ii. 11, 12.) Does this form of expres- 
 sion certainly imply, that the Ephesians were no 
 longer " without Christ, having no hope, and 
 without God in the world ?" It implies, with 
 equal certainty, that they were no longer " aliens 
 from the commonwealth of Israel" It is precise- 
 
 * That we have not misunderstood Mr. J. is evident from a re- 
 mark immediately preceding. He introduces these words of Christ — 
 41 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away," 
 (John xv. 2,) and says, " This may suggest the proper interpretation 
 of the symbolical language of the apostle. 1 ' (P. 29.) His theory 
 then is, that the unbelieving Jews belonged to the olive tree, in the 
 same sense that fruitless branches are here said to be in Christ ; — - 
 that is, as every respectable Commentator agrees — by profession. See 
 Fool. Hexry, Doddridge, and Scott, en Johnxv. 2.' 
 
 6* 
 
66 
 
 ly as certain from this passage, that they were 
 now members of the commonwealth or church of 
 Israel, as that they believed in Christ, enjoyed 
 the comforts of hope, or adored and served the 
 God of heaven. 
 
 Again — There is evidence from fact, that 
 there never has been but one visible church in 
 the world. During Christ's publick ministry, 
 his disciples were members of the Jewish church. 
 They uniformly observed the ordinances of that 
 church, and attended on the temple worship. Af- 
 ter his ascension, we find them pillars in the 
 Christian church. Had they been cut off from 
 one church, and taken into another? And if they 
 had, how, and when, was this done ? — Nothing 
 can be more evident, than that the disciples be- 
 longed to the same church, on the day of Pente- 
 cost, and afterwards, to which they belonged on 
 the night when they ate the Passover with their 
 blessed Lord. And from this fact it conclusive- 
 ly follows, that the church under both dispensa- 
 tions has been the same. 
 
 It is no inconsiderable argument in favour of 
 the identity of the church, that Mr. J. with all his 
 ingenuity, and " from all the information" he 
 " can obtain," is obliged to make nearly the same 
 observations respecting it, under both dispensa- 
 tions. Of " the Jewish church" he says — " it was 
 a select people," who " professed to rest" in the 
 promised Messiah. (Pp. 29, 30.) Of the Chris- 
 tian church he says, within a few lines — " it is 
 a society composed of select individuals, profess- 
 ing faith in Christ" (P. 30.) No wonder he 
 seems almost willing to admit, that these church- 
 es "may be in many respects alike." (P. 29.) 
 
67 
 
 We have now proved, we think to a demon- 
 stration, the identity of the visible church, in all 
 periods of time. 
 
 It is at present called, as was predicted, by a 
 new name : (Is. lxii. 2.) it has been brought 
 under a new and brighter dispensation ; but to 
 all intents and purposes it remains the same as 
 before the coming of Christ. 
 
 We shall proceed, in the following sections, to 
 make a number of inferences from this important 
 fact. 
 
 Section II. 
 
 The Covenant of the Visible Church the same, 
 under both Dispensations, 
 
 THIS is our first inference from the identity 
 of the church, as established in the preceding 
 section. The church is indissolubly and essential- 
 ly connected with its covenant. It cannot possi- 
 bly exist without it. If we destroy the covenant, 
 we destroy the church. If we essentially change 
 the covenant, we change the church. — These po- 
 sitions have the countenance of Mr. J. himself. 
 He states that the sameness of the Jewish and 
 Christian churches "cannot be proved, by show- 
 ing that they are founded on the same covenant ; 
 for there is no evidence" that their covenant is the 
 same. (P. 28.) This form of expression neces- 
 sarily implies, that if there were evidence of the 
 sameness of their covenant, there would be equal 
 evidence of the sameness of these churches. It 
 implies- an inseparable connexion between the 
 covenant and church. Hence, would he admit 
 
68 
 
 the identity of the church ur.der both dispensa- 
 tions, he could not avoid concluding, that the 
 covenant of the church has also been essentially 
 the same. 
 
 What was the covenant of the church of Israel ? 
 Was it the Sinai covenant ? No ; for God had 
 solemnly promised to be their God, and, when 
 speaking of them, uniformly calls them his people, 
 previous to the promulgation of his covenant 
 from Sinai.* — The covenant of the ancient 
 church was unquestionably the covenant with A- 
 braham. In this covenant, God first promises to 
 be the God of Abraham's posterity. Immediate- 
 ly after, he begins to call this favoured family his 
 people. And in all subsequent scripture, when 
 speaking of them as his people, he usually annex- 
 es some special reference to his covenant dealings 
 with Abraham. f — That the covenant with Abra- 
 ham was the covenant of the church of Israel, is 
 evident from the Mosaick institutions themselves. 
 The design of these institutions was merely that 
 God might establish Israel to be a people unto 
 himself, and that he might be unto them a God, 
 as he had "sworn unto their fathers, to Abraham, 
 to Isaac, and to Jacob" (Deut. xxix. 13.) — 
 Since, then, the covenant with Abraham was the 
 covenant of the ancient visible church; and since 
 the visible church has been under both dispensa- 
 tions the same ; the covenant xvith Abraham must 
 now be the covenant of the visible Christian 
 church. 
 
 That the covenant with Abraham still exists, 
 as the covenant of the church, may be argued 
 from many other considerations. 
 
 * See Ex. in. 6, 7, fee. 
 
 Ps. xlvii. 9 j Luke i. 68, 73, &c. 
 
69 
 
 It still exists, because it has never been abolish- 
 ed. As God established this covenant, and gave 
 it to his church, it must remain till it is abolish- 
 ed by the same authority. Where, then, is the 
 evidence that God has abolished his covenant 
 with Abraham ? Suffice it to say, that no such 
 evidence exists. No, there is not one particle of 
 
 such evidence in all the word of God. Mr. J. 
 
 indeed supposes, because the ancient token of this 
 covenant is not now to be enforced on Gentile 
 believers, that the covenant itself is done away. 
 The token of a covenant, says he, " is one spe- 
 cies of language. The language of the rainbow 
 is, There will never again be* a deluge." When, 
 therefore, God prohibits the token of a covenant, 
 he says, " let it be no longer said that such a cov- 
 enant exists." (P. 26.) — The whole of this ar- 
 gument proceeds on the principle, that in cove- 
 nanting, a visible token is essential. Is this true ? 
 May not promises and requirements be mutually 
 binding, without such a token ? May not a cov- 
 enant exist without it, as well as with it ? Hence, 
 had God entirely removed every token of his an- 
 cient covenant, might he no* still leave the cove- 
 nant itself, in all its force ? — But, even admitting 
 that a token is essential to a covenant, may not 
 God affix to his covenant such a token as he 
 pleases ? May he not, with a change of circum- 
 stances, alter the token of his covenant at pleasure, 
 and still the covenant remain the same ? Were 
 the rainbow to give place to a visible circle in the 
 heavens, which God should inform us was em- 
 blenrutick of the same, would Mr. J. suppose the 
 covenant with Noah vacated ? Would he have 
 reason to fear another deluge ? And if circum- 
 cision has given place to another token, which 
 
70 
 
 God has informed us isemblcmatick of the same, 
 has he any reason to conclude that the covenant 
 with Abraham has been abolished ? — On any- 
 ground, therefore, the prohibition of circumcis- 
 ion to Gentile believers furnishes not, in itself, 
 one particle of evidence, that the covenant under 
 consideration has ceased to exist. - * 
 
 That the covenant with Abraham still exists, 
 as the covenant of the church, is also evident 
 from its promises and requirements. Every cove- 
 nant consists essentially in promises and require- 
 ments. If, therefore, the covenant with Abra- 
 ham shall be found to present the same general 
 promises and requirements which are held forth 
 to believers under the gospel, we cannot avoid 
 concluding, that this is still the covenant of the 
 church. 
 
 This covenant holds up a Saviour, as the object 
 of faith; (Gen. xii. 3.) and so does the gospel. 
 It contains promises of all needful temporal bless- 
 ings ; (Gen. xvii. 8.) and so does the gospel. 
 (I Tim. iv. 8.) Here are promises of great 
 prosperity to Zion ; (Gen. xvii. 2.) and these 
 promises are repeated throughout the Bible. 
 
 * Mr. J. mere than once intimates, that he considers the cove- 
 nant with Abraham still binding upon the Jews. " When they 
 shall repent and rttu r n^ says he., " God will azain remember his cove- 
 nant." (P. 20.) Repentance and reformation, then, will be a virtual ful- 
 filment of their part in the covenant with Abraham. And when 
 they have fulfilled iheir part, God will be faithful to remember his, 
 and, as expressed in the next sentence, " he will restore his favour." 
 From this account of the covenant with Abraham, 1 cannot for my 
 life see, that it is not the covenant of grace. Repentance and ref- 
 ormation are its conditions; the favour of God its promise. — Fur- 
 thermore ; it appears from the above concession, that the converted, 
 restored Jews will be placed on the footing of the covenant with 
 Abraham. Will they not be members of the Christian church ? 
 Will not their church standing be similar to that of the converted 
 Gentiks ? — In short, if Mr. J. will consistently follow his own con- 
 cession respecting the Abraharuick covenant, we will ask no more. 
 
71 
 
 (Luke xii. 32.) Here are promises in which 
 Abraham saw his title to heaven ;* and believers 
 find such promises in the gospel of Jesus. Here 
 are promises of distinguished honour for the seed 
 of Abraham; (Gen. xvii. 6.) and his spiritual 
 seed find such promises in the New- Testament. 
 (Rev. iii. 21.) In short, God here promises to 
 be a God to his people, and their children after 
 them ; (Gen. xvii. 7.) and a greater promise nev- 
 er has been, or can be made, in this or in the 
 coming world. (Heb. viii. 10; Rev. xxi. 7.) 
 
 Mr. J. having quoted the covenant with Abra- 
 ham, asks the believer, with an air of confidence — 
 " Is this the covenant which God has made with 
 you ? Has God covenanted to give you these 
 blessings?" (P. 17.) — With equal confidence 
 we ask the believer — " Is" not u this the cove- 
 nant which God has made with you ?" Has he 
 ever covenanted to give you any blessings which 
 
 are not implied or included here ? Let us 
 
 now look at the requirements of this covenant. 
 In promising to be the portion of Abraham, he 
 implicitly required Abraham to accept of him as 
 his portion. In holding up the Messiah as an 
 object of faith, he implicitly required him to be- 
 lieve in the Messiah. In requiring of him cir- 
 cumcision, he required that of which circumcision 
 was an emblem, viz. a renewal of the heart to 
 holiness. And he expressly required him to 
 walk before him, and be perfect. (Gen. xvii. 
 1.) — Has God ever ceased to make these require- 
 ments ? Or will he cease to make them of fallen 
 creatures, so long as the world endures ? 
 
 # Compare Gen, xvii. 8, with Heb. xi. 9, 10. 
 
72 
 
 We see, then, from the promises and require- 
 ments, or from the very nature, of the covenant 
 with Abraham, that it must still exist, as the cov- 
 enant of the visible church. 
 
 To our interpretation of this covenant, we are 
 sensible there have been objections. 
 
 Mr. J. contends, that it cannot be the covenant 
 of the Christian church, because it contains a 
 promise of the land of Canaan. (P. 18.) — How 
 did Abraham understand this promise ? That 
 he and his posterity understood it, primarily \ as 
 a promise of the literal Canaan, and of temporal 
 prosperity, is conceded. But was this all, or a 
 principal part, of what Abraham saw in the prom- 
 ise ? Certainly not. The apostle informs us, 
 that " by faith he sojourned in" this temporal 
 " land of promise, as in a strange country, dwell- 
 ing in tabernacles." And why ? " He desired 
 a better country, that is, an heavenly." And 
 " he looked," through the promise he had re- 
 ceived, " for a city which hath foundations, whose 
 builder and maker is God." (Heb. xi.) Certain- 
 ly Abraham saw, in the promise of Canaan, his 
 title to the heavenly rest. It will be safe if we 
 understand this promise as it was understood by 
 the father of the faithful. — This interpretation is 
 so easy, and one into which the mind so naturally 
 falls, that it is questioned whether Mr. J. can 
 keep entirely clear of it in his common conversa- 
 tion. Does not the way in which Israel was led 
 through the wilderness, remind him of the way 
 in which Christians are led through life ? Does 
 he not familiarly speak of the Jordan of death ? 
 Does he never proceed so far as even to talk of 
 the heavenly Canaan ? He will not, then, cen- 
 sure either Abraham, or us, for discovering, in 
 
75 
 
 the promise under consideration, a promise of 
 the heavenly world. 
 
 We have referred to the promise — " In thee 
 shall all the families of the earth be blessed"— 
 first made to Abraham at the time of his call, and 
 first recorded in the twelfth chapter of Genesis, 
 as constituting a part of the covenant with Abra- 
 ham. Mr. J. has followed Dr. Baldwin, and 
 others, in asserting that " this promise is not con- 
 tained in the covenant of circumcision, but in a 
 covenant made with Abraham, twenty- four years 
 before." This promise, he allows, js a u gospel 
 promise," and " the ever-memorable charter of 
 all the blessings which Jewish and Gentile be- 
 lievers enjoy through Christ." (P. 24.) — It would 
 seem, then, that the controversy, so far as the 
 covenant with Abraham is concerned, is here 
 brought within narrow limits. Were this prom- 
 ise to be abandoned, it would not indeed follow 
 that the covenant with Abraham was abandoned,. 
 But if this promise can be retained as a part of 
 the covenant, it can never again be disputed that 
 this covenant comprises the covenant of grace. 
 It will be proved that the covenant with Abraham 
 is "the ever-memorable charter of all the bless- 
 ings, which Jewish and Gentile believers enjoy 
 through Christ." 
 
 It is manifest that God made but one covenant 
 with Abraham. His covenant transactions with 
 this patriarch are spoken of throughout the scrip- 
 tures in the singular form. " The Lord thy 
 God will not forget the covenant of the fathers." 
 (Deut. iv. 31.) "To remember his holy cove- 
 nant, the oath which lie sw'are to Abraham." 
 (Luke i. 72, 73.) « Ye are the children of the 
 7 
 
74 
 
 covenant which God made with our fathers." 
 (Acts iii. 25.) 
 
 There is as much reason to suppose that God 
 made eight covenants with Abraham, as that he 
 made more than one. He certainly appeared to 
 him, and addressed him in covenant language, at 
 eight different times.* Nor is there any thing 
 in the subjects on which he addressed him, which 
 would lead us to fix on two covenants, rather 
 than on eight. Those, therefore, who do not be- 
 lieve that he made eight distinct covenants with 
 him, have no reason to suppose that he made 
 with him metre than one, 
 
 It is evident, from the similarity of those prom- 
 ises which at different times were made to 
 Abraham, that they all belong to one and the 
 same covenant. The promise of a numerous 
 posterity was made and repeated to him, at no 
 less than seven different periods. f The promise 
 of the land of Canaan was made and repeated to 
 him, at four different periods.J The promise of 
 Goel for his portion was also made to him, im- 
 pliedly or expressly, at four different periods.} 
 And the promise, that in him all nations and 
 families should be blessed, was expressly repeat- 
 ed at three different periods. || Can promises so 
 similarly repeated, and so inseparably interwoven, 
 be considereel as belonging to more than one 
 covenant ? And is it possible to form more 
 than one covenant from them, without putting 
 asunder things which God hath joined together, 
 
 *Gcn. xii. 1 and?; xiii. 14; xv. 1; xvii. xviii. xxi. 12; and 
 xxii. 15. 
 
 tGen. xii. 2; xiii. 16; xv. 5; xvii. 2; xviii. 18; xxi. 13; and 
 xxii. 17. ^xii. 7; xiii. 15; xv. 7; and xvii. 8. 
 
 i xii. 2, 3; xv. 1 ; xvii. 7, 8; and xxii. 17. 
 R xii. o, xviii. 18; and xxii. 18. 
 
75 
 
 and doing the utmost violence to the sacred 
 text ? — It will be asked, if these promises, made 
 at different times, comprise but one covenant, 
 why were not all of them uttered at once ? — Evi- 
 flently they were uttered at different times, for 
 the trial and confirmation of the patriarch's faith. 
 Before he was finally constituted " father of the 
 faithful," and the covenant was sealed, and con- 
 firmed with an oath, it was proper that his faith 
 should endure repeated trials. And it surely was 
 proper, amidst these severe trials, that his faith 
 should be assisted by repeated promises and en- 
 couragements.* 
 
 These covenant transactions were renewed 
 both with Isaac and Jacob ; and it is certain from 
 these renewals, that they constitute but one cov- 
 enant. In both these instances, those promises 
 which from time to time had been repeated to 
 Abraham, are brought together within the com- 
 pass of three verses. f — — -Mr. J. supposes there 
 were two covenants with Abraham ; that the lead- 
 ing promise of the one was what he denominates 
 the " gospel promise," "In thy seed shall the 
 nations of the earth be blessed ;" (p. 24.) and 
 that the leading promise of the other was that of 
 Canaan. (P. 18.) Let us apply this hypothesis 
 to a part of the fourth veise of the twenty-sixth 
 chapter of Genesis. " / will give unto thy seed 
 all these countries ; and' in thy seed shall all the 
 
 * The process of these covenant transactions, says Ur. Reed, 
 " exhibits a most striking and beautiful climax. In the first instance, 
 we see the blessing confirmed to Abraham and Ins seed bj ptunise, 
 (Gen. xii. 1 — 3.) Secondly, this promised blessing is confirmed by 
 covenant. (Gen. xv. 18.) Thirdly, this covenanted blessing is con- 
 firmed, by annexing the token of circumcision. (Gen. xvii. 10.) And, 
 
 fourthly, by the oath, of Almighty God. (Gen. xxii. 18.)"'"' Reed's 
 
 Apology, p. 66. t Gen. xxvi. 2 — 4, and xxviii. 13—15. 
 
nations of the earth be blessed." According to 
 his theory, here are two distinct covenants — cov- 
 enants as widely different as temporal things and 
 spiritual, as earth and heaven — brought within 
 less than the compass of a single sentence and a 
 single verse ! If such a theory can obtain credit, 
 no theorist need despair. And it might be ex- 
 pected that a person who could spread such a 
 theory before the publick, would complain of 
 others for " using undue freedom with the word 
 of God," and " frittering away the plain import 
 of scripture." (P. 19.) 
 
 From what has been said, it appears to be 
 fully proved^ that God never constituted more 
 than one covenant with Abraham. And if he 
 never constituted more than one covenant with 
 him, then certainly the promise under considera- 
 tion— the promise that in him all nations should 
 be blessed—made a part of this covenant. In- 
 deed this is expressly asserted by the apostle 
 Peter. " Ye are the children," says he, " of the 
 prophets,, and of the covenant which God made 
 with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in 
 thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be 
 blessed." (Acts iii. 25.) This promise is here ex- 
 pressly quoted as belonging to the one covenant 
 which God made with Abraham. 
 
 That this promise is included is also certain, 
 since it is of the same import with some of the 
 promises which were made when circumcision was 
 instituted. God repeatedly promised, at this time, 
 that Abraham should be " the father of many 
 nations." (Gen. xvii. 4, 5.) Ke consequently 
 promised, that nations should be his children. 
 Is it not a great blessing to be interested in this 
 promise-— to be the children of Abraham ? Is it 
 
77 
 
 possible to be blessed through Christ in any other 
 way ? "If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
 ham's seed." (Gal. iii. 29.) But if it is so inval- 
 uable a blessing to be the seed of Abraham, or to 
 have Abraham for a father, where is the difference 
 between the two promises — " I will make thee a 
 father of many nations" and "Many nations 
 shall be blessed in thee f" Evidently they are of 
 the same import. — -It is proved, therefore, that 
 what Mr. J. denominates the "gospel promise," 
 is included in the covenant with Abraham. It is 
 hence proved, to adopt his own phrase, that this 
 covenant contains " the ever-memorable charter 
 of all the blessings which Jewish and Gentile be- 
 lievers enjoy through Christ."* 
 
 Mr. Judsox's interpretation of that part of the 
 covenant in which God promises to be the God 
 of Abraham and his seed, is very remarkable. 
 He supposes he was the God " of the nation of 
 Israel at large," and the God of all, both good 
 and bad, in the same sense. " God is represent- 
 ed in the scriptures," says he, " as the God of 
 his people in different senses. In the new cove- 
 nant, recorded Heb. viii. 10, he is represented as 
 4 the spiritual portion of his people.' In Rev r . 
 xxi. 3, he is represented as * their eternal por- 
 tion.'" And in the covenant with Abraham, he 
 proceeds to state, he is represented as their tem- 
 poral portion. That is, to use his own words, 
 " the promise imported, that he would multiply 
 and protect them, grant them an abundance of 
 temporal blessings, and distinguish them above 
 all other nations' by spiritual advantages." (P. 19.) 
 
 *'See Dr. Reed's Apology, pp. 61 — 68; Dr. Austi.vs View of 
 Church, pp. 35 — 41 ; and Dr. Worcester's Letters, pp. 9 — iO. 
 
 7* 
 
78 
 
 Not to inquire whether God did multiply, pro- 
 tect, and bless the Israelites more than some other 
 nations, and whether on these accounts he was 
 their God, in a better sense than he was the God 
 of the Chaldeans, Greeks, or Romans ; we would 
 with great seriousness inquire into the propriety 
 of thus representing God as the portion of his 
 people in a number of different senses. He does 
 indeed promise, in Heb. viii. 10. to be the spir- 
 itual portion of bis people ; but is it here implied 
 that he will not be their temporal and eternal 
 portion ? He does indeed promise, in the Reve- 
 lations, to be the eternal portion of his people ; 
 but is it here implied that he will not be their 
 spiritual portion ? How, then, does it appear, 
 when in the covenant God promises to be the 
 God of Abraham and his seed, that this merely 
 
 implies that he will be their temporal portion ? 
 
 That this promise secured infinitely more than 
 merely temporal blessings — that it secured a res- 
 urrection to future life and glory, is certain from 
 the interpretation of our Saviour. " That the 
 dead are raised" says he, "even Moses showed 
 at the bush, when he called the Lord, the God 
 of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God 
 of Jacob ; for God is not the God of the dead, 
 but of the living"* — x\nd that God would have 
 been ashamed -to be called the God of Abraham 
 and his posterity, in that low sense which Mr. L 
 has supposed — that he would have been ashamed 
 to be called their God, had he not provided for 
 them a heavenly city, is certain from the apostle 
 Paul. " Now they desire," he observes, " a bet- 
 ter country, that is, an heavenly. Wherefore: 
 
 ■ Luke xx. 37, 38. See Whitby on the place* 
 
79 
 
 God is not ashamed to be called their God ; for 
 he hath prepared for them a city." (Heb. xi. 16.) 
 — In short, if God is the eternal, indivisible sum of 
 all good, whenever he promises to be the portion 
 of any, his promise not only insures every thing on 
 the whole desirable, but must continue in effect 
 for time and eternity. 
 
 But Mr. J. objects, that he was not in this sense 
 the God of all the Israelites ; and the promise, 
 thus interpreted, was not fulfilled. — If this is a 
 difficulty, he shall himself help to solve it. " A 
 refusal to accept a promised favour," says he, 
 " always releases the promiser from his obliga- 
 tions." (P. 20.) Now did not every Israelite, 
 who was not a saint, refuse to accept the Lord 
 for his portion ? And was not the Lord faithful 
 to his promise, though a multitude of hypocrites 
 rejected him, and went down to hell ? Was he 
 not the portion, temporal \ spiritual, and eternal? 
 of all who really put their trust in him ? 
 
 If Mr. Jud son's interpretation of the promise, 
 that God would be the portion of the seed of 
 Abraham, must be rejected, it will be asked, 
 What ground shall be taken in relation to this 
 subject ? In what sense is God the portion of 
 the offspring of believers ? — But this is a question 
 in which Antipedobaptists have no immediate 
 concern, and which ought never to be agitated in 
 the controversy with them. Let them admit 
 that the children of believing parents have an in- 
 terest in the church covenant, and have conse- 
 quently a right to its appropriate seal, and w T e 
 will then freely confer with them on the nature and 
 ground of this interest. Till they do admit this, 
 there is a previous question, which entirely cuts 
 them off from the one here proposed, 
 
80 
 
 We have now examined the covenant with 
 Abraham, and removed the principal objections 
 to that interpretation of it which has been given. 
 We think it certain from the very nature of this 
 covenant, that it must still exist as the covenant 
 of the church. 
 
 We proceed to establish the same truth, from 
 the concurrent testimony of the word of God. 
 
 The prophet Daniel, speaking of the great ref- 
 ormation which should take place during those 
 seven years, in the middle of which the Messiah 
 should be cut off, has these remarkable words—- 
 " He shall confirm the covenant with many, for 
 one week." (ix. 27.) The present covenant of 
 the church — the covenant with Abraham, during 
 this prophetick week, or these seven years, he 
 shall confirm* with many. It appears from this 
 prediction, that it was the covenant with Abraham 
 which was confirmed with those multitudes, who 
 were added to the disciples on the day of Pente- 
 cost, and in the first succeeding years of the gos- 
 pel dispensation. 
 
 In his exhortation to the people on the day of 
 Pentecost, the apostle Peter expressly alludes to 
 that promise of the Abrahamick covenant — <! I 
 will be a God to thee and to thy seed." " The 
 promise is to you, and to your children;" (Acts ii; 
 39.) — Mr. J. can see in these words no allusion, 
 to the covenant. The promise here referred to, 
 he supposes, is the promise of the Spirit, which 
 had been previously quoted from the prophet 
 Joel. (P. 22.) — But what reason can be offered 
 for this opinion ? Surely not any connexion be- 
 
 * T^tiin m ^ s strong, corroborate. The Messiah corroborated t he- 
 covenant with Abraham, instead of destroying it. 
 
81 
 
 tween the promise under consideration, and the 
 quotation from Joel ; for the passages are nearly 
 twenty verses asunder, and have as little connex- 
 ion as any two in the word of God. Neither can 
 it be pretended, that the same favour s were prom- 
 ised to the three thousand and their children, 
 which were embraced in the prediction that had 
 been quoted from the prophet. Joel predicted 
 the out- pouring of the Spirit in his miraculous 
 influences. " I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
 flesh ; and your sons and your daughters shall 
 prophesy, and your young men shall see vis- 
 ions, and your old men shall dream dreams ; and 
 I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs 
 in the earth beneath. 51 (Arts ii. 17 — 19.) Is it 
 likelv that the miraculous influences of the Spirit 
 were either promised or imparted to all the con- 
 verts on the day of Pentecost, together with their 
 children ? And if this should be pretended, we 
 ask still farther — What encouragement would the 
 promise, thus interpreted, afford to the multitude 
 to " repent and be baptized V It was highly per- 
 tinent, in justification of those miraculous ap- 
 pearances, which some were ready to attribute to 
 intoxication, to prove that these were merely an 
 accomplishment of ancient prophecies; but what 
 propriety in encouraging the people to repent and 
 be baptized, by assuring them that a promise of 
 miraculous powers was to them and their chil- 
 dren ? 
 
 Let it be kept in mind, that the persons whom 
 the apostle addressed were Jews. They were 
 either the natural or the proselyted seed of Abra- 
 ham. When, therefore, they were encouraged 
 to repent and be baptized, and thus take hold of 
 the everlasting covenant, by the consideration 
 
82 
 
 that the promise was to them and their chilaren, 
 how naturally and necessarily would their minds 
 revert to that great and glorious promise of the 
 covenant — the promise made to Abraham, their 
 boasted patriarch and father — > ; 1 will be a God 
 fo thee and thy seed." — The passage, in this 
 interpretation, which is the only consistent one, 
 affords conclusive evidence of the existence of 
 the covenant with Abraham, under the gospel 
 dispensation.- 
 
 The same truth is clearly established in the 
 succeeding chapter. Addressing the people, the 
 apostle Peter affirms, " Ye are the children of the 
 prophets, and of the covenant winch God niade 
 with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in' 
 thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be 
 blessed." (Acts iii. 25.) How could these per- 
 sons be embraced, like children, in the arms of a 
 covenant which had waxed old, and vanished 
 away ? 
 
 When the tongue of Zacharias was loosed, on 
 the birth of his son, he " prophesied, saying- 
 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; for he hath 
 
 visited and redeemed his people to perforin 
 
 the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remem- 
 ber his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to 
 our father Abraham" &c. (Luke i. 67, 75,) 
 Zacharias here speaks, in the manner of the an- 
 cient prophets, of events future, as though they 
 were already past. "He hath visited and re- 
 deemed his people ;" i. e. he Will visit and redeem 
 them. It is evident from die whole of tijis 
 prophecy, that, so far is the covenant with Abra- 
 
 *See Flavf.i/s Works, vol. ii. p. 435 ; EosTvi'irK's Vindication 
 of Inf. Bap. pp. 1 — 3; P. Clarke's Candid Ikiasoa^. &c. r>p< 
 47-~ 70. 
 
83 
 
 ham from being already abolished, it must con- 
 tinue to exist, and continue in, effect, till God has 
 completed the redemption of his people. 
 
 The apostle .Paul asserts, that "Jesus Christ 
 was a minister of the circumcision." (Rom. xv. 
 8 ) In what sense can this be true ? Was he a 
 minister under that covenant which was sealed 
 with circumcision ? Or, was he a minister of 
 those persons who were under this covenant ? In 
 either case, it would seem unquestionable, that 
 the covenant with Abraham — the covenant for- 
 merly sealed with circumcision, must be the gos- 
 pel covenant, 
 
 Circumcision, as here suggested, was indubita- 
 bly a seal of the covenant with Abraham. It con- 
 firmed to all who complied with the conditions of 
 this covenant, their title to the blessings promised. 
 But, says the Holy Spirit, " Circumcision was a 
 seal of the righteousness of faith." (Rom. iv. 11.) 
 It assured all who received it with right affections, 
 that their faith was imputed for righteousness^ 
 or their sins forgiven. Certainly, therefore, jus- 
 tification by faith, or the forgiveness of sins, was 
 one of the blessings promised in the covenant 
 with Abraham. And a covenant which contains 
 such a promise, must certainly comprise the cove- 
 nant of grace. Mr. J. follows his Antipedo- 
 
 baptist brethren,* in supposing that circumcision 
 was a seal of the righteousness of faith to none 
 but Abraham. His reason is — none but Abra- 
 ham ever received circumcision directly from 
 God ; and " none but God can seal the righteous- 
 ness of faith. None but God can declare faith 
 imputable for righteousness." (P. 24.) Hismean- 
 
 * Mr. To-THbes, Dr. Baldwin, &c. This notion, says Mr. T.la- 
 vel, was drst derived from Bkllariuixe, an Italian Jesuit. 
 
64 
 
 inp' undoubtedly is — none but God can justify the 
 believer. None " can foigive sins but God 
 only." — This sentiment, we admit, is true ; but 
 it is not the sense of the passage in dispute. In 
 this sense, circumcision was not a seal of the 
 righteousness of faith, even to Abraham. God 
 did not give Abraham an interest in his pardoning 
 mercy, when he gave him circumcision; for this 
 holy man had been a pardoned, justified believer^ 
 many years previous to this event. What he gave 
 him at this time, was (t - a seal of the righteousness 
 of faith" It was to be a visible token, not only 
 in hib flesh, but in the flesh of all those who should 
 receive it in a proper manner, proclaiming to the 
 world that their faith was imputed for righteous- 
 ness, and their sins washed away. It was as 
 much a seal of the righteousness of faith, in the 
 flesh of Isaac, or Jacob, or any of the pious un- 
 der the former dispensation, as it was in the flesh 
 of him who received it directly from God. This 
 passage, therefore, furnishes conclusive evidence, 
 that the covenant once sealed with circumcision 
 comprises the covenant of grace, and is still the 
 covenant of the visible church.* 
 
 In various parts of the New-Testament, be- 
 lievers are denominated Abraham's seed. " If 
 ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
 heirs according to the promise." {Gal. iii. 29.) 
 In commenting on this passage, Mr. J. under- 
 takes to show, why thoLe who are Christ's, are 
 called the seed or children of Abraham. And 
 the reason, he observes, is this— -" They are like 
 Abraham, in their character and conduct." (P. 
 23.) — We beg leave to ask whether this is a suf- 
 
 *See Dr. Worcester's Letters to Dr. Baldwin, Let. is. 
 
85 
 
 ficient reason. True believers resemble Noah, or 
 Job, or Daniel, in character and conduct, as well as 
 Abraham. If the reason he has given is the 
 only or principal one in the case, may they not then 
 with as much propriety be called the children of 
 Noah, Job, or Daniel, as the children of Abra- 
 ham ? Yea, may not believers at the present 
 day with as much propriety be denominated the 
 children of President Edwards, or Dr. Watts 
 — and believers in future days, the children of 
 Dr. Carey, or Dr. Baldwin — as the children 
 
 of Abraham ? Were it not for the fetters of 
 
 Mr. Jud son's new system, it would be matter of 
 astonishment, that he could, in this place, mis- 
 take the truth. Was it not a promise of the 
 covenant with Abraham, that he should be " a 
 father of man)' nations ?•" or, which is the same, 
 that believers of many nations should be his chil- 
 dren ?* When, therefore, believing Gentiles — - 
 believers of many nations — are in the New- Tes- 
 tament called his children, is there any difficulty 
 in comprehending the reason of it ? Is it not 
 manifestly because they are interested in those 
 promises which were made to Abraham, and em- 
 braced in that covenant of which he is the patri- 
 archal head ? — In this interpretation we certainly 
 are not mistaken ; for we have the explicit coun- 
 tenance and assent of the apostle Paul. Writing 
 to the Gentiles, and calling Abraham their father, 
 he quotes for his authority the covenant with 
 Abraham. " I have made thee a father of many 
 nations" (Rom. iv. 17.) Was the apostle cor- 
 
 * ;t Now we, brethren," says Paul, " are. as Isaac was, the chil- 
 dren of promise ;" or premised children. (Gal. iv. 28.) Abraham 
 had as explicit a promise, in the covenant, that believing Gentiles 
 should be his children, as he ever had that he should have a son. 
 
 8 
 
86 
 
 reel ? Then, as long as Abraham is the father 
 of believers — as long as they are denominated 
 his children — the covenant with him must con- 
 tinue in force, and continue to be accomplished. 
 Mr. J. slides over this explicit testimony to 
 the existence of the Abrahamick covenant under 
 the gospel dispensation, by asserting that here is 
 only an allusion ; or, at most, the promise of the 
 covenant is quoted and applied by the apostle in 
 only a secondary or figurative sense. (P. 25.) — 
 But what right has he to assert, that this passage 
 is merely alluded to, in a figurative sense ? Are 
 not words and phrases to be taken in their original 
 and most literal sense, unless the connexion ren* 
 der some other interpretation necessary ? And 
 what necessity for any other interpretation here, 
 unless it be the obliquity of Mr. Judson's sys- 
 tem ? If his manner of sliding over this passage 
 be admissible, no real connexion between the Old 
 and New Testaments can, in any case, be sub- 
 stantiated. A Jew might allege that the suffer- 
 ings of Christ were not a direct fulfilment of the 
 twenty- second Psalm, with as much propriety as 
 Mr. J. alleges, that the calling of saints the chil- 
 dren of Abraham, is not in direct fulfilment of 
 the covenant with Abraham.- 
 
 * The calling of Christ out of Egypt is represented by Matthew 
 (ii. 15) as a fulfilment of that declaration of Hosea — " When Israel 
 was a child, then I loved hini, and called my son out of Egypt.''' 1 (xi. 1.) 
 And the fact, that in the sufferings of Christ not a bone of him was 
 broken, is represented by John (xix. 3&) as a fulfilment of the dec- 
 laration concerning the paschal lamb — M A bone of him shall not be 
 broken. 1 ' (Ex. xii. 46.) Mr. J. supposes that the apostle refers to 
 the covenant with Abraham, just as Matthew and John refer, m 
 these instances, to other parts of the Old-Testament. (P. 35.) — 
 Were this granted, the argument would be little impaired. If he 
 believes Matthew and John, he believes the scriptures they refer to 
 * *re never fulfilled, till they were fulfilled in Christ. Beth of them 
 
87 
 
 We shall introduce, in this connexion, but one 
 passage more. Writing to the Hebrews, the 
 apostle says—" When God made promise to 
 Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, 
 he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing, I 
 will bless thee, and multiplying^ I will multiply 
 
 thee that by two immutable things, in which 
 
 it was impossible for God to lie, we might have 
 strong consolation, who have fled for refuge, to 
 lay hold upon the hope set before us." (Heb. vi. 
 13 — 18.) — On this passage, we offer the two fol- 
 lowing remarks. 1. Here is explicit reference to 
 a promjse of the covenant with Abraham, re- 
 corded in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. 
 2. These promises, and the covenant to which 
 they belong, being afterwards confirmed by an 
 oath, are now the covenant in which Christians 
 stand. We are informed it was confirmed by an 
 
 oath, " that we" — professing Christians — 
 
 " might have strong consolation." How could 
 the confirmation of this covenant with an oath 
 afford strong consolation to professing Christians, 
 unless this is, in fact, the covenant in which Chris* 
 tians stand ! 
 
 We have now proved the continued existence 
 of the covenant with Abraham, by inference — 
 Irom its having never been abolished— from the 
 
 testify, that the facts they relate came to pass, " that the scriptures 
 might be fulfilled" (See Matth. ii. 15, and John xix. 36.) If Mr. J. 
 will allow that the calling of believers the children of Abraham, is 
 in ^fulfilment of the covenant with Abraham ; and that this covenant 
 will continue in effect, and to be fulfilled, as long as believers are 
 called after this manner ; we need ask no more. — W T e do not, how- 
 ever, grant that the references in question are similar. Paul undoubt- 
 edly referred to the covenant with Abraham, in its primary import. 
 The prime import of the promise made to him was, that believ- 
 ers of all nations should be his children. We have no necessity, 
 and of consequence no right, to understand the apostle in anv other 
 itnse. 
 
88 
 
 nature of this covenant — and from the concurrent 
 testimony of the word of God. 
 
 We add again, that it is exriftssly declared to 
 be an everlasting covenant. " I will establish my 
 covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
 thee, for an everlasting covenant ; to be a God 
 unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." (Gen, 
 xvii. 7.) It is also referred to, in the New-Tes- 
 tament, as to exist forever. " He hath holpen 
 his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, 
 as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his 
 seed forever." (Luke i. 55.) We have more- 
 over proved, that this covenant comprises the 
 covenant of grace. So long, therefore, as'the re- 
 deemed subjects of grace continue in glory, the 
 covenant with Abraham must continue in effect. 
 It will without doubt be stripped of its external 
 appendages, when these have become unnecessary, 
 at the end of time ; but the essentials of it will 
 remain in full force forever. 
 
 To this argument Mr. J. objects, that the term 
 everlasting is often used to express a temporary 
 duration. It may be so used in the covenant with 
 Abraham. (P. 18.) — The term everlasting is 
 never literally used to express a temporary dura- 
 tion ; and we have no right to depart from its 
 literal acceptation without manifest necessity. 
 Where, then, is the necessity of departing from 
 it, in the case under consideration ? To take for 
 granted the existence of such necessity, is to take 
 for granted the very point in dispute. Till this 
 necessity can be pointed out, it will be deemed a 
 sound argument in favour of the perpetuity of 
 the covenant with Abraham, that it is declared to 
 be everlasting. 
 
S3 
 
 Section III. 
 
 The Infants of believing, covenanting Parents 
 are in a sense Members of the Visible Church, 
 
 THIS is our second inference from the fact 
 already established, that the visible church has 
 been under both dispensations the same body. It 
 is not disputed that infants were constituted 
 members of the church of Israel. They were 
 embraced in the arms of the everlasting covenant, 
 and entitled to all the privileges of which their 
 age was capable. If, then, the visible church is, 
 at present, the same body with ancient Israel, the 
 children of believing, covenanting parents are still, 
 in a similar sense, members of the church. No 
 person, who admits the premises, can deny the 
 justness of this conclusion. — The truth it em- 
 braces is capable of being established by a vari- 
 ety of considerations. 
 
 1. Children are still connected in covenant with 
 their covenanting parents. — It is undeniable, that 
 the cov 'enant formerly embraced not only parents, 
 but their children. Its requirements respected 
 them. Its promises reached them. Abraham 
 must circumcise his children as well as himself. 
 He must " command his children and, his house- 
 hold after him," as well as pursue himself 
 the path of duty. And, on the other hand, God 
 promised to be their God as well as his. This 
 covenant connexion of children with their pa- 
 rents is recognized in every part of the Old Tes- 
 tament. A multitude of passages to this purpose 
 8* 
 
90 
 
 might easily be adduced.*— But whatever cov- 
 enant connexion children formerly enjoyed, the 
 children of believing parents enjoy still. We 
 have proved that the covenant with Abraham is 
 still in force ; the covenant of the church has 
 ever been the same. If the Jewish parent was 
 bound in covenant to bring up his children for 
 God, the Christian parent is under similar bonds. 
 If the Jewish parent could plead a promise for 
 his offspring, the Christian parent can plead the 
 same. " The promise is to you and to your chil- 
 dren." (/lets ii. 39.) This covenant connexion 
 of children with their parents fully establishes a 
 connexion between such children and the church, 
 2. It is evident from prophecy ', that children 
 must, under the present dispensation, be connect- 
 ed with the visible church. It is predicted that 
 at a certain period, probably near the Millennium, 
 " nations shall be born" to the church ; "nations 
 shall How to it ;" "the kingdoms of this world 
 shall become the kingdoms of Christ" &c.f 
 Was there ever a nation or kingdom which con- 
 tained no children ? Manifestly these predictions 
 can never be in their full extent accomplished, if 
 children have no connexion with the church of 
 Christ. — Jeremiah, speaking with an ultimate ref- 
 erence to the restoration of Israel " in the latter 
 days," says, " their children shall be as aforetime" 
 (Jer. xxx. 20, 24.) The children of these con- 
 verted Jews, whose church- standing will un- 
 doubtedly be similar to that of converted Gen- 
 tiles, must then "be, as aforetime," members of 
 the visible church. 
 
 *See particularly Deut. vii. 9, xxx. 6, and xxxi. 12, 13; Ps, 
 xxxvil. 26, Ixxviii. 5 — 7, ciii. 17, 18, cxii. 1, 2; Prov. xx. 7, xxii. 
 6, xxiii. 13, 14, xxix. 17; Is. xliv. 3, 4, fix. 21, lxv. 23; Jer. xxxii. 
 £9 ; Mai. it. 6., &c, t Is. lxvi. 8, ii. 2 •, Rev. xi. 15. 
 
91 
 
 3. That the children of covenanting parents 
 are still in a sense members of the visible church, 
 is also evident from declarations in the New-Tes- 
 tament. — Some of our Saviour's friends, on a 
 certain time, " brought unto him infants, that he 
 would touch them. And when his disciples saw 
 it, they rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer 
 little children to come unto me, and forbid them 
 not ; for of such is the kingdom of God." (Luke 
 xviii. 15, 16.) It cannot be denied that these 
 were literally little children. They are expressly 
 called infants ; they were brought unto Christ 
 in their parents'* arms, and they were taken up in 
 his arms and blessed.* But " of such is the 
 kingdom of God." What does the phrase, "king* 
 dom of God" denote ? Does it denote the king- 
 dom of future glory? If little children belong 
 to this kingdom, they belong to Christ; and 
 ought to be members of his church on earth. 
 Or does it denote, according to its most usual 
 signification in the four evangelists, the visible 
 church ? In this sense, it is explicitly in our 
 favour, and needs no comment. " Suffer little 
 children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; 
 
 for of such is my visible church." In order to 
 
 evade this argument, Mr. J. contends that the 
 phraseology will admit of another construction. 
 " Of such is the kingdom of God"— not, says 
 he, " of such in age or size ; but of such in the 
 moral temper of heart ; in humility and docility 
 of disposition." (P. 30.) — Suppose we admit this 
 interpretation. Little children, then, have a " dis- 
 position" a " moral temper of heart" which fits 
 them for heaven , and without which none can be 
 
 * Compare Matth. xix. 13, aad Mark x, IS. 
 
92 
 
 fitted for heaven. Will it not follow that they 
 are fit for the church of God on earth ? Is the 
 church below holier than the church above ? — 
 This interpretation, however, is not admitted. It 
 fixes the utmost absurdity on our Saviour's con- 
 duct. " Why should he be very angry with his 
 disciples for forbidding infants in years to be 
 brought to him," because an humble disposition 
 was necessary in grown persons > to fit them for 
 his kingdom ?* 
 
 Our Saviour, at another time, having taken a 
 little child in his arms, said to his disciples-— 
 " Whosoever shall receive one of such children 
 in my name, receiveth me." (Mark ix. 37.) 
 What are we to understand by receiving a little 
 child in Christ' *s name ? Let our Saviour be his 
 own interpreter. Within three or four verses, he 
 says again — " Whosoever shall give you a cup of 
 water to drink, in my name, because ye belong 
 to Christ," &x. (V. 41.) To receive a little 
 child in Christ's name, is, therefore, to receive it, 
 because it belongs to Christ. Is not the member- 
 ship of little children, in this passage, incontesta- 
 ble established ? 
 
 The apostle Paul wrote to his Corinthian 
 brethren as follows : " The unbelieving husband 
 is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife 
 is sanctified by the husband ; else were your 
 children unclean ; but now are they holy." 
 (1 Cor. vii. 14.) — It is obvious to remark, that if 
 children are holy when only one parent is a be- 
 liever, they must certainly be holy when both 
 parents are believers. Hence all the children of 
 
 •Dr. Gale, a distinguished Baptist, honestly concedes, that the 
 phrase, w of such^ refers to infant* in year j. (Reflections, en Wali<. 
 p. 421.) 
 
93 
 
 believing parents in Corinth, and indeed all the 
 children of such parents throughout the earth, 
 are here, by divine authority, pronounced holy. 
 But in what sense ? The term holy is used in 
 only two senses in the sacred writings. It always 
 expresses either an internal or external, a real ox 
 a relative holiness. It is not pretended that the 
 children of believers are really and internally 
 holy. The holiness ascribed to them is therefore 
 a visible or relative holiness. They are called 
 holy, because of their peculiar appropriation to 
 God, They are called holy, because of their con- 
 
 nexion with the visible church. But Mr. J. 
 
 objects, that the same holiness which belongs to 
 the child, is ascribed to the unbelieving parent. 
 He u is sanctified" by the believer. (P. 31.) — Is 
 this the case ? The word holy is an adjective — a 
 part of speech which characterizes. The pas- 
 sive verb, " is sanctified" is entirely different. 
 This, to be sure, expresses an effect ; but it may 
 not extend to character. One or two examples 
 will make the idea familiar. We often pray that 
 afflictions might be sanctified. The intention is 
 not that they should be made holy afflictions. 
 " Every creature of God is good, and nothing to 
 be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; 
 for it is sanctified by the word of God and pray- 
 er." (1 Tim. iv. 4, 5.) Every creature of God 
 does not in this way become a holy creature. 
 Neither does the unbelieving parent become a 
 holy parent, in any legitimate acceptation of the 
 term, by being united in matrimony with one 
 who believes. He is sanctified by or (Iv) to the 
 believer, as every creature is sanctified by the 
 word of God and prayer ; but the whole discourse 
 
94 
 
 of the apostle proceeds on the supposition, that 
 he still is both really and visibly unholy. 
 
 What is Mr. Jud son's interpretation of this 
 passage ? He supposes the apostle lo conclude, 
 from the acknowledged fact that their children 
 were not unclean, but holy, that the unbeliever 
 was so sanctified to the believer, that their " co- 
 habitation was lawful marriage." (P. 31.) — In 
 respect to what, was the lawfulness of their mar- 
 riage ever questioned ? Not, surely, in respect 
 to the civil laws of Corinth. The believer never 
 supposed he violated these laws, by continuing 
 his connexion with the unbeliever. The ques- 
 tion, then, must have respected the laws of God 
 The Corinthian brethren knew, that God's an- 
 cient covenant people had been forbidden not only 
 to be joined with strangers, but to continue such 
 connexions after they were formed. (Ezra x. 3.) 
 They knew, also, that the offspring of these illicit 
 connexions had been considered unclean, out of 
 covenant, and as not belonging to " the holy 
 seed." (Ezra ix. 2.) Let it be granted, then, if 
 Mr. J. wishes it, that the Corinthian believers, 
 who were married to unbelievers, called in ques- 
 tion the legality of continuing such connexions ; 
 and that the apostle, for their satisfaction, refer- 
 red them to the well-known fact, that their chil- 
 dren had not been rejected as unclean, and out 
 of covenant, but had been publickly recognized 
 as branches of the holy seed. — If this interpreta- 
 tion is at all different from ours, it certainly is not 
 less favourable to our cause. In either case, the 
 membership of infants is clearly established.* 
 
 *See Poole, Hesrt, Guise, Doddridge, and Scott, on this 
 iftspttted passage ; also, AvstlVs View of the Church, pp. 231—2*0. 
 
95 
 
 4. The epithets and phrases applied in scrip- 
 ture to the children of covenanting parents, clearly 
 evince their membership with the visible church. 
 They are spoken of generally in the same terms 
 with their parents. Are covenanting parents 
 styled believers ; so are their children. (Matth. 
 xviii. 6.) Are they called disciples ; so are their 
 children. (Matth. x. 42,) Are they called the 
 children of God; so are their children. (Ez. 
 xvi. 21.) Are they members of the kingdom of 
 God ; so are their children. (Mark x. 14.) Are 
 they called holy ; so are their children. (1 Cor. 
 vii. 14.) Are they called saints ; so are their 
 children.* In short, if it can be proved from the 
 terms and phrases used in relation to believing 
 parents, that they are members of the church of 
 Christ, it can be proved with equal clearness that 
 their children are members with them. 
 
 5. There is evidence from facts recorded in 
 the New- Testament, that the children of believ- 
 ing parents are in a sense members of the church. 
 In the first days of the new dispensation, believ^ 
 ers were a body by themselves, were called the 
 church, and their property was vested in a com- 
 mon stock. Were not children associated with 
 their parents ? Would the Christian parent vest 
 all his property in the common stock, and cast 
 his infant children on the mercy of the world ? 
 The idea is revolting. It is beyond all contro- 
 versy, that in these early days children were as- 
 sociated and connected with the visible church of 
 Christ. 
 
 Another fact which deserves notice is, that the 
 Jewish converts continued, for many years, to cir- 
 
 * Compare Eph. i. 1,with-vi* 1. See Lat^rop's Discourses on 
 <Bap. p. 58. 
 
96 
 
 cumcisc their children, under the immediate 
 charge and direction of the apostles. This is ex- 
 pressly admitted by Mr. J. (p. 26.) and is indeed 
 too evident to be denied. Nearly thirty years 
 after the ascension of Christ, the great church at 
 Jerusalem, which consisted of " many thou- 
 sands," and was under the pastoral charge of the 
 holy apostle James, were not a little disgusted 
 when they w r ere informed of Paul, that he had 
 taught the Jews " not to circumcise their chil- 
 dren." (Acts xxi. 20, 21.) What does this fact 
 prove ? Undoubtedly, that the children of these 
 believing Jewish parents were members with them 
 of the visible church of Christ. Had the Jewish 
 and Christian churches been distinct ; had their 
 covenant and ordinances been distinct ; and had 
 it been the intention of the apostles forever to 
 separate children from the church of God ; they 
 never would have been instrumental in the cir- 
 cumcision of these children. They would as 
 soon have encouraged the converted Gentiles to 
 persist in the worship of their idol gods. 
 
 6. If any thing could add to this weight of 
 evidence in favour of the church-membership of 
 children with their believing parents, the testi- 
 mony of history might be advantageously addu- 
 ced. It is certain that, from the earliest ages of 
 Christianity to the present time, this sentiment 
 has been constantly and almost universally main- 
 tained. It was taught by Her mas, whose name is 
 mentioned by Paul, (Rom. xvi. 14,) and who is 
 said to have written his Pastor before John wrote 
 his gospel. He saw certain stones, which had been 
 taken out of the deep, and fitted into the building 
 — the church ; and was told by an angel, that 
 
97 
 
 these represented members in the first or infant 
 age. " All infants" says he, " are in honour 
 with the Lord, and are esteem ed first of ali"* — 
 It was tau ght by J u s t i x Martyr, vvh o wrote 
 within about forty years of the apostolick age. 
 " Several persons among us," says he, " of sixty 
 or seventy years old, who were made disciples to 
 Christ in their infancy, do continue uncorrupt."f 
 These infants must have been made the disciples 
 of Christ, and become members of his church, 
 full twenty years before the death of the apostle 
 John. — The same also was taught by Irex.eus. 
 Speaking of Christ, he says, " He passed through 
 every age. For infants he became an infant, that 
 he might sanctify infants." % Whether internal 
 or external sanctifi cation is here intended, the 
 membership of infants is strongly implied. 
 
 From these early days down to the present 
 period, we find infant membership constantly 
 and almost universally asserted. It has been ad- 
 mitted by the Greeks, the Latins, the Episcopa- 
 lians, and by most denominations of Protestant 
 Dissenters. 
 
 To this body of evidence on the subject, Mr. J. 
 finally objects, that our principles and practice 
 are at variance. (P. 31.) — We do not altogether 
 admit, and we need not altogether deny, the 
 charge. To our own Master we stand or fall. 
 When he returns to the faith from which he has 
 departed, and is ready to allow the membership of 
 infants, it will more immediately concern him to 
 inquire, what is the proper treatment of infant 
 members. 
 
 *In Austins Vi \v of the Church, p. 241. 
 
 tin Towgood, on ]nf. B^p. p. 31. 
 X In Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. i. chap. iii. 
 
 9 
 
98 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 Baptism is now substituted in the place of Cir- 
 cumcision. 
 
 THIS is our third inference from the fact, that 
 the visible church has been under both dispensa- 
 tions the same.— " Circumcision was anciently 
 an instituted pre-requisite to a regular standing in 
 the visible church."* Those who were born 
 members must be circumcised, or be cut off from 
 their people. And those who were proselyted, 
 must be circumcised, before they could be regu- 
 lar members.— Notwithstanding the manifest cor- 
 rectness of this position, Mr* J. cannot pass it 
 without cavil. " Circumcision, " says he, " was 
 not pre-requisite to a regular standing in the 
 church ; otherwise females we? A e not regular mem- 
 bers." (P. 27.) — The force of this objection 
 may be instantly tested, and on his own princi. 
 pies. "Circumcision," he observes, "chiefly 
 signified, that the subject was interested in that 
 covenant which God made with Abraham." (P. 
 27.) Had Jewish females, then, no interest in 
 that covenant which God made with their father 
 Abraham ? Again, " Circumcision separated 
 the Jews from the Gentile world." (P. 27.) And 
 were not the Jewish females separated from the 
 Gentile world ?— If Mr. J. will not affirm, in face 
 of all evidence, that Jewish females had no inter- 
 est in the covenant with Abraham, and no sepa- 
 ration from the idolatrous Gentiles, he must ad- 
 mit that the objection here considered is perfectly 
 
 * Dr, Worcester's Letters, p. 80. 
 
99 
 
 futile. Circumcision was, beyond all controver- 
 sy, pre-requisite to a regular standing in the 
 church under the former dispensation. Is not 
 baptism pre-requisite to a regular standing in the 
 church under the present dispensation ? Will 
 Mr. J. admit any to a regular standing without 
 it ? — We have before proved that the church has 
 ever been the same. Since, then, baptism is now, 
 what circumcision formerly was, pre-requisite to 
 a regular standing in this church, it is perfectly 
 impossible to avoid concluding, that the former ii 
 substituted for the latter. 
 
 The same truth may be conclusively argued 
 from the fact established in these pages,* that the 
 covenant with Abraham is still the covenant of the 
 church. Of this covenant, circumcisicn was for- 
 merly the token. This is decided by God him- 
 self. (Gen. xvii. 11.) But circumcision is now 
 abolished ; and baptism, an ordinance of the same 
 church, and of course under the same covenant, 
 has been instituted. Has not baptism, then, ta- 
 ken the place of circumcision, as the visible token 
 of the covenant with Abraham ? In order to 
 solve this inquiry, we must determine whether 
 these ordinances are of similar import. Merely 
 the external ceremony is of no consequence in 
 either. The relation they hold, both to each oth- 
 er and to the covenant, must be determined en- 
 tirely by their internal signification. 
 
 Circumcision, as a token of the covenant, was 
 both a sign and a seal.-f As a sign, it was em- 
 blematical of the circumcision of the heart, or 
 regeneration. " Circumcision is of the heart, 
 in the spirit, and not in the letter." (Rom. ii. 29.) 
 
 * See Section ii. Part ii. 
 t This is certain from Rom. iv. 11, to which the reader is referred. 
 
100 
 
 As a seal, it confirmed " the righteousness of 
 faith," or the covenant of grace. It proclaimed 
 to the world, that all who had voluntarily sub- 
 mitted to it, with suitable feelings of heart, were 
 entitled to every favour promised in this cove- 
 nant, and especially that their faith was imputed 
 for righteousness. Such was the import of cir- 
 cumcision. Is not that of baptism precisely simi- 
 lar ? This, too, is both a sign and a seal. As a 
 sign, it is an emblem of the washing of regene- 
 ration, or the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It 
 therefore signifies the same as circumcision. 
 Does it not also seal the same ? Those who sub- 
 mit to this ordinance with suitable feelings of 
 heart, may be humbly sure that their faith is im- 
 puted for righteousness, and that they are entitled 
 to all the blessings of the covenant of grace.— 
 We have now shown, that when the ancient token 
 of the covenant with Abraham was abolished, an 
 ordinance was established in the church, and ap* 
 pended to the same covenant, of a precisely simi- 
 lar import. How, then, is it possible to resist the 
 conclusion, that this latter is substituted for die 
 former ! How shall we avoid concluding, that 
 baptism is now, what circumcision formerly 
 was, the token of the covenant with Abraham /* 
 To what has been said, Mr. J. objects, that. 
 " circumcision, as it was commanded to be ad- 
 ministered among the Jews," did not " signify 
 that the subject was regenerated." (P. 27.) Nor 
 have we said it did. We have said that circum- 
 
 * The following remarks are from the pen of the excellent Mr. 
 George S. Faber. "Circumcision and baptism are two sacra- 
 mental signs, of exactly the same import. They must therefore, to 
 :J1 effective purposes, be mutually the same with each other : For 
 a sign, being altogether arbitrary, if it had pleased God to shadow cut 
 1 egeneral iou by a hundred different signs, all these hundred signs would 
 -till constitute but a single sacrament. 11 (Sermons, vol. i. Serin. L\.) 
 
101 
 
 cision in the flesh was an emblem of the circum- 
 cision of the heart, or regeneration ; and that all 
 who voluntarily submitted to this ordinance, ac- 
 cording to its true import, must be regenerated 
 persons. This is widely different from saying, 
 that circumcision certainly signified that the sub- 
 jects of it were regenerated. — Mr. J. says of bap- 
 tism, that the subjects of it herein " signify their 
 fellowship with Christ in death and resurrection, 
 and their being washed from sin.*' (P. 27.) 
 Does, then, baptism certainly signify that all the 
 subjectsof it really have " fellowship with Christ," 
 and have been " washed from sin ?" Did it sig- 
 nify this, when administered to Simon Magus ?* 
 The scriptures clearly countenance the idea, 
 that baptism is substituted in the place of circum- 
 cision. Writing to the Philippians, the apostle- 
 says, " Beware of the concision" (those persons 
 who lay an exorbitant stress on the rite of cir- 
 cumcision,) " for !*;<?"-— we who have been bap- 
 tized — " are the circumcision, which worship 
 God in the spirit." (in. 2, 3.) And to the Co- 
 lossians he says, " Ye are circumcised with the 
 circumcision made without hands, in putting off 
 the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circum- 
 cision of Christ, buried with him in baptism" 
 (ii. 11, 12.) The force of his language is, " Ye 
 are circumcised^ being baptized"- Mr. J. ob- 
 serves respecting this latter passage, that " since 
 
 *Mr. J. represents baptism as " an act of worship." (P. 27. Is 
 this consistent? In an act of worship, the subject must be active 
 In baptism, he is uniformly represented to be passive. "Arise and 
 
 be baptized." Although we do not altogether deny the validity or 
 
 immersion, still this mode is liable to the same objection, as the id; u 
 that baptism is an " act of worship. 1 " It makes the recipient the 
 agent. The subject is, in this case, applied to the water, and nor 
 the water to the subject. The person is administered to the element, 
 and not the element to the person. 
 
 9* 
 
102 
 
 the apostle is here speaking of spiritual circum- 
 cision and spiritual baptism, both of which had 
 been received by the Colossians," it is impossi- 
 ble to infer from it, " that external baptism has 
 come in the place of external circumcision." (P. 
 28.) — We admit, that the apostle is here speak- 
 ing of spiritual circumcision and spiritual bap- 
 tism ; and he represents them to be the same. 
 Since, then, these two ordinances are spiritually 
 the same, and since the one was instituted in the 
 church on the removal of the other ; we see no 
 difficulty in drawing a conclusive inference, that 
 the one is now substituted in the place of the other. 
 
 That the primitive fathers believed and taught 
 the substitution of baptism in the room of cir- 
 cumcision, will be abundantly evident from the 
 following quotations, 
 
 Justin Martyr. u We have not received 
 this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual circum- 
 cision ; and we have received it by baptism. It 
 is allowed to all persons" — infants and adults — 
 "to receive it in the same way."* 
 
 Cyprian. "Christ has given us baptism y 
 the spiritual circumcision." -\ 
 
 Austin. " We may make an estimate how 
 much baptism avails infants, by the circumcision 
 which God's people formerly received. "J 
 
 Basil. " A Jew does not delay circumcision, 
 because of the threatening, that every soul that is 
 not circumcised the eighth day shall be cut off 
 from his people ; and dost thou put off the cir- 
 
 =*In Dr. Worcester's Letters to Dr. Baldwin, p. 118. The dates 
 of the fathers here quoted are as follow : — Justin wrote within 
 about 40, Cyprian within 150, and Avstin, Basil, and Chrt- 
 
 Sostom, within 270 years of the apostolick age. 
 t In Reed's Apology, p. 274. 
 | In Bcstwicx's Discourse on Inf. Bap. p. 25. 
 
103 
 
 cumcision made without hands,'* which is per- 
 formed in baptism, when thou nearest our Lord 
 himself say, Verily, verily I say unto you, ex- 
 cept one be born of water and the Spirit, he can- 
 not enter into the kingdom of God ?"f 
 
 Chr ysostom. u Our circumcision, I mean the 
 grace of baptism^ gives cure without pain, and 
 procures to us a thousand benefits. And it has 
 no determinate time, as the ancient circumcision 
 had ; but one that is in the very beginning of his 
 age," [surely, then, an infant,'] "or one that is 
 in the middle of it, or one that is in his old age, 
 may receive this circumcisien made without 
 hands '."f It is decisive proof that the primi- 
 tive fathers considered baptism in the place of 
 circumcision, that in the early days of the coun- 
 cil of Carthage,} nearly seventy bishops were 
 convened to determine whether baptism might be 
 administered to children sooner than circumcis- 
 ion, or previous to the eighth day. \ 
 
 We shall conclude this section, by noticing 
 some objections which have been urged against 
 the sentiment, that baptism is now substituted in 
 the place of circumcision. 
 
 Mr. J. objects, that this substitution is not 
 urged, as might have been expected, in answer to 
 those Judaizing teachers who were for enforcing 
 
 * This application of the phrase — " circumcision made without 
 
 hands" — and a similar one in the succeeding quotation from Chry- 
 
 sostom, show how the fathers understood the apostle in Col. ii. 11, 12, 
 
 tin Dr. Worcester's Letters to Dr. Baldwin, p. 118. 
 
 4: A. D. 253, or 153 years after the apostolick age. 
 
 t It is always urged by those Baptists who advocate close comwu~ 
 nion, that unbaptized persons should be prohibited the Lord's table, 
 because uncircumcised persons were prohibited the Passover. It 
 this argument has any force, it implies the substitution of httism in the 
 pkee of circumcision, (See Booth's Apology, p. 143.) 
 
104 
 
 circumcision on the Gentiles. (P. 26.) — These 
 teachers wished to enforce on Gentiie converts, 
 not only circumcision, but the whole ritual law. 
 " Ye must he circumcised, and keep the law of 
 Moses." (Acts xv. 5.) It would, then, neither 
 have satisfied their minds, nor silenced their op- 
 position, to have urged that baptism had been 
 substituted for circumcision. The grand diffi- 
 cult had stiU remained- — " Ye must keep the 
 law." It appears that, as far as the proposed an- 
 swer would have availed with these teachers, it 
 was really given them. It was authoritatively 
 determined in apostolick council, that the Gen- 
 tile believers — those who had been baptized — 
 had no need to be circumcised. (Acts xv- 24.) 
 
 Mr. J. also tells us, that the Jewish believers 
 knew nothing of this substitution ; for " they 
 continued, under the direction of the apostles, to 
 circumcise their children." (P. 26.)— Why did 
 any of the apostles encourage or suffer their Jew- 
 ish converts to circumcise their children ? Not, 
 surely, because they considered circumcision still 
 binding. They did it from a commendable ten- 
 derness, in things indifferent, to the long estab- 
 lished customs and prejudices of their brethren. 
 And this tenderness, which would prompt them 
 for a time to tolerate, or even encourage circum- 
 cision, must certainly prompt them not to enlarge 
 on the substitution of baptism in its place. 
 
 It is also urged, that baptism cannot have 
 come in the place of circumcision, since the 
 latter was applied to none but males. (P. 17.)— 
 But why was circumcision applied exclusively 
 to males? Not, surely, because of any thing in 
 its internal import, which unfitted it to be admin- 
 
105 
 
 istcred to females ; for these were included in 
 the covenant with Abraham, and (notwithstand- 
 ing they bore not the external mark) were really 
 of the circumcision, as much as the males.* The 
 only reason why circumcision was not applied to 
 females, was because of the peculiar nature of the 
 external ceremony, God in infinite wisdom in- 
 stituted a token of his covenant under the former 
 dispensation, which it was naturally impossible 
 should be applied to females. In the exercise of 
 the same wisdom, he has instituted a token under 
 the present dispensation, which can be applied to 
 females as well as males. Because he did not 
 perform an impossibility once, may he not per- 
 form a possibility now ? Or, in the words of Mr. 
 Flavel, " cannot baptism stand in the place of 
 circumcision, because it answers all its ends, 
 with an advantage ?"-\ We admit that, un- 
 der the former dispensation, a distinction obtain- 
 ed between males and females, in respect to some 
 divine institutions. But this distinction is now 
 generally repealed, " There is neither Jew nor 
 Greek ; there is neither bond nor free ; there is 
 neither male nor female" (Gal. iii. 28.) Botti 
 sexes participate equally in Christ, and may have 
 equal access to all the outward ordinances of his 
 kingdom. % 
 
 It is objected again, that if baptism has come 
 in the place of circumcision, then servants, as well 
 
 *God speaks of the Jewish daughters, as his covenant children, 
 (Ezek. xvi. 20, 21. See also Ueut. xxix. 11, 12.) No u:>cncam- 
 ciscd person was allowed to eat of the Passover. Yet females pur- 
 took of it, as well as males. (Ex. xii. 47, 48.) 
 t Works, vol. ii. p. 456. 
 
 X " The Jaw made a difference between male and female, the males 
 only being circumcised ; but it is not so nowj 1 (He.nrt on Gal. iii. 28.) 
 See, also, to the same purpose, Poole, Guise, Doddrii>ge, and 
 Macxvight, on the place, 
 
106 
 
 as children, must be baptized. Abraham was 
 commanded to circumcise him that was "bought 
 with money of any stranger, which was not of his 
 seed." (P. 17.) The case of the southern plant- 
 ers and their slaves has been urged in this connex- 
 ion with peculiar pathos. Certain practices 
 
 were tolerated under the former dispensation, 
 which are at present utterly disallowed. Such were 
 polygamy, slavery, &c. Unless it can be prov- 
 ed, that the New- Testament authorizes the hold- 
 ing of slaves, and of consequence, the slave trade, 
 the case, so far as it is objectionable, can never 
 occur. 
 
 It is still farther objected, that on the ground 
 we have taken, baptism cannot be lawfully ad- 
 ministered to children sooner or later than the 
 eighth day. " He that is eight days old, shall be 
 circumcised among you." (P. 17- )• — The reason 
 why circumcision was enjoined on the eighth 
 day, is clearly expressed in the ritual. " If a 
 woman have borne a man child, she shall be un- 
 clean seven days ; and on the eighth day he shall 
 be circumcised." (Lev. xii. 2, 3.) On account of 
 the mother's uncleanness, her child could not Heat 
 her breast, or even touch her, till after seven days, 
 without contracting ceremonial pollution. On 
 the eighth day it must be circumcised. The lan- 
 guage of the covenant was then virtually this — 
 "Let the child be circumcised as soon as possi- 
 ble." Such is its language still, in respect to 
 baptism. 
 
107 
 
 Section V. 
 
 The Infant Children of believing, covenanting Pa- 
 rents are to be baptized. 
 
 THIS, it will be recollected, is the great point 
 in dispute. And this is a proposition, the truth 
 of which may be argued, from what has been es- 
 tablished in each of the preceding sections. 
 
 If the Christian church is the same with the 
 church of Israel, in which children were visibly 
 dedicated to God, then it must be concluded 
 
 that THEY ARE TO BE DEDICATED STILL. 
 
 If the covenant with Abraham, the token of 
 which belonged to the offspring of those interest- 
 ed in it, is still the covenant of the visible church, 
 
 thdl THE MEMBERS OF THIS CHURCH ARE 
 STILL UNDER SOLEMN OBLIGATIONS TO AP- 
 PLY THIS TOKEN TO THEIR INFANT CHIL- 
 DREN. 
 
 If the children of believing parents are still 
 members of the visible church, as they were 
 members of the church of Israel, then they 
 
 MUST BE PROPER SUBJECTS OF THAT RITE 
 WHICH IS AN INSTITUTED PRE-REQJJISITE 
 TO REGULAR MEMBERSHIP.* 
 
 Above all ; if baptism is now substituted in 
 the place of circumcision, which was applied by 
 a divine command io the seed of covenanting pa- 
 rents, then THE SAME DIVINE COMMAND 
 BINDS THE COVENANTING PARENT TO AP- 
 
 * " Let it be proved," says Dr. Gill*, " that infants are, or ought 
 to be, members of gospel churches, and we are ready to admit them. ,; 
 i, e. to baptism, (Answer to Dic&ia'Sopt, p. 89.) 
 
103 
 
 PLY BAPTISMAL WATER TO HIS INFANT OFF- 
 SPRING.* 
 
 Here is the foundation of Infant Baptism ; — a 
 foundation firm and immoveable as the word and 
 covenant of HIM who cannot lie. On this broad 
 basis, the ordinance, without doubt, will rest un- 
 shaken, till the end of time. 
 
 What remains is to introduce some collateral 
 evidence in favour of the proposition here estab- 
 lished, that the children of believing, covenant- 
 ing parents are proper subjects of baptism. 
 
 1. The sentiment contained in this proposition 
 is highly rational. Would not a good Prince 
 wish that the children of a beloved and faithful 
 friend should be placed in a peculiarly near rela- 
 tion to himself? And shall it not be supposed 
 that the Best of Beings will regard with tokens 
 of peculiar favour the children of his covenant 
 friends ? Will he not grant them some special 
 pledge of love ? Will he take his people under 
 the shadow of his wings, and make no special pro- 
 vision for the welfare of their offspring ? In his 
 care of the sheep, will he forget the lambs of his 
 flock ? — And how reasonable that the pious pa- 
 rent should wish to place his children under the 
 special care and protection of Jehovah ; that he 
 should wish publickly to dedicate them to the 
 God who gave them, and bind himself by sol- 
 emn vows to bring them up for him. j 
 
 * Dr. Hopkins represents those who require another divine com- 
 mand to satisfy them on this point, as imitators of " Balaam ; who 
 did not rest satisfied with the decision which God had ouce made, 
 respecting his going to curse Israe], but required that he should 
 speak again, if he really did forbid his doing it. 1 ' (System of Di- 
 vinity, vol. ii. p. 310.) 
 
 t The light cj nature instructed some of the v.is^r heathen nations 
 to practise a rite which resembles infant baptism. " It was thecu«- 
 
109 
 
 2. The analogy of God's covenant dealings in 
 past ages evinces the propriety of infant baptism. 
 In all the covenants he has hitherto made with 
 men, children have been included with their cov- 
 enanting parents. Thus it was in the covenant 
 with Adam ; in the covenant with Noah ; in 
 the covenant with Abraham ; and in the covenant 
 with David. He dealt favourably with the chil- 
 dren of Lot, for their father's sake ; and he de- 
 clares himself a God keeping covenant with his 
 friends, " to a thousand generations."* How 
 very unlikely, then, let the covenant of the Chris- 
 tian church be what it may, that God has swerv- 
 ed from the invariable economy of his covenant 
 dealing in other ages, and has now cut off chil- 
 dren from any kind of connexion in covenant 
 with their believing parents ! 
 
 3. If infant baptism is without foundation in 
 scripture, then the present dispensation is less 
 highly privileged 'than that which has passed away. 
 It is a precious privilege to the enlightened Chris- 
 tian parent, to bring his beloved children to Christ; 
 publickly resign them into his hands ; promise to 
 educate them according to his precepts ; and see 
 affixed to them the token of his holy covenant. 
 Believing parents formerly enjoyed this privilege. 
 How unreasonable, then, the supposition, that 
 they are bereft of it now ! Under this last, and 
 brightest, and best dispensation of the gospel, 
 
 torn of the Romans, on the ninth day from the child's birth, (which 
 was called the lustrical, or day of purification,) for its friends and re- 
 lations to bring it to the temple, and before the altars of the gods to 
 give it a name, and recommend it to the protection of some tutelar 
 ditty. A ceremony of the same nature was also performed among 
 the Greeks." (Middletox's Life of Cicero, vol. i. p. 6.) 
 
 * 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; Gen. vi. 18, and xvii. 7 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 7 ; 
 Gen. xix. 12; Deut. vii. 9. 
 
 10 
 
110 
 
 when it might be expected that privileges were 
 uniformly increased, and burthens diminished, 
 how unreasonable the supposition, that believers 
 are cut oft' from an invaluable privilege, which 
 was secured to them even by the Mosaick ritual !* 
 
 4. Had children been deprived of their con- 
 nexion with the church, and interest in the cov- 
 enant, under the Christian dispensation, believing 
 Jewish parents, in the days of the apostles, would 
 undoubtedly have complained. Many thousands 
 of the Jews in these days believed, who were all 
 zealous of the law. Tenacious of their former 
 burthens, would they cheerfully relinquish their 
 accustomed privileges ? Prepared to " wrangle 
 for a rite, quarrel for a fast, and almost fight for a 
 new moon,"t would they consent to see their 
 children excluded the covenant of promise, and 
 cut off from their accustomed connexion with 
 the church of God, without a struggle ? Yet we 
 never hear a word of complaint. There never 
 was any objection to the gospel, by friend or foe, 
 on ground like this. We arrive, therefore, to a 
 moral certainty, that under the present dispensa- 
 tion, as under the ancient, the children of cov- 
 enanting parents are to be publickly dedicated fc> 
 God. 
 
 5. The Jewish proselyte baptism furnishes us 
 with a conclusive argument in favour of the bap- 
 tism of children with their parents. — It is a fact, 
 that in our Saviour's time, and forages previous, 
 the Jews had been accustomed not only to cir- 
 cumcise their proselytes, but also to baptize them, 
 together with their children. The reality of such 
 a practice is implied in a question which was ad- 
 
 *See Ley. xii. 3; tP.EBWARDS 1 Candid Reasops, &c. p. 6?, 
 
Ill 
 
 dressed to John, by those who had been sent 
 from Jerusalem to ascertain who he was. " Why 
 baptizest thou, if thou be not the Christ, neither 
 Eiias, neither that prophet?"* (John i. 25.) 
 The inquiry was not, " What new rite is this ?" 
 but, " Why do you administer it ?" They had 
 been uniformly acquainted with the ordinance of 
 baptism ; but if John was " not the Christ, nei- 
 ther Elias, neither that prophet," they were ig- 
 norant of the authority on which he had under- 
 taken to baptize. 
 
 This proselyte baptism most probably took its 
 rise from the baptism of Israel u in the cloud and 
 in die sea." If the religion of Jews required the 
 baptism of their whole congregation in so mirac- 
 ulous a manner by God himself, they might rea- 
 sonably conclude it required the baptism of those 
 who came over to it from the worship of idols. % 
 
 As the existence of this proselyte baptism is 
 denied by Mr. Judson, (p. 32,) we shall be ex- 
 cused in our attempt to establish it by the follow- 
 ing authorities. 
 
 Babylonian Talmud. f " That was a com- 
 mon axiom, b)2W) !?)D*t0 "iy "VI ]*tf, No man is a 
 proselyte, until he be circumcised and baptized. 
 
 They baptize a little proselyte" (an infant) 
 
 " according to the judgment of the Sanhedrim. "J 
 
 *In our interpretation of this passage, we follow Lightfoot, 
 Hexsy, Doddridge, and Dr. Adam Clarke. Baptism for pros- 
 e')tism was denominated among the Jews jyiDS /I/'OlJ, in distinc- 
 tion from n*73 Jl^MD) the washing for unclcanness. (Liohtfoot.) 
 
 tSee Witsius' Economy of the Covenants, vol. iii. p. 387. 
 X The Mishna, or text of this Talmud, " was composed, accord- 
 ing to the unanimous testimony of the Jews, about the close of the 
 second century." (Encyclopedia, in article Talmud. Buck's The- 
 ol. Die. til eodemj) 
 
 I In Lightfoqt's florae Hebraicae, on Matth. iii. and xxyu. 
 
112 
 
 Arrian, a philosopher and disciple of Epic- 
 tetus, who flourished in the second century, 
 testifies, "that the Jews admitted their proselytes 
 by bathing"* 
 
 Maimoxides. " Whenever any heathen will 
 betake himself, and be joined to the covenant of 
 Israel, and place himself under the wings of the 
 Divine Majesty, and take upon him the yoke of 
 the law ; voluntary circumcision, and baptism, 
 and oblation are required. But if it be a woman, 
 baptism and oblation." — This eminent Jew, speak- 
 ing of the multitudes who were made proselytes 
 in the reigns of David and Solomon, before pri- 
 vate men, says, the Sanhedrim " would not cast 
 them out of the church, because they had been bap- 
 tized. If an Israelite take a Gentile child \ or 
 
 find a Gentile infant, and baptize it in the name 
 of a proselyte, behold it is a proselyte."f 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot. "You see baptism insepa- 
 rably joined to the circumcision of proselytes. — 
 They baptized, also, young children with their 
 parents."f 
 
 Dictionary of the Bible. "A prose- 
 lyte was made by the observation of three cere- 
 monies, if a male ; viz. circumcision, washing, 
 and oblation ; but if a female, then by two ; 
 washing and oblation."} 
 
 Calmet. " The Jews require three things in 
 a complete proselyte ; baptism, circumcision, and 
 sacrifice ; but for women only baptism and sacri- 
 fice.'^ 
 
 * In Epictet. lib. in. cap. 9. 
 
 tin Lightfoot 1 s Horze Hebraicoe, on Matth. iii. and xxviii. 
 
 t Compiled by Wilsox, Bagwell, and Stmsow. In art. Troselvte. 
 
 \ Diet, of Bible, in art. Freselyte. 
 
113 
 
 Brown. "After the Jews had circumcised 
 their proselytes, they washed the m in water"* 
 
 Witsius. " When a Gentile became a pros- 
 elyte of righteousness, three ceremonies were 
 used, viz. circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice."-]* 
 
 Reiskitjs. " Jewish baptism is a solemn rite, 
 instituted by God, in which proselytes of both 
 sexes, in the presence of three credible witnesses, 
 are dipped in water, that being legally cleansed 
 and regenerated, they may enter on the profession 
 of a new religion. "J 
 
 Prideatjx. '-The Jews, in our Saviours 
 time, were very sedulous to proselyte the Gentiles 
 to their religion ; and when thus proselyted, they 
 were initiated by baptism, sacrifice and circum- 
 cision.'^ 
 
 Stackhouse. "The custom of the Jews, 
 i \ all ages, has been to receive their heathen pros- 
 elytes by baptism, as well as by sacrifice and cir- 
 cumcision. "|| 
 
 Dr. Wall. " Whenever Gentiles were pros- 
 elyted to the Jewish religion, they were initiated 
 by circumcision, the offering of sacrifice, and 
 baptism. They were all baptized, males and fe- 
 males, adults and infants. This was their con- 
 stant practice, from the time of Moses to that of 
 our Saviour, and from that period to the present 
 day.»f 
 
 £r. Adam Clarke. "The apostles knew 
 well, that the Jews not only circumcised the chil- 
 dren of proselytes, but also baptized them.— 
 
 * Diet, of Bible, in art. Proselyte. 
 
 t Economy of Covenants. toI. iii. p. 381. 
 
 tDis?. de Bip. Judceor. 
 
 I Conner of O. and N. Test. p. ii. lib. 5, p. 436. 
 
 History of Bible, vol. 5. p. 283. 
 
 * Hist, of Inf. Bar. Introduction, vol i. 
 
 10* 
 
114 
 
 The children and even infants of proselytes were 
 baptized among the Jews. They were in conse- 
 quence reputed clean, and partakers of the bless- 
 ings of the covenant."* 
 
 To this mass of testimony in favour of pros- 
 elyte baptism, what does Mr. J. oppose ? Merely 
 the opinions of Doctors Owen, Jennings, and 
 Lardner; and these opinions founded chiefly 
 on the silence of certain Jewish writers respecting 
 it. Of what force is this kind of negative testi- 
 mony, against that weight of positive evidence 
 which we have adduced ? How easy to conceive 
 that proselyte baptism might prevail, and yet no 
 mention of it occur in some particular Jewish 
 writers, f 
 
 Those who deny the existence of proselyte 
 baptism in the days of our Saviour, are obliged 
 to consider this rite an innovation in the religion 
 of Jews. " It was mentioned," says Mr. J. 
 " in the Talmuds, as a novel and questionable 
 practice." (P. 32.) It is an observance which 
 their Doctors have copied from a Christian ordi- 
 nance. — This baptism can be certainly traced to 
 within less than a century of the apostolick age. 
 Who, then, can suppose, that at this early period, 
 when Christianity was " every where spoken 
 against," and was not sufficiently established to 
 
 * Comment, on Matth. xxriii. 19. See also Wetstein, Com- 
 jxifrA. on Matth. Hi. 16; Hexet 1 s Comment, on Matth. iii. 6, and 
 John i. 25 ; Scott's Comment, on Matth. iii. 9 ; Doddridge's 
 Lect. Prop. 154; Latkrop's Discourses on Bap. p. 49. I als« 
 find quoted to the same purpose Seldes de Jure IS at. et Gent. lib. 
 ii. cap. % 3; et de Successionibus ad Leges Hebraeorum, cap. 26; 
 et de Synedriis, lib. i. cap. 3 ; et Altikgzi Diss, de Proselytis, 
 Thes. xxvii. 
 
 t Josephus' account of the proselyting of the Idumeans by Hir- 
 camjs, if it does not imply, is at least consistent with, the idea that 
 they were baptized. They submitted not only to circumcision, but 
 to " the rest of the Jcwiik Qmloms." (Antiq. lib. xrii. cap. 9, sec. i.) 
 
115 
 
 invite the imitation of any, the Jews, its most in- 
 veterate enemies, should copy one of the sacra- 
 ments of the crucified Nazarene, and incorpo- 
 rate it among the standing ordinances of their 
 venerable lawgiver ? To those who have any 
 knowledge of Jewish prejudices, the thing is ut- 
 terly incredible. 
 
 We can now understand the commission which 
 Christ gave his disciples, when he instituted 
 the ordinance of Christian baptism. a Go 
 ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost."* What kind of baptism 
 is here intended *? Mr. J. is undoubtedly correct 
 in determining, "that when Christ, in general 
 terms, commanded his apostles to baptize, he 
 must have intended, and they must have under- 
 stood him to intend, that kind of baptism to 
 which thty had been accustomed" (P. 32.) 
 What baptism was this ? We have proved it was 
 a baptism of chi/dren with their parents. Hence, 
 " when Christ, in general terms, commanded his 
 apostles to baptize, he must have intended, and 
 they must have understood him to intend," a 
 
 baptism which should be extended to children. 
 
 Though Mr. J. has aided us to this conclusion, 
 he is not disposed to admit its correctness. He 
 thinks the command to teach (or, as he properly 
 renders it, disciple) all nations, limits the subse- 
 quent command to baptize. None must be bap- 
 tized who are not first constituted disciples. (P. 
 14.) — This remark presents no very formidable 
 objection, should its justness be admitted. A 
 disciple is without doubt a scholar, a learner, 
 
 *Matth. sxyiii. 19, Thb passage is Mr. Jufcsoa's text; 
 
116 
 
 All, then, who have become learners in the things 
 of Christ's kingdom, may with the utmost pro- 
 priety be denominated his disciples.. Is not this 
 the case with the children of faithful, covenant- 
 ing parents ? Are they not daily learning some- 
 thing of the Christian religion ?# If this inter- 
 pretation is not admitted — if the children of be- 
 lieving parents are in no sense disciples ; then a 
 considerable portion of every nation cannot be 
 made disciples, and the injunction of our Saviour 
 cannot be obeyed. 
 
 6. Christ and his apostles taught and practised 
 precisely as we might expect, on supposition 
 children are to be baptized; but precisely what 
 we might not expect, on the contrary supposition. 
 In order to determine what we might, or might 
 not, expect of Christ and his apostles, it will be 
 necessary that we keep in mind the established 
 customs of that period, in regard to the subject 
 before us. In the Jewish church children had 
 been uniformly connected with their parents. 
 They were early given up to God, and received 
 the seal of his everlasting covenant. Also the 
 children of proselytes entered covenant with 
 their parents, and were entitled to the initial rites 
 of circumcision and baptism. — What, then, 
 might be expected of Christ and nis apostles, on 
 supposition they intended to put an end to these 
 customs ? Not silence, certainly. Silence must 
 have been a virtual approbation of them. They 
 would have lost no opportunity of pressing a re- 
 form. They would have constantly condemned 
 them in the severest terms. Did they pursue 
 such a course ? Scarcely need we answer, Never, 
 
 •See Dr. A, Clarke's note on JMatth. xxtbi. 19. 
 
117 
 
 in any instance. But what might be expected of 
 the Saviour and his apostles, on supposition they 
 intended the established customs should be con- 
 tinued ? >Iot, indeed, that they would enjoin 
 them by express precepts. This would be to 
 enjoin expressly what every one already under- 
 stood and practised. They would be likely 
 often to utter expressions which implied their 
 pleasure. They would be likely to allude 
 frequently to the accustomed connexion of 
 children with the church, as a thing which merit- 
 ed and received their approbation. They would 
 be likely, from time to time, as occasions occur- 
 red, to baptize households, on a profession of the 
 parents' faith. — Need it be said, that this is the 
 precise course they pursued ? — Our Saviour di- 
 rected his disciples to speak peace to that house 
 or family, over which a son of peace was found to 
 preside. (Luke x. 6.) He affirmed that salvation 
 had come to the house or family of Zaccheus, 
 when he became a real child of Abraham. (Luke 
 xix. 9.) He applauded the practice of bringing 
 infants to receive his blessing, and declared that 
 " of such is the kingdom of God." (Luke xviii. 
 15, 16.) In his last conversation with his apos- 
 tles, he commanded them to feed not only the 
 sheep, but the lambs of his flock. (John xxi. 15.) 
 Peter taught converted parents, that the promise 
 was still to them and their children ; (Acts ii. 59.) 
 and that, as the family of Noah were preserved 
 on his account, so baptism, by ¥ a like figure, 
 doth now save us." (1 Pet. iii. 21.) Paul repre- 
 sents the whole church of Israel, parents and 
 children^ to have been baptized together, by the 
 miraculous interposition of Jehovah, (i Cor. x. 
 2.) He affirms that " the blessing of Abraham" 
 
118 
 
 an important part of which consisted in the cov- 
 enant connexion of his children, has " come on 
 the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." (Gal. iii. 14.) 
 He denominates the children of believing parents 
 holy ; addresses them as saints ; and considers 
 them in some sense " beloved for" their "fathers'* 
 sokes*' 7 * He repeatedly baptized households, on 
 account of the faith and profession of parents. 
 Lydia believed, and she and her household were 
 baptized. The jailer believed, and he and all lifs 
 were baptized. (Acts xvi. 15, 33.) He also bap- 
 tized the household of Stephanas. (1 Cor. i. 16.) 
 
 "The term, household" says Mr. J. "does 
 
 not necessarily imply infants." (P. 15.) Per- 
 haps not necessarily. Still, few instances can be 
 adduced, among the many in which this word is 
 used in scripture, where children are not evidently 
 included. "The stress of the business," says 
 Dr. Lightfoot, "lies not so much in this, 
 whether it can be proved there were children in 
 these households, as that, if there were, they cer- 
 tainly xv ere all baptized." '\ 
 
 That each of these households was composed 
 of adults, who were all converted and baptized 
 together, on a personal profession of faith, would 
 certainly be a most extraordinary event. I am 
 bold to believe there have noc been three other 
 such households since the fall. Why was not 
 the wonderful fact recorded, if it really took place ? 
 If the conversion merely of the heads of these 
 families was an event so important as to merit an 
 enrolment in the volume of divine truth, how 
 
 * 1 Cor. rii. 14 ; Eph. vi. 1, compared with i. 1 ; Rom. xi. 28, 
 tin P« Clare's Scrip. Grounds of Inf. Bap. p. 113j 
 
119 
 
 could the simultaneous conversion of each of 
 their respective households be passed over in ut- 
 ter silence ? It is alleged as evidence that the 
 
 family of Lydia were all professing believers, 
 that before u Paul and Silas left the city, they en- 
 tered into her house, and saw and comforted the 
 brethren:' (P. 15.) — Doubtless " the brethren" 
 — the whole infant church — had assembled under 
 her hospitable roof, to hear the instructions, and 
 receive the parting blessing, of their spiritual fa- 
 ther. — It is evident beyond controversy, from the 
 very face of the account, that of the family of 
 Lydia, she only was a believer. Her "heart the 
 Lord opened." After she and her household 
 had received baptism, she said, M If ye have 
 judged me to be faithful, come into my house." 
 (Actsxvi. 14, 15.) 
 
 The jailer, it is said, " rejoiced, believing in 
 God, with all his house." (P. 16.) — If there is 
 an ambiguity in this English phrase, there is none 
 in the original.* It is there positively determined, 
 and Mr. J. knows it, that the faith and joy which 
 are here expressed, can refer to the jailer only. 
 
 It is said, the apostle testifies of the household 
 of Stephanas, that " they have addicted themselves 
 to the ministry of saints." (P. 16.) — When the 
 apostle wrote this, they had been baptized a num- 
 ber of years. Shall we then believe that, after 
 their conversion, they were for years unmindful 
 of the necessities of saints ? Or is it not far 
 more probable, that they were not all converted 
 when they were baptized ? It is not at all incredi- 
 ble, that the household of Stephanas, who were 
 baptized on his account, should in a few years be 
 
1211 
 
 Biade the subjects of special grace, and " addict 
 themselves to the ministry of saints." 
 
 We have given a specimen of the manner in 
 which Christ and his apostles treated the covenant 
 connexion of children with their believing parents. 
 They taught and practised precisely as we might 
 expect, on supposition they designed to perpetu- 
 ate the custom of baptizing infants. 
 
 7. According to the principles of Antipedo- 
 baptibts, there is at present no valid baptism in 
 the world. That infant baptism is a nullity ', and 
 that those who have received no better baptism are 
 unqualified to baptize others, are principles which 
 these Christians consider essential to their sys- 
 tem.* With these in view, let us look back on 
 the church of God. Receding only a few centu- 
 ries, and not a Christian can be discovered on 
 earth, who does not admit and practise infant bap- 
 tism. Dr. Gill acknowledges, that he was 
 " not able to find one instance of an opposer of 
 infant baptism," from the eleventh to the fourth 
 century, f The supposition, therefore, that diere 
 has been an unbroken chain of adult immersions, 
 from the age of the apostles down to the present, 
 is perfectly inadmissible. — The principles of our 
 opponents may now be readily tested, by an ap- 
 plication to themselves. The Baptists in India 
 afford a fair example. These Christians have 
 been immersed on a profession of their faith, and 
 by persons who were themselves immersed, on 
 a similar profession. They suppose, therefore, 
 that they have been truly baptized. But is this 
 
 * If Pedobaptist ministers propose to immerse candidates for com- 
 munion, when any offer who prefer this mode, Antipedobaptists al- 
 most invariable reply — M Ycu have no right to baptiz-: ■ you huve net been 
 baptized your sttves.' 1 t Answer to Clark, p. 'zo. 
 
121 
 
 the fact ? Receding in a succession, they in- 
 stantly arrive at a period, when, if their immer- 
 sions are not lost, they were administered by 
 those who had no better baptism than that they 
 received in infancy. They instantly arrive at a 
 period, when, according to their principles, there 
 was no valid baptism on earth. Who, then, has 
 repaired the broken chain ? Who has restored 
 the lost ^ordinance of Christ ? How is he au- 
 thorized to baptize others, who never has been 
 baptized himself? And if he baptize others 
 without sufficient authority, must not their bap- 
 tism be as invalid as his own ? — In short, these 
 principles destroy themselves. They spare nei- 
 ther friend nor foe. They unchurch not only the 
 residue of the Christian world, but those very 
 persons who profess to embrace them. Accord- 
 ing to these principles, Christ has not been faith- 
 ful to his word. He promised to be always with 
 his ministers in the administration of baptism, 
 " even to the end of the world." (Matth. xxviii. 
 20.) The world still remains, but baptism has 
 ceased. The ordinance is lost, and no man can 
 restore it. It never can be again administered 
 till the end of time, unless the Head of the church 
 is pleased to appear again, and grant a new com- 
 mission to his ambassadors on earth. * — Conse- 
 
 *See this argument still farther illustrated hi Bost\vick 1 s Vindi- 
 cation of Inf. Baptism, pp. 26 — 28. The force of it seems, at 
 
 one time, to have been peculiarly felt by the celebrated Mr. Roger 
 Williams. It is well known, that after the arrival of this ptr^on 
 at Providence, he renounced his baptism — was re-baptized by one 
 of hi* company — who in return, together with a number of others, 
 was baptized by him. This was the origin of the first Baptist 
 chur.-h which probably ever existed in America. But Mr. AVm- 
 lfams did not lcn^ remain satisfied with these proceedings. He 
 told liis brethren, i; that he was out of the way Mflaself, and had 
 misled them ; for he did not find that there; was any uipoH earth thart 
 11 
 
122 
 
 cuiefices so awful evince the falsehood of those 
 premises from which they are derived. They 
 teach us the necessity of adhering to the propri- 
 ety and validity of infant baptism. 
 
 We conclude this section with noticing two 
 general objections. 
 
 Mr. J. considers it an objection to the baptism 
 of infants, that this is not enjoined in the New- 
 Testament by any express command (P. 15.) — 
 V/c have already shown that such a command 
 was unnecessary, and, under existing circum- 
 stances, not to have been expected. We may re- 
 ply farther, if needful, to this objection, that if it 
 proves any thing, it proves too much. If we 
 must practise nothing which is not expressly 
 commanded in the New-Testament, we must 
 prohibit females from coming to the Lord's table ; 
 lay aside forever family prayer ; and renounce an 
 observance of the first day of the week. Mr. J. 
 must on this ground relinquish another obser- 
 vance which he undoubtedly thinks important. 
 Let him no longer administer baptism to adults 
 who have been born of Christian parents. More 
 than sixty years elapsed after the institution of 
 Christian baptism, before the canon of scripture 
 was closed. In this period, many children of 
 Christian parents must not only have grown to 
 manhood, but passed the meridian of life. Might 
 it not be expected, on Mr. Judson's principles, 
 that we should be informed of the baptism of 
 some of these children, in adult years ? We ask r 
 then, (to adopt his own manner,) Have we any such 
 
 donM administer baptism S and there i>re il.tlr fast baptists" was J 
 
 nullity as well as their first; and they must lay down all. and Avai' 
 for the coming of new apostles."' 1 (Xtv.'-Engknd's McHiOiiid. See 
 also iJurcHi-NSo.Vr Hist* of Mass. vol. i. p. 42.") 
 
example ? " Not one." Do we find any such 
 instances clearly mentioned ? " Not one. Has 
 not Christ left some command enjoining" such 
 " baptism ? Not one. Have, not the apostles, 
 who were entrusted with farther communications 
 of the will of Christ, left some command on this 
 subject ? Not one." — These facts not only af- 
 ford a complete answer to the objection before 
 us — they do more. They furnish strong pre- 
 sumptive evidence, that in the apostolick age the 
 children of Christian parents were never baptized 
 in adult years, but were uniformly admitted to 
 this ordinance in infancy. 
 
 Mr. J. also objects, that if infant baptism 
 " were universally adopted, it would banish be- 
 lievers' baptism out of the world." (P. 15.) — 
 What shall we understand by this ambiguous 
 phrase, " believers' baptism ?" If it is a baptism 
 to be applied exclusively to adults, no matter how 
 soon it is banished.'— When Christian baptism 
 was instituted, the whole world was unbaptized. 
 No person could have received the ordinance. 
 In these circumstances, and in respect to the my- 
 riads of unbaptized adults, Christ said, "He that 
 belie veth and is baptized, shall be saved." (Mark 
 ::vi. 16.) He justly required of such, to exhibit 
 evidence of faith in order to baptism. — When the 
 religion of Christ shall have filled the earth, and 
 there are no longer any unbaptized adults, cir- 
 cumstances will be totally changed. li Believers' 
 baptism," in Mr. Jud son's sense, will be ban- 
 ished ; and its restoration will be as little desira- 
 ble, as the introduction of the world to a state of 
 comparative darkness. We are not at all alarmed, 
 therefore, at the prospect of banishing, in the 
 sense supposed, " believers' baptism." 
 
124 
 
 Section VI. 
 The same Subject continued. 
 
 8. IT only remains that we adduce the testimony 
 of history, in favour of the practice of infant 
 baptism.* The pertinence and weight of this 
 kind of evidence may be seen in the following 
 quotation from an eminent Baptist writer. 
 
 Dr. Gale. " I will grant it is probable, that 
 what all or most of the churches practised imme- 
 diately after the apostles' times, had been appoint- 
 ed or practised by the apostles themselves ; for it 
 is hardly to be imagined, that any considerable 
 body of these ancient Christians, and much less 
 that the whole, should jso soon deviate from the 
 customs and injunctions of their venerable found- 
 ers, whose authority they held so sacred. New 
 opinions or practices are usually introduced by 
 degrees, and not without opposition. Therefore 
 in regard to baptism, a thing of such universal 
 concern and daily practice, I allow it to be very 
 
 *Mr. J. represents history as " the last resort of Pedobaptists." 
 Driven from the scriptures by their triumphant opponent;, they at 
 length shrink for shelter under " the practice of the church.'''' (P. 33.) 
 In this representation he is countenanced chiefly b} r the Bishop of 
 Meaux. This man was a Papist. The testimony of Papists is intro- 
 duced to the same purpose by Robert Hall. (Terms of Commu- 
 Tiion, p. 106.) — Our opponents will remember, that Papists consider 
 the practice cf the church as high authority as the word of God ; and 
 they have the utmost interest in representing Protestants to believe 
 the same. This zve do net believe. Nor do we rest the baptism of 
 infants on any such ground. We agree with Witsius, that " the 
 grounds for this (and those beyond all exceptions) are to be met with in 
 scripture; so that there is no necessity, with the Papists, who shame- 
 fully prevaricate in a good cause, to have recourse in this matter to 
 unwritten tradition.'''' (Econ. of Cov. vol. iii. p. 409.) The founda- 
 tion of infant bpptism has been already had. The superstructure 
 has been builded. The testimony of history is here adduced, merely 
 as collateral, corroborative evidence. 
 
125 
 
 probable, that the primitive churches kept to the 
 apostolick pattern. I verily believe, that the 
 primitive church maintained, in this c.:se, an 
 exact conformity to the practice of the apostles, 
 which doubtless agreed entirely xvith Chris fs 
 institution.""* 
 
 Sufficient authority is here ascribed to the ex* 
 ample of primitive saints. We proceed, there- 
 fore, to prove, that their sentiments and practice 
 were uniformly in favour of infant baptism. 
 
 We have shown already, that the earliest Chris- 
 tian fathers considered baptism in the place of cir- 
 cumcision^ They must therefore have believed 
 it to be applied, like circumcision, to the infant 
 
 °J}' s P rin E °f believers. 
 
 We have shown, also, that they considered 
 such infants, in a sense, members of t lie church. % 
 Justin Martyr speaks of some who were then 
 sixty or seventy years old, " who were made dis- 
 ciples,** or members, " in their infancy" These 
 persons must have been made disciples in the 
 latter part of the apostolick age. If the apostles 
 regarded their commission, which was to " go 
 and disciple all nations, baptizing them," (Matth. 
 xxviii. 19,) they certainly were made disciples in 
 infancy, by baptism. Here is as convincing evi- 
 dence of infant baptism in the days of the apos- 
 tles, as though Justin had affirmed it in express 
 terms. 
 
 The following quotations will place the reality 
 of infant baptism, in the primitive church, beyond 
 all reasonable controversy. 
 
 m 
 
 * Reflestions on Wall, p. 393. 
 
 + Fartii. sect. iv. We have there quoted to Ibis purpose Jusrix 
 Martyr, Cyprian. Austin, Basil, and CtiRysosroM. 
 
 iPartii. sect. iii. We Lave there quoted Hfraxis, Jvstin 
 Martyr, and Irenjbws. 
 
 11* 
 
126 
 
 Her mas. " The baptism of water is neces- 
 sary to all?** 
 
 Ire»j:us. "Christ came to save all persons 
 by himself; all, I mean, who by him are bapti- 
 zed unto God ; infants, and little ones, and chil- 
 dren, and youths."f 
 
 * In Dr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. P. i. chap. i. Hermas was 
 
 cotemporary Avith Paul. (Rom. xvi. 14.) Does he mean that 
 water baptism is necessary to all persons, or to all connected with the 
 church ? In either case he must have included infants ; since we 
 hare shown that he considered infants connected with the church. 
 (Part ii. se^t. iii.) 
 
 tin Dr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. i. chap. iii. Irejoeus 
 wrote within about 67 years of the apostolick age. He is said by 
 Dodwell to have been born before the death of John. He was 
 personally acquainted with Polycarp, a disciple of John, and had 
 heard him preach. The only objection to his testimony is, he ex- 
 presses baptism by a verb (renascvrj which literally signifies, regenerate ; 
 putting, by a very common figure, the thing signified for the sign. 
 That he really intended by this word to express baptism, is evident 
 from his own use of it in a variety of instances. " When Christ!, 1 * 
 ^ays he, " gave his apostles the command of regenerating unto God, 
 he said, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them." This mode of 
 expressing baptism by regeneration, was perfectly common in the prim- 
 itive church, us it is in the Episcopal to this day. Justin Martyr, 
 speaking of baptized persons, says, "They are regenerated in the 
 same way of regeneration in which we are regenerated ; for they 
 are washed with water, in the name of the Fathei, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost." See a variety of instances to the same purpose, in 
 Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. i. chap. iii. and his Defence, &c pp. 
 318 — 324. Our Saviour gave occasion to this mode of expres- 
 sion, when he called baptism a being "born cf water ;« (John iii. 5.) 
 and Paul, when he styled it u the washing of regeneration." (Tit. iii. 
 5.) — That Irex^us designs abeing bom of water or baptism, when he 
 speaks of the regeneration of infants, is also evident from the very 
 nature of the case. Infants can give evidence of no other regeneration. 
 
 Mr. Judsox objects that this " makes the passage unintelligible." 
 (P. 33.) But we see no difficulty in understanding it. All who are 
 baptized through the instrumentality of Christ's ministers, are bapti- 
 zed by him. And all who are thus baptized by Christ, are baptized 
 (in Dtumy in the name of the triune God. What is there, then,, 
 unintelligible in «' hnst\ baptizing persons ui > to God ? This interpreta- 
 tion coincides perfectly with the connexion of the passage, and will 
 not be called in question by any, who are intimately acquainted 
 with the writings of the fathers. The case was so clear in the mind 
 of Dr. Wall, who better understood the phraseology of the prim- 
 itive churwfe in relation to this subject, than any other modern, that 
 
127 
 
 Origev. " Infants by the usage of the 
 church are baptized. — Infants are baptized for 
 the remission of sins. — Infants are baptized, be- 
 cause by the sacrameiyt of baptism our pollution 
 
 is taken away. — The church had a tradition or 
 command from the apostles, to give baptism to 
 infants."* 
 
 T e it t u l i a n . ■ ' They who u ndef stand the 
 weight of baptism, will rather dread the receiving 
 of it, than the delaying of it. Therefore, to ev- 
 ery one^s condition, disposition, and age, the de- 
 laying of baptism is more profitable, especially in 
 the case of children. Why does that innocent 
 age make such haste to baptism ? What occa- 
 sion is there, except in cases of necessity, that 
 the sponsors should be brought into dan- 
 he does not hesitate to call it an " express mention of baptized in- 
 fants." In this he has been followed by many of the learned. See 
 Buck's Theol. Diet. vol. i. p. 60 ; Towgood on Inf. Bap. p. 31 ; 
 Bostwick's Vind. of Inf. Bap. p. 22 ; Dr. Worcester's Letters, 
 p. 117. 
 
 *Hom. viii. in Lev. xii. and Com. in Epis. to Rom. lib. r. Or- 
 igen was born within about 35 years of the apostolick age. He 
 had the best means of knowing the practice of the apostles respect- 
 ing infant baptism ; for his grand-father, or at least his great-grand- 
 father, (both of whom, according to Ecsebics, were Christians.) 
 were cotemporary with the apostles themselves. Add to this, he 
 was one of the most learned men of his time ; travelled into various 
 countries ; and was acquainted with the customs of the whole Chris- 
 tian church. He argues from infant baptism in proof of original 
 sin. His argument would have had no weight, had infant baptism 
 been a questionable practice. He constantly speaks of it as a uni- 
 versally approved and established custom. Mr. Jcdsox has no 
 
 method of freeing himself from this testimony, but by finding fault 
 with Ruffixus' translation of some of Origex's works. (P. 34.) — 
 Happily many of the passages which are usually brought from Ori- 
 gex, have no connexion with this translation. They are taken in 
 part from a translation by Jerome, and in part from the original 
 Greek. (See Doddridge's Lect. P. ix. Prop, cliv.) The authen- 
 ticity of the passages we have cited above, has been vindicated by 
 Dr. Wall, to the entire satisfaction of all impartial minds. S«€? 
 hjs Defence, &c. pp. 372—383; Reed's Apology, pp. 268—273* 
 
128 
 
 ger ?"* — Here isdirect proof that Tertullian 
 considered infant baptism both lawful and impor- 
 tant. He implicitly recom mends it y " in cases of ne- 
 cessity." Here is also direct proof of its great 
 prevalence in these early times. " Why does 
 that innocent age make such haste to baptism ?' ,r 
 Cyprian, and the Council of Car- 
 thage. "If even to the foulest offenders, when 
 they afterwards believe, remission of sins is grant- 
 ed, and none is prohibited from baptism and 
 grace, how much more should an infant be admit* 
 ted ! — It is our opinion, that from baptism and 
 the grace of God, none ought to be prohibited 
 by us ; which, as it is to be observed in respect 
 to all, so especially in respect to infants^ and those 
 who are but just born, who deserve our help, and 
 the divine mercy, "f 
 
 *Tert. de Baptismo, cap. xviii. In Towgood on Inf. Bap. p. 
 32. Tertullian was cotemporary with Origex, and nourished 
 within 100 years of the apostolick age. Because he thought it 
 "profitable," in certain cases, to delay the baptism of infants, be is 
 usually cited by Antipedobaptists, as one in favour of their cause. 
 But he also thought, that " to even one's condition, disposition, and 
 age, the delaying <<f baptism was profitable." He did not consider the 
 baptism of infants unlawful^ nor did he argue against it merely be- 
 cause of their infancy ; for he argued as strongly against the baptism 
 of t " unmarried persons," and all "who were likely to come into 
 temptation." — The truth is, he imagined that sins committed after 
 baptism were next to unpardonable. He advised, therefore, that 
 all felons should delay baptism, till they had nearly or entirely done 
 with sin — till they were either brought to the verge of the grave, or 
 were iii some way released from the temptations of life. — There is nj 
 father whose testimony is more convincing to ike fact rf infant baptism in the 
 primitive age, tkin that of Tertulliax. It is merely as a witness to 
 this fact, that he is here introduced. — He was an extravagantly fan- 
 ciful, whimsical writer. He embraced many strange and peculiar 
 notions. He was finally ejected from the communion of the church. 
 Bee Milker's Ecc. Hist. vol. i. pp. 261—263 ; Wajll's Hist, of 
 Jaf. Bap. ; Lathrop's Disc, on Bap. p. S3 ; and Worcester's 
 Letters, p. ICO. 
 
 t Cyp. Epis. ad Fidum, Epis. Kx, In Milxer's Ecc. Hist. vol. i. 
 p. 400. — Cypkiax was for a short p-; v porary with Orige.v. 
 
 The council of Carthage, over wrich ne presided. w*.s convened 
 
129 
 
 Clementine Constitutions. " Baptize 
 your infants, and bring them up in the nurture 
 and admonition of God."* 
 
 Questions and Answers to the Ortho- 
 dox. In this celebrated work, which is ascribed 
 to Justin Martyr, there are " inquiries into 
 the different states of those children, at the gen- 
 eral resurrection, who were, and who were not 
 baptized."\ 
 
 Apostolick Constitutions. In this very 
 ancient, though not inspired book, " there is ex* 
 press mention of infant bafrtism, as commanded 
 by Christ."f 
 
 153 years subsequent to the age of the apostles. This council consist* 
 edof 66 bishops, and was called to determine, among other things, 
 (so prevalent was the idea that baptism was instead of circumcision,) 
 whether it was lawful to administer baptism to infants, till they were 
 fight days old. It was unanimously decreed, that " their baptism need 
 not be deferred till the eighth day" — " Here," says Mr. MlLNtR, " is 
 an assembly of sixty six pastors, men of approved fidelity and grav- 
 ity, who have stood the fiery trial of some ef the severest persecu- 
 tions ever known ; who have testified their love to the Lord Jesus in 
 a more striking manner than any Antipedobaptists have had an op. 
 portunifry of doing in our days ; and who seem not to have been 
 wanting in any fundamental of godliness. Before this holy assembly 
 a question is brought, not whether infants should be baptized — none 
 contradicted this — but whether they should be baptized immediately, or 
 on the eighth day. To a man, they determined to baptize them im- 
 mediately. Let the reader consider." Among all these pastors, there 
 were undoubtedly some who were advanced in age ; whose parents 
 or grand-patents had lived in the first century, and were well acquain- 
 ted with the practice of the apostles themielve". Is it pussible to con- 
 ceive, were infant baptism an innovation, that not one of these men 
 should be acquainted with the fact; or, if acquainted with it, that 
 none should have the fidelity and fortitude to oppose the errour ? See 
 Milner's Ecc. Hist. vol. i p 402; Towgood on Inf. Bap. p. 35 j 
 Ried's Apology, pp. 273 — £77. 
 
 * In Towgood on Inf. Bap. p. 36. This work is thought to be of 
 high antiquity. It is known to have been extant almost in the ear- 
 nest ages of the Christian church. 
 
 t In Doi>DRj.i}GE 1 s Lect. Part ix. Prop, cllv, 
 
130 
 
 Jerome. "If infants be not baptized, the sin 
 of omitting their baptism is laid to the parents' 
 charge.""* 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen. w Infants should be 
 baptized, to consecrate them to Christ in their 
 infancy r ."f 
 
 Ambrose. ' ' The baptism of infants was the 
 practice of the apostles \ and has ever been in the 
 church till this time."f 
 
 Chrysostom. " Persons may be baptized 
 either in their infancy, in middle age, or in old 
 age."* 
 
 Augustine or Austin. "Infant baptism 
 the whole church practises : it was not instituted 
 by councils, but was ever in use. — The whole 
 church of Christ has constantly held, that infants 
 were baptized for the forgiveness of sins. — Let 
 no one so much as whisper any other doctrine in 
 your ears : this the church has always had, has 
 always held. — I have never read or heard of any 
 Christian, whether Catholick or sectary, who 
 held otherwise.":); 
 
 Pelagius. "Baptism ought to be adminis- 
 tered to infants, with the same sacramental words 
 which are used in the case of adult persons. 
 Men slander me, as if I denied the sacrament of 
 baptism to infants. I never heard of any, not 
 even the most impious heretick, who denied bap- 
 tism to infants. For who can be so impious, as 
 
 * In Reed's Apology, p. 277. Jerome wrote about 255 yefrs, 
 and Chrysostom about 270 3 ear?, subsequent to the apostoiick age. 
 
 t In Latiirop's Disc, on Bap. p. 70. Gregory wrote about 
 260 years, and Ambrose about 274 years, subsequent to the apos- 
 toiick age. 
 
 X In Dr. Wall's Hist. <5f Inf. Bap. vol. i. pp. 187—302. Acftiw 
 wfote within 2b0 years of the apostoiick age. He is styled by Mr. 
 Milkter, u the great luminAry of 1 ' (he ccr.t'ory in ivhich 
 he lived." (Ecc. Hist, vol. i. p. 500.) 
 
131 
 
 to hinder infants from being baptized and born 
 again in Christ, and so make them miss of the 
 kingdom of God."* 
 
 Celestius. "As for infants, I always said 
 they stand in need of baptism, and ought to be 
 baptized"* 
 
 * In Wall's Hist, of Inf. Bap. ibid, and p. 62. Pelagius and 
 Celestius were cotemporary,and flourished about 300 years subse- 
 quent to the apcsiles. They were distinguished for their learning, 
 acuteuess, and subtility ; were conversant in every part of the Chris, 
 tian world? and were the founders and promoters of the famous 
 Pelagian heresy. They denied the doctrine of original sin. It is necessary 
 that this fact be kept in mind, in order to see the full force, not only 
 of their testimony, but of that given above from the celebrated Aus. 
 tin. The whole orthodox church, with Austin at their head, con- 
 stantly and victoriously urged, in opposition to their errours, the bap. 
 tism of infants. " Why are infants bapti'-td for the remission of sins, if 
 they have none ?" — We here see the true reason why infant baptism 
 was urged by Austin with so much warmth. It was not, a9 Mr. 
 Jcjdson insinuates, (p. 38,) because any one opposed it, but because 
 it was thought to furnish an immoveable foundation on which to 
 build the doctrine of original tin. — Pelagius and his abettors were 
 extremely embarrassed with this argument. A variety of evasions 
 were attempted, in order to escape it3 force. " Sometimes, they af- 
 firmed that infants had actual sins," which needed forgiveness. 
 'Sometimes, that they had pre-existed; and it was for sins done in 
 gome forrr.tr state lh?.t they were brought to baptism. Sometimes they 
 said they were not baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but that they 
 might he sanctified. Sometimes, that they zvere baptized for forgiveness ; 
 not that they had any sin, but because they were baptized into a 
 church where forgiveness ivas to be bad.'''' (See Wall's ~ist. of Inf. 
 Bap. vol. i. p. £80.) Such were the straits to which these acute here- 
 iiarchs were reduced, in order to reconcile their opinion with infant 
 baptism. How easily had all these been " removed, and the battery 
 which so much annoyed them been demolished at once, by only den\~ 
 tag that infants iv ere to be baptized.'' So strong were their lempt?tions 
 to make^uch a denial, that Pelagius complains of its being slander* 
 ously reported that he had actually made it. It is morally certain that 
 he would k<we made it, if, v*ich all his learning, and in all his travels, 
 he had discovered the slightest evidence to justify such a course. Yet 
 he never did. He, on the contrary, asserts the right of infant- to 
 baptism in the strongest terms. His testimony is the most convincing 
 imaginable. See Towgood on Int. Bap. p. 37 ; Milner's Ecc. Hist. 
 
 vol. ii. pp. 350 — 395. Testimonies from antiquity might readily 
 
 be multiplied. The Melevitan. Council, of which Aus UN was a 
 member, decreed as follows: — t* It is our pleasure, that whoever de- 
 nies that newborn infants are to bi baptised — Tit him be anaiftema,"— 
 
152 
 
 How shall this blaze of evidence, respecting 
 the practice of the primitive church, be obscured? 
 
 Mr. Judson has for this purpose brought for- 
 ward a number of modern writers^ who express 
 an opinion that, " in primitive times, none were 
 baptized but adults." (Pp. 36, 37.) — In contra- 
 diction to these, we might bring forward a host 
 of moderns. We might introduce Calvin, say- 
 ing, that " whereas certain persons spread abroad 
 among simple people, that there passed a long 
 series of years, after the resurrection of Christ, 
 in which infant baptism was unknown, therein 
 they lie most abominably ; for there is no writer 
 so ancient, that doth not certainly refer the begin- 
 ning thereof to the age of the apostles." \ We 
 might introduce the learned Brown, testifying, 
 that " none can without the most affronted impo- 
 sition allege, that infant baptism was not com- 
 monly allowed in the primitive ages of Christian- 
 ity. "J We might introduce the cautious and 
 judicious Milner, affirming, that "we have 
 never had such a custom as that of confining bap- 
 tism to adults, nor the churches of God."§ We 
 might introduce witnesses to this effect, without 
 end — but we need not. Through the three first 
 
 The Council of Girona, which convened in Spain, An. 517, determined 
 that when circumstances required it, infants might " be baptized 
 the same day in ivlicb they were bt,m" — Infant baptism was similarly- 
 sanctioned by the Council of Braga. in P.ottu£a\ An. 572. The read- 
 er nay consult farther, Wall's Hist, of Inf. Bap. P. i. chap. vii. — 
 xxiii ; and Fohbesius* Hist, of Theology passim. 
 
 * He introduces, in this connexion, a pa:*sage from the apostle Paul. 
 " As iruny of vou as have beeu baptized into Christ, have put or 
 Christ." (Gal. iti.27.) — Can any be really "baptized into Christ" who 
 are not real Christians ? And will it follow, because real Christians 
 '•have put on Chris' ," that the children of covenanting parents are 
 not to be baptized ? 
 
 J Institutes of Chris. ReTig. Book iv. cli»p. xvi. sect. 8. 
 $ Diet, of Bible, "i E<-c. Hist. vot. i. i\ 401. 
 
loo 
 
 centuries subsequent to the apostles, we have 
 heard Christian writers of the first eminence, tes- 
 tifying implicitly and explicitly, and as it were 
 with one mouth, to the universally approved and 
 established custom of infant baptism. After a 
 lapse of eleven, or twelve, or thirteen hundred 
 years, a few names can be collected, who have, 
 perhaps incautiously, dropped an opinion, that in- 
 fant baptism was not practised in the primitive 
 church. Who shall be believed? 
 
 Mr. Jud son objects, that infant baptism could 
 not be the universal practice of the primitive 
 church, since we have several instances of per- 
 sons " born of Christian parents, who were not 
 baptized but on their own profession." He 
 mentions Je rome, Gregory, Ambrose, Chry- 
 sostom, and Austin. (P. 37.) — "With re- 
 spect to Jerome," says Dr. Worcester, 
 " there is no evidence that he was not baptized 
 in his infancy."* Concerning Gregory, it ap- 
 pears that his father was a determined and bitter 
 enemy to Christianity, perhaps till his son had 
 become of age. He belonged toa" sect most 
 resembling the Samaritans, who professed a mix- 
 ture of Judaism and Paganism. To this opinion 
 he was extremely devoted" and was not convert- 
 ed to the Christian faith, till he had been married 
 many years. He would, without doubt, prohibit 
 the baptism of his son in infancy. f As to Am- 
 brose and Chrysostom, their parents, accord- 
 ing to Dr. Wall, were heathen, at the time of 
 their birth, and for many years afterwards. J Re- 
 
 * Letters to Dr. Baldwin, p. 107. 
 
 t.Mi!,.VER's Ecc. Hist.' vol. ii. p. 267. 
 
 \ Hist. Inf. Bap. Part ii. chap. iii. 
 
 12 
 
134 
 
 specting the instance of Austin, on which Mr. 
 J. seems disposed to rely with the greatest confi- 
 dence, this too is entirely against him. That 
 Austin's father was a Christian, is not pretend- 
 ed. And that his mother was not at least a pro- 
 fessor of religion, till he had arrived to manhood, 
 is certain from his own words. He says of her, 
 in his Confessions, that when he was learning 
 oratory at Carthage, " she had lately begun to 
 feel God's holy love, and had been washed in the 
 laver of baptism"* 
 
 Mr. J. finally brings forward " the case of in- 
 fant communion" as completely invalidating the 
 argument derived from history in favour of in- 
 fant baptism. Indeed he supposes, that every 
 objection which can be urged against infant com- 
 munion, can be equally urged against infant bap- 
 tism ; and that every argument which tends to 
 support the one practice, equally tends to sup- 
 port the other. (Pp. 38, 39.)— If this is true, let 
 infants be admitted to the table. There is no 
 avoiding the arguments in favour of their bap- 
 tism. — But is it true ? — If, says he, " infants 
 ought to be baptized, because under a former 
 dispensation they were circumcised," then " they 
 ought to be admitted to communion, because 
 they formerly partook of the Passover" (P. 59.) 
 — The following quotations will show, that in- 
 fants never did partake, and were never required 
 to partake, of the Passover. 
 
 Hyrcanus in Josephus. " The law forbids 
 the son to eat of the sacrifice, before he has come 
 to the temple, and there presented an offering to 
 Gcd."t 
 
 *Co!ifc£*ieir. Book ii. in MitarSk*9 Ecc. Hist. vol. u. p. 301. 
 t Antiq. lib. xii, csp. iv. sect, 8. 
 
135 
 
 Calvix. " The Passover, which has now 
 been succeeded by the sacred supper, did not ad- 
 mit guests of all descriptions promiscuously, but 
 was rightly eaten only by those who were of suffi- 
 cient age to be able to inquire into its meaning.' 1 ''* 
 
 Bp. Patrick. " When children were twelve 
 years old, their parents were bound to bring them 
 to the temple at the Passover, where, seeing 
 what was done, they would be led to inquire, 
 What mean ye by these things ?"f 
 
 Poole's Synopsis. " Children, at the age 
 of twelve years, were brought by their parents to 
 the temple ; and from that time they began to eat 
 of the Passover and other sacrifices. "J 
 
 Stackhouse. "Till a child was twelve 
 years old, he was not obliged to go to Jerusalem 
 at the time of the Passover.") 
 
 Dr. Doddridge. " The males were not 
 brought to the temple, till they were twelve years 
 old ; and the sacrifices they ate were chiefly peace 
 offerings, which became the coi.imon food to all 
 that were clean in the family. "j| 
 
 It appears from the very nature of the case, as 
 well as from these testimonies, that though in- 
 fants were formerly circumcised, they were not 
 required to eat the Passover. Many were cor- 
 porally ^ incapable of eating it ; and more could 
 not, with convenience or prudence, be brought 
 statedly to the temple, at this annual feast.— The 
 argument of Mr. J. is, then, directly inverted. 
 
 * Institutes of Chris. Rel. B. iv. chap. xvi. sect. xxx. 
 t In Ex. xii. % In Ex. xii. 2G, and Annotations on Luke ii. 42, 
 
 i Hist, of Bible, B. viii. chap. i. 
 j| Lect. P. ix. Prop. 155. See Lathrop's Dis. on Bap. p. 42, 
 When our Saviour was twelve years old, he went up to the Passover, 
 " according' to the caston ef the feast."' (Luke ii. 42.) See Dr. A. 
 Clakke in toe. 
 
136 
 
 It proves that, though infants are now to be bap- 
 tized, they ought not to be admitted to the table 
 of the Lord. 
 
 Infants are both morally and physically incapa- 
 ble of coming to the Lord's table, according to 
 the meaning of the institution. They "maybe 
 the subjects of the renewing of the Holy Ghost, 
 and sprinkling of the blood of Christ, signified by 
 baptism ;" but they cannot, in the supper, dis- 
 cern the Lord^s body, and partake of it in remem- 
 brance of him* They can be visibly distinguish- 
 ed as the special property of their Maker, 
 Promises can be sealed respecting them, on con- 
 dition of parental fidelity. But they cannot hold 
 spiritual communion with Christ, or properly ap- 
 proach the symbols of such communion. Since 
 all subjects are the passive recipients of baptism, 
 infants are as capable of this ordinance as adults. 
 But they are physically incapable of those exter- 
 nal voluntary actions, which are required in the 
 institution of the supper. They cannot take the 
 bread or wine. They can neither eat the one, 
 nor drink the other.* 
 
 If infants are thus incapable of coming to the 
 Lord's table, then there can be no good reason 
 why this should be required of them. To adopt 
 the phraseology and manner of Mr. Judson, In- 
 fants " ought to be baptized, because they are 
 connected with their parents in covenant with 
 God." But this is no good reason why they 
 should be required to perform an action of which 
 they are incapable. Infants " ought to be bap- 
 
 * " All the words of our Lord's command are so expressed, that 
 they cannot belong to infants ; who can neither receive the bread, 
 nor eat it, unless it be chewed for them, or soaked.'" (Witsivs' 
 Ecor), of Cot. vol. iii. p. 436.) 
 
137 
 
 tized, because they are members of the visible 
 church." But this is no good reason why they 
 should participate in an ordinance of which they 
 are incapable. Infants " ought to be baptized, 
 because Christ commanded them to be brought 
 to him, and declared that of such is the kingdom 
 of God." But Christ was never so unreasonable 
 as to command them to come to him, in an ordi- 
 nance of which they are utterly incapable. In- 
 fants " ought to be baptized, because they are 
 not unclean, but holy." But this is no good 
 reason why they should engage in that of which 
 their infant age is incapable. It would " lessen 
 the privileges which the church anciently enjoy- 
 ed, to withhold baptism from infants." But it 
 lessens no privilege, to restrain them from at- 
 tempting that which they utterly lack capacity to 
 perform. It would be " harsh and injurious to 
 exclude infants from baptism" But it is nei- 
 ther harsh nor injurious that they are not admit- 
 ted to an ordinance, from which they are excluded 
 by their very condition of life. In short, we 
 have the best and soundest reasons for adminis- 
 tering baptism to infants ; but the scriptures no 
 where afford the shadow of a reason for admitting 
 them to the table of the Lord. 
 
 It is true, that by some churches infant com- 
 munion has been practised, and by some partic- 
 ular persons it has been advocated, both in an- 
 cient and modern times. So early as the days of 
 Cyprian, it was customary with some, " to give 
 a piece of bread soaked in wine to children 
 and the sick."* In later periods, when, from a 
 
 * Wrrsftrs 1 Econ. of Cov. -vol. iii. p. 432. " In Cyprian's time, 
 the people of the church of Carthage did oftentimes bring their chil- 
 dren younger than hul teen ordinary tc the communion." (Wall's Hist, 
 of Icf . Bap, vol, i. p. 517.) 
 
 12* 
 
138 
 
 misinterpretation of our Saviour's words, li Ex- 
 cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink 
 his blood, ye have no life in you," (John vi. 53,) 
 it was believed that a partaking of the supper was 
 essential to salvation ; infant communion more 
 generally prevailed. It is mentioned by Pho- 
 tius, Austin, and Paulinus. It continues 
 among the Greeks to the present day. " They 
 crumble the consecrated bread into the wine, take 
 it out with a spoon," and put it into the mouths 
 of infants.* 
 
 Were infant baptism founded on mere histori- 
 cal evidence, and were this evidence as clear in 
 favour of infant communion as of infant baptism, 
 the practices would then stand on equal ground. 
 But none of this is true. The baptism of infants 
 is founded on scripture. The communion of in- 
 fants is virtually condemned in scripture. Nor 
 is the argument from history, in the two cases, 
 by any means equal. We discover clear intima- 
 tions of infant baptism, even in the middle of the 
 apostolick age. We discover no intimations of 
 infant communion, till the middle of the third 
 century. We have the most convincing evi- 
 dence, that infant baptism was universally prac- 
 tised in the primitive church. We have no such 
 evidence that infant communion was ever univer- 
 sal. The fathers speak with the utmost confi- 
 dence of infant baptism, that it was handed them 
 directly from the apostles. Those who make 
 mention of infant communion, never speak of it> 
 that I can learn, after this manner, f Infant bap- 
 
 * WiTSitrs' Econ. of Cot. vol. ft. p. 432. 
 t Dr. Doddridge, speaking of Peirce's learned Essay in favour 
 cf infant communion, says, u His proof from the more ancient fa- 
 lters g wr; dt/atw." (Lect. P. ix. Prop, 155.) Mr, Cowles ok- 
 
139 
 
 tism bears infallible marks of its divine original, 
 Infant communion has every feature of an inno- 
 vation in the church. On what ground, then, is 
 infant communion introduced, as invalidating the 
 evidence, either from scripture or tradition, in fa- 
 vour of infant baptism ? 
 
 " Ail the churches throughout the Christian 
 world were, in the age of the apostles, established 
 upon the same plan. Either they all baptized in- 
 fants, or they all rejected them. And the prac- 
 tice of the apostles in this matter must be uni- 
 versally and infallibly known. All Christians 
 knew, whether or not Paul and his companions 
 baptized their children." 
 
 On the principles of our opponents, the apos- 
 tles every where established churches upon the 
 plan of adult baptism only. They uniformly re- 
 jected infants, and excluded them from the ordi- 
 nance. At what period, then, we ask, was infant 
 baptism introduced ? Mr. Judsojj supposes it 
 " commenced in the latter part of the second cen- 
 tury ;" (p. 35.) which is within less than a cen- 
 tury of the apostolick age.* — But " how," says 
 Mr. Towgood, "how must the persons who 
 first attempted to introduce it be received ? 
 Would not all their brethren immediately cry out 
 upon the innovation, and demand, ' By what au- 
 thority do you presume to perform this new, this 
 unheard of and strange ceremony of baptizing 
 an infant V Suppose them to have urged, in 
 
 serves, that, u though infant communion might be practised in some 
 churches, it never was an universal practice ; neither is it asserted by 
 ancient writers to be derived from the apostles, as infant baptism 
 was." (Sermons on Inf. Bap. p. 78.) 
 
 *This contradicts the assertion, which has been so oftea repeated, 
 that infant baptism is a " reiki of popery" The same is contradict- 
 ed by the fact, that the Syrian Christian;,, who have had li£ connexion 
 fsith tlie Pope, hmt always practised infant baptism. 
 
140 
 
 support of their practice, the same scriptures 
 with us ; would ituot presently have been replied 
 upon them with unanswerable strength — ' Did 
 not the apostles and first preachers of Christianity 
 understand the true sense and force of these scrip- 
 tures ? Yet we all perfectly know, and you can- 
 not but own, that not one of them ever baptized 
 an infant. Look into all the churches through- 
 out the whole earth, and you will find that there 
 never was such a thing known, or heard of before 
 amongst Christians.' — What, under these cir- 
 cumstances, could the first baptizers of infants 
 possibly reply ? Could they pretend that it was 
 an apostolick injunction and practice ? Every 
 Christian then living could have stepped forth, 
 and borne witness to the falsehood of such an 
 account. Could they hope to establish this in- 
 vention of their own, and was it actually establish- 
 ed^ in direct opposition to apostolick authority ? — 
 Impossible to imagine ! — What d^en, I ask again, 
 (if all the churches in the world were constituted 
 by the apostles upon a directly opposite plan,) 
 what could the first baptizers of infants urge in 
 favour of their practice ? Or, how was it possi- 
 ble it should be received, yea, prevail^ yea, so uni- 
 versally prevail, that the very learned and acute 
 Pel a cms, about three hundred years after, nev- 
 er heard of a church, amongst either Catholicks 
 or hereticks, who did not administer baptism to 
 infants ? — Could we suppose a few persons of so 
 odd a turn of mind, as to run into this quite nov- 
 el and unheard of practice ; can it be imagined 
 that whole churches would be led blindly away 
 after them ? Or, if whole churches might be 
 thus seduced, could whole nations be so too ? 
 Yea, if whole nations might, can it enter into the 
 
141 
 
 heart of any reasonable being, that all the nations of 
 the Christian ivorld should, in the course of a few 
 years, foil in universally with this anti-apostolick 
 and new-invented ceremony of religion, and apos- 
 tatize from the primitive and pure doctrine of 
 
 Christ ? The extravagance of the supposition 
 
 is greatly increased, by remembering that the 
 church was early divided into a number of sects, 
 who were severe and watchful spies upon each 
 other's conduct. If any of them had innovated 
 in the matter of baptizing infants, how loudly 
 would the rest have exclaimed upon the innova- 
 tion ! But, it seems, so far were they from this, 
 that, laying aside their prejudices and animosi- 
 ties, they ail surprizingly agree, in the affair of 
 infant baptism, to depart from the apostolick 
 practice; and, by an unaccountable confederacy, 
 connive at one another in this dangerous supersti- 
 tion ! Strange, beyond all belief! that, amidst 
 their mutual accusations, reproaches, and corn- 
 plaints, we meet not, in all antiquity, with one 
 upon this head !"* I could more easily account 
 (unaccountable as the supposition may be) for the 
 introduction and universal spread of infant bap- 
 tism in two or three centuries, than I could for 
 its introduction, without disputes and controver- 
 sies, among Christians. "No body or bodies of 
 men ever changed either their political or religious 
 sentiments all at once, without warm and lengthy 
 disputes. And if infant baptism had been an in- 
 novation — a corruption of one of the peculiar 
 ordinances of the gospel— -it would not have been 
 introduced in the early days of Christianity, 
 without commotions, controversies, and divisions* 
 
 » TWgood on Inf. Bap. pp. 40—42. 
 
142 
 
 But, strange to tell ! the pen of history has not 
 transmitted to us the least intimation of any con- 
 troversy about it ; though it has recorded a dis- 
 pute of far less consequence — respecting the 
 proper time of baptizing infants ! n * 
 
 Add to this, that catalogues of all the sects of 
 professing Christians in the four first centuries 
 (the very period when infant baptism must have 
 been introduced, if it were not of divine original) 
 were early written, and are still extant.f "In 
 these several catalogues, the differences of dpin* 
 ion which obtained in those primitive times, re- 
 specting baptism, are particularly recounted, and 
 minutely designated. Some sects are mentioned, 
 who made no use of water baptism ; and the 
 different forms and ways in which baptism was 
 administered by different sects, are distinctly de- 
 scribed. Yet there is not the least intimation 
 of any, except those who denied water baptism 
 altogether, who did not consider infant baptism 
 a divine institution. "J 
 
 The argument, therefore is reduced to this ;-- 
 if infant baptism is an innovation, it confessedly 
 entered the church very soon after the canon of 
 scripture closed ; and, in a few years more, 
 " without a single precept to warrant, or a single 
 example to encourage it, yea, with the well known 
 practice of the apostles, and of all the churches 
 they ever planted, directly, openly, palpably 
 against it ; under all these disadvantages, it so 
 universally prevailed, that, upon the face of the 
 whole earth, there was not a church found, where 
 
 *Dr. Esimoss 1 Serm. on Bap. p. 37. 
 tThe authors were Irexsus, Epiphanius, Ph:ilastrius, Aus- 
 tin, and Theodoret. See Wall's Hi?t. of Inf. Bap. P. i, chap. sxi. 
 IDr. Worcester's Letten, pp. 121, \% c l, 
 
143 
 
 it was not performed !" Yea, more ; it entered 
 the church, it prevailed, it became universal, 
 without a whisper of opposition,* without a word 
 of dispute ; all parties confederating to connive 
 at the errour, to blot every trace of it from the 
 page of history, and never to utter a single word, 
 from which it could be discovered that they had 
 departed from gospel rules ! — " To him who be- 
 lieves this, what can be incredible /" 
 
 Is it not morally certain, that infant baptism 
 w 7 as not an innovation in the church, but was 
 sanctioned by the practice of the apostles them- 
 selves ? On this ground, and this only, "all sa- 
 cred and profane history, relating to the subject, 
 will appear plain and consiscent, from Abraham 
 to Christ, and from Christ to this day." 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The Author wishes, in conclusion, to express 
 his gratitude, that, amidst a multitude of paro- 
 chial and domestick avocations, he has been ena- 
 bled to bring this little Treatise to a close. He 
 cordially commits it to the candour of the pub- 
 lick, and the blessing of Almighty God. It has 
 not been his intention to excite a party spirit, but 
 to defend, according to his real understanding of 
 it, an institution of the gospel. On a review of 
 his labours, he feels an increasing confidence in 
 the conclusions he has endeavoured to establish, 
 that Immersion is not essential to Bap- 
 
 * This assertion is made with a perfect recollection of the whole 
 testimony of Tertulliax. He did not consider infant baptism un- 
 authorized, unlawful, or in many cases unimportant. He advised 
 to delay it on the ground of expediency, and in view of reasons which 
 would discredit any cause, 
 
144 
 
 tism, and that the Children of believ- 
 ing, COVENANTING PARENTS ARE PROPER 
 SUBJECTS OF THIS ORDINANCE. With those 
 
 who honestly believe otherwise, he has no dispo- 
 sition to contend. Many of them, with whom 
 he has the happiness to be acquainted, he re- 
 spects and loves. With many of them he hopes 
 to dwell forever in a brighter world. 
 
 Let those who peruse the preceding pages re- 
 member, that neither circumcision nor uncir- 
 cumcision, neither baptism, nor any other out- 
 ward form, can, of itself, avail any thing. We 
 must become new creatures. We must experi- 
 ence the baptism of the Holy Ghost. We must 
 be born again — born of the Spirit — or we can 
 never see the kingdom of God. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 HAVING been solicited by a number of 
 friends to take some notice, in this Edition of my 
 work, of the late Mr. Robinson's History of 
 Baptism, I have concluded to present what I have 
 to offer on this subject, in the form of an Appen- 
 dix. — I have perused Mr. Robinson's History 
 with some profit as well as pleasure. I consider 
 it not altogether destitute of merit, though his 
 rooted prepossessions in favour, not merely of the 
 Baptist peculiarities, but a very lax theology, are 
 apparent in almost every line. The publick will 
 not expect me to eulogize this work ; and some 
 of the principal exceptions I have taken against 
 it, will be briefly expressed in the following 
 particulars. 
 
 1. It does not seem, in different parts of it, to 
 be consistent with itself. — -On one page we are 
 told, that " the Mishna, written about the middle 
 of the second century, says nothing on the sub- 
 ject" of Proselyte baptism. (P. 45.) On another, 
 that " the writers of the Mishna affirm that the 
 Jews baptized their Proselytes." (P. 304.) On 
 one page we are told, that the baptism of Prose- 
 lytes " came to light through the later rabbies, 
 in the eleventh or twelfth century." (P. 45.) 
 On another, it is admitted to be " highly proba- 
 ble, that in the time o/Origen, the Jews did 
 initiate by dipping in water." (P. 305.) On one 
 page we are told " that baptism was universalis 
 13 
 
146 
 
 performed by immersion, for the first 1300 years. 5 ' 
 (P. 137.) Oa another, that "sprinkling -was'! 
 practised " in Africa in the third century." (P. 
 402.) On one page we are told r that " the Lu- 
 theran reformers continued" to practise immer- 
 sion. (P. 393.) On another, we are presented 
 with their " established rituals," which ordain 
 that baptism shall be administered by pouring* 
 (P. 483.) In various places, in the former part 
 of the work, we are told of the aversion of the 
 common people to the baptism of infants. " The 
 reluctant laity were forced to yield to it." (P. 
 229.) Presently we are informed, that " the 
 lower sort of the people, in all Christian countries, 
 since the establishment of infant baptism, have 
 always discovered a violent attachment to it." 
 (P. 429.) In the first chapter of this work, the 
 baptism of John is considered as belonging to the 
 new dispensation-— as being Christian baptism. 
 Yet we are afterwards taught that Christ institu- 
 ted his baptism, subsequent to his resurrection. 
 (Chap, vii.) Mr. R. represents the baptism of 
 Christ to be that act, by which he regularly " en- 
 tered on his publick ministry." (P. 33.) Yet in 
 this act he set his disciples an example, that they 
 should "follow his steps." (P. 58.) 
 
 2. In the work under consideration, there are 
 many evident perversions, not to say contradic- 
 tions, of the sacred volume. Two or three in- 
 stances will be noticed. The Evangelist affirms 
 that " Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
 round about Jordan, went out" to John, " and 
 were baptized."" (Matth. iii. 5, 6.) No, says 
 Mr. R. there were but few baptized ; the multitude 
 went out "only as spectators." (P. 32.) Theapos- 
 
147 
 
 tie Paul observes that " divers baptisms" were 
 enjoined and practised under the Jewish economy. 
 (Heb. ix. 10.) Mr. R. observes, on the contrary, 
 that " there never was such a rite as Jewish bap- 
 tism." (P. 46.) We are assured by Mark, that 
 " the Pharisees and all the Jews, when they come 
 from the market, except they wash, eat not." 
 (viii. 3.) But Mr. R. quotes and approves the 
 sentiment, that "the Jews did ?wt wash themselves 
 or their hands when they came from the market, 
 but merely the herbs and other things which they 
 had bought." (P. 40.) 
 
 3. In the work before us, the learned reader 
 will discover many historical inaccuracies. For 
 instance, the author very confidently assures us, 
 that "the primitive Christians baptized naked" 
 (P. 94.) The apostles, and their immediate suc- 
 cessors, were " the primitive Christians.'''' If 
 these baptized by immersion, and immersed n&- 
 ted; we presume the Christian world has been 
 greatly deceived. Mr. R. also asserts, that " the 
 Syrian Christians always administer baptism by 
 immersion." (P. 18.) This is not according to 
 the testimony of those who have actually visited 
 them. " It is an imposing idea," said the Me- 
 tropolitan of the Syrian church to -Dr. Buchan- 
 an, "to wash the body with water to begin a 
 new life. Are those who practise in this way 
 baptized again, every time they relapse into 
 
 sin?"*- When Austin visited England, in 
 
 the fourth century, he endeavoured to reform the 
 natives in a number of particulars. Especially he 
 wished them to conform to the church of Rome, 
 in respect to the time and manner of baptizing 
 
 *,BuciiAy.AJv , s Researches, p. 181- 
 
148 
 
 cneir infants.* From this simple fact, Mr. R, 
 takes occasion to represent, that Austin intro- 
 duced the baptism of infants, de novo, into 
 Britain. (P. 127.) 
 
 4. In the history of Mr. R. some of the car- 
 dinal doctrines of revelation are denounced and 
 ridiculed ; and often in a strain of language which 
 ill accords with the dfenitv of sacred subjects* 
 It is sarcastically remarked, that with the ancient 
 Trinitarians, " the belief of one Lord was the pro- 
 fission of three in one." (P. 22/.) The African 
 clergy in the days of Cyprian, who are known to 
 have been perfectly orthodox in their views cf 
 the person and character of Christ, are tauntingly 
 represented, as tuning '" brought out for a Jesus 
 a sort of Egyptian mummy, spiced with sillisaws, 
 which they agreed to call eloquence, and hung all 
 over with awkward hieroglyphicks of the east." 
 (P. 185.) If it is difficult perfectly to understand 
 this sentence, it is not difficult to discover in it 
 a sneer at the doctrine of our Saviour's Deity. 
 I appeal to a religious publick, whether such 
 language, on such a subject, is not highly improp- 
 er and even impious. In various parts of his 
 work, Mr. R. denounces and ridicules the doc- 
 trine of original sin. He prohibits to churches 
 any "fundamental articles" of faith; (p. 506.) 
 and insists that " the right of every Christian to 
 teach and baptize others, is perfectly in unison 
 with the whole spirit of Christianity." (P. 55.) 
 In a strain of awful irony, he represents bastaids 
 as " eminently children of God," and affirms that 
 " if others were dedicated and baptized, these 
 ought to have had the Lord's supper administered 
 to them." (P. 194.) 
 
 •Wall's Hist. In. Bap. . si. chap. 4. 
 
149 
 
 But, 5th — The most exceptionable and offen- 
 sive part of this work is the author's virulent 
 and abusive treatment of the ancient fathers, and 
 some of the modern Reformers of the Christian 
 church. " Ir e N.EUS, to give himself consequence, 
 pretended to have been a disciple of Polycarp, 
 who pretended to have been a disciple of John." 
 (P. 213.) " Cyprian was an ignorant fanatick, 
 and as great a tyrant as ever existed. The cor- 
 respondence between him and Cornelius, bish- 
 op of Rome, is a system of the most atrocious 
 tyranny ; and it is astonishing, if government had 
 any knowledge of their practices, that patience 
 deferred their martyrdom so long." (Pp. 179, 
 190 ) " Or i g e n was one of the most mischiev- 
 ous men, that ever set foot in the Christian church; 
 and his pretended learning was a publick misfor- 
 tune." (P. 33.,.) The church order of Cycil, 
 bishop of Jerusalem, was "a system of fraud 
 and violence." The church under his care 
 " filled the holy city with every thing except 
 morality ; for idolatry, adultery, theft, assassina- 
 tion, and every kind of iniquity, were openly 
 practised there."" (P. 220.) 
 
 "Epiphanius wrote slander in folio." (P. 
 167.) ^* The little credit due to the history of 
 Eusebius, is due only to such parts as are attest- 
 ed by others more crediole than himself." (P. 209.) 
 Indeed, says Mr. R. all " the Fathers are miser- 
 able evidences of the truth of facts, as well as in- 
 competent judges of right." (P. 208.) But 
 
 none of the patriarchs of the Christian church 
 are treated so unmercifully under the hands of 
 our historian as the great Austin. This person, 
 we are informed, " took up the ministry as a 
 13* 
 
150 
 
 trade ;" was metamorphosed into a bishop ;" and 
 was " never backward to sound his own fame." 
 He " was a crafty, irritated man ;" who was " too 
 insignificant to obtain distinction in the state," 
 and whose " name has sunk below contempt in 
 every free country." " He became a merciless 
 tyrant ;" who "formed cabals, named councils, 
 and placed virtue in cursing and killing good 
 men." He " truckled to the bishop of Rome, 
 only for the sake of playing Jupiter in Africa." 
 He " was the scourge of all good men within his 
 reach, whose confiscations, banishments, and 
 death, together with the ruin of their families, 
 lay at his door." " Barbarous Austin ! If a man 
 were driven to the necessity of choosing one saint 
 of two candidates, it would not be Austin, it 
 would be Saint Balaam, the son ofBosor!" "Who 
 can be grieved to see the Vandals come forward, 
 ^nd subvert all the labours of Austin's life?" 
 (Pp. 127, 195, 206.)— This is that distinguish- 
 ed and excellent Christian, whose name has de- 
 scended to modern times, as "the great lu- 
 minary" of the age in which he lived. And 
 those, whose names are given above, are the 
 men, generally, to whom the apostles transmitted 
 the concerns of the church. They were " men 
 of approved fidelity and gravity; stood the fiery 
 trial of some of the severest persecutions ever 
 known ; testified their love to the Lord Jesus in 
 the most striking manner;" and, in most in- 
 stances, sealed their testimony 'with their blood. 
 Their crime was, they adored the Trinity ; be- 
 lieved what are now termed the doctrines of 
 grace ; and inculcated and practised infant bap- 
 tism. This was sufficient to subject them to the 
 
151 
 
 lash of Mr. Robinson, and to that abusive treat- 
 ment which we have above described. Nor is- 
 this historian any respecter of persons. For a simi- 
 lar offence, he has inflicted on more modern Chris- 
 tians a similar castigation. The council of Girona, 
 which had the misfortune to ordain, among other 
 things, the baptism of infants, is described as con- 
 sisting of " a low, illiterate, mongrel sort of Afri- 
 can, Jewish Christians." (P. 252.) Pray, what 
 sort of Christians are these ? — John Knox was 
 " filled with Calvinistical fury." The people of 
 Scotland, " inspired with fury by him, raised a 
 civil war," and committed all sorts of outrages 
 in the name of the Lord." (Pp. 388, 389.) The 
 Seminaries of Zurich and Geneva, under the in- 
 spection of the great reformers Zuinglius and 
 Calvin, are styled " barbarous schools," out of 
 which the good English reformers received the 
 doctrines of sprinkling and blood- shedding for the 
 faith. (P. 391.) 
 
 My feelings, in view of this part of our history,. 
 I dare not attempt to express. I will only re- 
 mark, that had it not been for these reformers, 
 Mr. R. might have lived and died, immured in 
 the darkness and delusion of Popery. 
 
 It is hoped the admirers of this author will 
 not be, in all respects, his imitators. And it is 
 justly matter of rejoicing that we live in a period 
 when the ancient asperity of religious controver- 
 sy is as unpopular as it is unbecoming. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction, - - - 3 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Section i. — Preliminary Observations. 5 
 
 Section ii. — Immersion not essential to Baptism, 16 
 Section iii. — Do. ------ 36 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Introduction, - - - - - - 51 
 
 Section i. — The visible Church in all periods the 
 
 same, 55 
 
 Section ii. — The Covenant of the Church in all pe- 
 riods the same, - - - - - - 6T 
 
 Section iii. — The Infants of covenanting Parents in 
 a sense members of the Church, 89 
 
 v Section iv. — Baptism now substituted in the place 
 of Circumcision, ------ 98 
 
 Section v.- — The Infants of covenanting Parents to 
 be baptized, - - - - - - -107 
 
 Section vi. — History of Infant Baptism, - - 124 
 Conclusion, - - - - - - -143 
 
 Appendix, containing Strictures on Mr. Robinson's 
 History of Baptism, 1-15 
 
» • • • » # # • ♦ 
 
 I l I 01 * 
 
 # % # • * s * ' * • * 
 «•«•** + •• 
 
 * ft * • • * •' 
 
 * # •> * . # < ~tt • ••#' •• r 
 
 • ft ' # * % 
 
 i 
 
 i # •' * * *\ 
 • • ft * * ■• / 
 
 • • ♦ * £ t> •,.•., ft • * # # 
 
 # •• • * ir* ■# ir • « *•»••#• 
 
 • * C ft * • • • •*•••»» 
 
 4 • • ♦ • • # ♦ • • *• • • • # •;, 
 
 • » * • * * # • • « * • a *> mm 
 
 » • * « 
 
 • • • e , ft *#,#>#• • • • # 
 
 * . t, « - « 4 * • ft * ft * * • • • • £ 
 
 « ft ft * » t ••%*•*## + +* 3 
 
 4 # • * ft ft - %*« .*»••# 
 U» ft ft »ftft» ••+*•>» • • £$ 
 
 • •**• • *#*•»** + ## 
 e* • ••••••••«• • •• • #i 
 
 • »**♦«•#»»»•»* * .• • j 
 ft ft • ft ft • ft • • •»•*» • ** • 
 
 • ' * * * * ' # a 
 
 I * • ft * ft • • t • * A * • *i 
 
 • ft •••••••••••# l 
 
 • « 
 
 t • 
 
 • ft 
 
 ft • 
 
 ft • 
 
 ft ft 
 
 ft • 
 
 • * 
 
 ft • 
 
 • ft 
 
 t t 
 
 « ft ft •##•••»•* 
 
 ft ft ft • ••.'#.#•*•* 
 
 • % 
 
 • ft 
 ft 
 
 ft ' • 
 
 • • 
 
 ft * 
 
 £ 
 
 ft ' 
 
 • • • » • • • ••*.*• 
 • ••••#♦.***•• 
 
 # ft ft • 4 • ft « * • • • * 
 
 # ft ft> «l « ♦ • • 
 
 • - 
 * » ft * <***•♦* 
 
 # ft ft • 
 
 ft 9 S * * 
 ft < a « 
 
 t ft 
 ft • • 
 
 « # #« » * ♦ • • ;■•■•■* 
 
 ♦ t t * # • • ' • • ' * : " • •' 
 
 ^♦•♦•-^ft* 14 * 
 
 * • * * • 9 i". - •■ • * * 
 ^•♦»*ft#* e#,f