UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Class 
 
 [ 
 
 Book 
 
 tele, 
 
 Volume 
 
CONVERSATIONS 
 
 ON 
 
 BAPTISM, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 / ANSWERS TO THE ENQUIRIES 
 
 OF A 
 
 gottws Confcm, 
 
 RESPECTING the sentiments 
 
 OP THOSE WHO PRACTISE 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 BY JAMES EELLS, A. M. 
 
 minister of the gospel. 
 
 ‘ B f * ■ “ } h * of the Apostles and Prophets J es 
 
 hrist hnnself heing the chief corner stone. ’’—St. Paul, 
 
 UTICA, 
 
 PRINTED BY HASTINGS & TRACY. 
 
 im. 
 
'L&S'.I 
 Ee l a. 
 
 Northern District of New- York, to wit 
 
 BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the ninth day of Au- 
 gust, in the fifty-first year of the independence of the United 
 States of America, A. D. 1827, James Eells, of the said dis- 
 trict, hath deposited in this office the title of a book, the right 
 whereof he claims as author, in the words following, to wit:— - 
 “ Conversations ©n Baptism, containing answers to the en- 
 quiries of a Young Convert, respecting the sentiments of those 
 who practice Infant Baptism. By James Eells, A. M. Min- 
 ister of the Gospel. “ Built on the foundation of the Apostles 
 and the Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner 
 stone.”— St. PauL v ' 
 
 In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States* 
 entitled “ An act for the encouragement of learning, by secu- 
 ring the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and 
 proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mention- 
 ed and also to the act, entitled “An act supplementary to 
 the act, entitled ‘ An act for the encouragement of learning, j 
 by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, to the au- 
 thors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein 
 mentioned,’ and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of 
 designing, engraving and etching historical and other prints.’* 
 RICHARD R. LANSING, 
 
 Clerk of the District Court of the United States 
 for the Northern District of New- York, 
 
5# / A M. V¥ , ic ft it jfr p. 
 
 nB-EBASB. 
 
 Among the multitude of books on the subject of bap- 
 tism, it is the opinion of most ministers, and of many other 
 intelligent Christians, with whom the writer has convers- 
 ed, that there is no one to be found exactly suited to the 
 state of young converts , who have never attended much to 
 any religious subject, who have little opportunity to read, 
 and having doubts respecting the doctrine of infant bap- 
 tism, are desirous of knowing the arguments in support of 
 this doctrine, and are determined to govern their faith and 
 practice solely by the word of God. The current publica- 
 tions are too voluminous, or too obscure, or too much 
 tinctured with a controversial spirit, or they are not upon 
 a plan sufficiently familiar and interesting to young per- 
 sons, to meet the case under consideration. An attempt 
 to remedy these evils, and to present a work exactly suited 
 to this class of persons, the writer well knows, is attended 
 with many difficulties ; not the least of which are to decide 
 judiciously what things to omit , of all that might be perti- 
 nently said on this subject ; and how to exhibit the most 
 essential points in the plainest and clearest light, in a man- 
 ner sufficiently concise, and in language suited to the 
 minds of those for whom it is particularly designed. How 
 far he has succeeded in attaining this object, must be left 
 for those to judge who are disposed to peruse the follow- 
 ing pages. The leading object of what is here written, is 
 to confirm and illustrate the doctrine, that the church of 
 God is spiritual or holy ; being established upon a spirit- 
 ual or holy covenant , both as relates to its requirements 
 and promises. Of course, that it must be the same essen- 
 tially, both under the Jewish and Christian dispensations. 
 The doctrine of infant baptism follows as a consequence. 
 
4 Preface. 
 
 Having examined the scriptures, particularly the Old Tes- 
 tament, with peculiar care upon this point, and finding 
 what appears to him the clearest and most abundant evi- 
 dence of the truth of this doctrine, especially as it relates 
 to the church under the Jewish dispensation, and consi- 
 dering this as the main pillar in support of infant baptism, 
 the writer has here presented, summarily, the result of his 
 enquiries. He has chosen the form of familiar conversa- 
 tion, as being the most interesting, particularly to young 
 persons, and as affording an opportunity for the clearest 
 illustrations. He has endeavored to maintain a spirit of 
 Christian meekness and candor, when alluding to his 
 brethren who advocate different sentiments. He sincere- 
 ly hopes that what is here presented to the public will not 
 be instrumental of exciting animosity ; but that by leading 
 to a candid and faithful searching of the scriptures, the 
 result may be subservient to4he cause of truth and right 
 eousness. 
 
eoufcevsattous on 
 
 CONVERSATION I. 
 
 Containing a general vieiu of the Church under the Jew- 
 ish Dispensation; showing that none but believers 
 were in covenant with God, or could have any right to 
 covenant blessings * 
 
 Minister. —Good morning, my young brother : I am 
 glad to see you at my house. Do you enjoy the presence 
 of God now as much as you have done ? 
 
 Convert.— I have not enjoyed much, Sir, for some days 
 past. My mind has been exercised on the subject of bap- 
 tism ; and I have come to you, as my pastor, to present a 
 number of enquiries on this subject, which I feel to be ve- 
 ry important. 
 
 Min. — I will cheerfully give you a view of my senti- 
 ments, with the scriptural grounds on which they rest, in 
 answer to any enquiries that you may wish to make. But 
 you must carefully examine the scriptures for yourself, and 
 see that you are established on that sure foundation. 
 
 Con. — That, Sir, has always been my determination. I 
 would therefore enquire, what evidence you find in the 
 word of God to support the doctrine of infant baptism ? 
 
 * Tbe word right, in this place, does not imply that believers 
 have any worthiness which entitles them to favor from God — 
 for they deserve nothing but evil. All temporal as well a& spi- 
 ritual blessings are bestowed on them as a free gift, only for 
 the sake of Christ. Neither do they ever become believers, 
 or do any thing which God accepts as obedience, except ‘'so 
 far as their hearts are renewed by the Holy Spirit. 'The word, 
 right means only that they have an interest in the promises^* 
 God’s gracious covenant. 
 
6 
 
 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 Win . — A leading argument in support of this doctrine* 
 is derived from the Abrahamic covenant, recorded in the 
 1 7th chapter of Genesis. 
 
 Con. — How, Sir, is that covenant connected with Chris- 
 tian baptism ? 
 
 Min .■ — Baptism is the sign or token of our covenant re- 
 lation to God, and of our interest in the blessings of that 
 covenant ; and this is the covenant which was made with 
 Abraham. 
 
 Con.— What, Sir, are we to understand by this cove- 
 nant* and by the sign or token of it ? 
 
 Mm.— The word covenant is here to be taken in its 
 common acceptation* as denoting an agreement between 
 two parties, in which certain things are proposed by one 
 party to be done by the other ; and certain benefits promi- 
 sed to those who comply with these proposals. A cove- 
 nant consists of tw r o parts, requirements and promises, 
 The requirements state the things to be done ; and the 
 promises state the benefits to be enjoyed by those who 
 comply with the requirements. The sign or token of a 
 covenant is the external rite or mark by which the cove- 
 nant is distinguished or known. 
 
 Con. — -But, Sir, I do not see how any thing in this cov- 
 enant can prove infant baptism. 
 
 Min . — Abraham was required, in this covenant transac- 
 tion, to dedicate himself and his children to God, by ap- 
 plying to his children, as well as to himself, the rite of cir- 
 cumcision, which was the appointed token of the cove- 
 nant, (a) Circumcision was abolished at the crucifixion 
 of Christ ; and baptism was, directly after, instituted in its 
 place, as a token of the same covenant. Baptism is now 
 in the place of circumcision, and therefore is to be appli- 
 ed to the same subjects, viz, to believers, and also to their 
 children. 
 
 Con.— This argument rests wholly on the supposition, 
 that the covenant with Abraham is the same with that on 
 which the church of God is now established. But I have 
 always understood that these were different Covenants, 
 both in their requirements and promises ; that the covenant 
 with Abraham was only an external, temporal constitution. 
 requiring nothing but external performances, and promis - 
 
 a Gen xvii, 11, 
 
Conversations on Baptism , 1 
 
 mg nothing hut temporal blessings ; and that it included 
 the whole Jewish nation, believers and unbelievers. 
 
 Mm.— I know that this is the sentiment of some ; but 
 you, I trust, will not embrace it without a careful exami- 
 nation. 
 
 Con . — It is my determination to examine this subject, 
 as I would hope to do every other, both by reason and the 
 word of God, before I establish my sentiments. 
 
 Min. — Is.it then either rational or scriptural to suppose 
 that the covenant with Abraham and the people of Israel, 
 was a mere externals ceremonial, graceless constitution, 
 having no respect whatever to vital godliness ? Did God 
 make a covenant for this people, and with them, that em- 
 braced all his enemies and friends together, and promised 
 them all the same privileges and blessings ? Did he give 
 them assurance, in this covenant transaction, that if they 
 would observe the rite of circumcision, and all the other 
 rites of the Jewish law if they would strictly attend upon 
 the forms of religion, which exhibit the appearance of 
 sanctity ; if they would make a fair outside show, whatev- 
 er wickedness might be in their hearts ; that he w r ould re- 
 ceive them and acknowledge them as his covenant people; 
 and he would be their covenant God ? Were such the con- 
 ditions on which he promised to give them the land of Ca- 
 naan, exalt them to distinguished honor, and grant them 
 peculiar blessings; and that he would be their inherit- 
 ance ;{a) and their portion ;(b) and would own them as 
 his peculiar, {c) his redeemed, (d) his chosen people; his 
 children ;{e) his heritage his portion ;(g) and a holy 
 people to himself ? ( h ) Did he make such a covenant as 
 this with his enemies, and give them all a title to such cov- 
 enant blessings ? Was it, indeed, the great object of this 
 covenant, to hide all that pertains to the life of godliness, 
 and to make a pompous display of forms and ceremonies ? 
 Such a covenant would not comport with the holiness of 
 God’s character, or the purity of his commands. . It would 
 not consist with the spirit of his. moral government, or the 
 retributions of the judgment day. 
 
 a Deut. ix, 26, 29, 
 c, Deut. xxvi, IB. 
 a Deut. xiv, 1, 2. 
 g Zech. ii, 12, 
 
 h Deut. xxxii, 9. Jer. xii, 10. 
 d Isa. xliii, 1, 3, 4, & xiiv. 21 — 23*. 
 f Jer. xii, 7,0, 9, 10. 
 h Deut. xxvi, 19 
 
£ Conversations on Baptism , 
 
 €V/i.~Xndeed, Sir, I never liked the spirit of this sen- 
 timent ; for I never could make it appear consistent, either 
 with the character and commands of God, or with any 
 thing that pertains to the spirit of his moral government. 
 
 Min . — Such heartless ceremonies were always an abo- 
 mination in the sight of God. See how he upbraids the 
 Jews for such hypocrisy by the prophet Isaiah : — u To 
 what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, 
 saith the Lord ? When ye come to appear before me, who 
 hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts ? Bring 
 no more vain oblations ; incense is abomination unto me. 
 Your new moons and sabbaths, your calling of assemblies, 
 I cannot away with. It is iniquity, even the solemn meet- 
 ing. When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine 
 eyes from you ; when ye make many prayers, I will not 
 hear.” u Wash you, make you clean,” &c.(i) How in- 
 consistent then it must be to suppose that these external 
 performances, alone, entitled this people to all the bless- 
 ings of God’s everlasting covenant ? 
 
 Con . — -But all the Jews were required to be circumci- 
 sed, and to observe all the rites of the Jewish law, whether 
 they were truly pious or not. 
 
 Min . — They were required also to keep the moral law, 
 in all its strictness and purity. “ Be ye holy, for I the 
 Lord your God am holy,” (A:) is a command which was 
 binding on each individual, as the sum of all his duty. But 
 external rites, without a holy heart, God never did require ; 
 nor did he ever accept of such rites as obedience. 44 Thou 
 desirest not sacrifice ; else would I give it. Thou delight- 
 est not in burnt offerings,” (i. e. in these external forms, 
 without right affections.) “ The sacrifices of God,” (those 
 which he always requires, and which alone he will accept 
 as obedience), “ are a broken spirit. A broken and a 
 contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. ”(Z) 
 
 Con. — But the Jews, as a nation, we know, were cir- 
 cumcised, and all entered into covenant with God ; yet, 
 we cannot suppose they were all pious. 
 
 Min . — Whatever might be the character which they ac- 
 tually sustained, it was the essence of vital religion which 
 
 i Isa. i, 1 1 — 20. Isa. lxvi, 3. Prov. xv, 8. Ezek. xxxiii, 
 30—33, k xliv. 7—9. 
 
 k Ler. xi, 44,45. 
 
 I Ps,li ? 16, 17. 
 
9 
 
 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 they professed in all their acts of renewing covenant with 
 God ; as appears manifest in the following passages : — ■ 
 Dent, xxvi, 16— 19, xxix, 10 — 29. Josh. xxiv. 14 — 
 
 25; and 1st Kings, xxiii, 3. Without true piety they 
 could not be sincere in these covenant engagements. If" 
 the whole of a Christian nation should now profess to enter 
 into covenant with God, and become members of the visi- 
 ble church, it would not prove that holiness of heart is not 
 now required as a qualification for membership, though 
 nine-tenths of the whole number should prove to be false 
 professors. 
 
 Con . — Do you suppose, Sir, that all the Jews, who were 
 not pious, were false professors or hypocrites ? 
 
 Min. — God always regarded them as sustaining this^ 
 character. He calls them an “hypocritical nation. ”(m) 
 “ Every one” (he says) “ is an hypocrite and an evildo- 
 er.”^). u When he slew them, then they sought him ; and 
 they returned and enquired early after God ; and they re- 
 membered that God was their rock and the high God their 
 Redeemer. Nevertheless, they did flatter him with their 
 mouth, and lied unto him with their lips ; for their heart 
 was not right with him ; neither were they steadfast in 
 his covenant. ”(o) Claiming a relation to God, as their 
 God and their Redeemer, while their heart was not right 
 with him, the Psalmist declares, was only flattery and lying. 
 The reason is obvious ; they had no right to such a claim. 
 God never promisftl to be their God, only on condition 
 that their hearts were right with him. Without right 
 hearts, they were not steadfast in his covenant ; they did 
 not comply with its conditions, and therefore could have 
 no right to its promises. So far were the wicked from 
 being acknowledged as God’s covenant people, that he 
 absolutely forbade them to profess any such relation to 
 him. “ Gather my saints together, those that have made 
 a covenant with me by sacrifice.” “ But unto the wicked, 
 God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes, 
 and that thou shouldest take my covenant into thy mouth ; 
 .seeing thou hatest instruction and castest my words behind 
 thee.”(p) 
 
 m Isa. x. 6. n Isa. ix. 17. o Ps. Ixxviii. 34 — 37. 
 
 p Ps. I. 5, 16, &cxxv. 4, 5. Rom. ix. 6 — 8. Rev. ii. 9. John 
 i. 47, compared with John, viii. 31. 
 
10 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 Con.— The fact, however, is plain, that God actually 
 bestowed many blessings on this people, though their 
 hearts were not right with him. 
 
 Min. — God now bestows many blessings on sinners ; 
 but that does not prove that they have a covenant right to 
 these blessings. Temporal blessings were bestowed on 
 this people out of respect to the pious among them, as is 
 very manifest from the following passages, whicii you may 
 examine at your leisure — Ezek. xiv, 12 — 22, and xxii, 
 29 — 31. Ex. xxxii, 10 — 14, and xxxiv, 8,9. Num. xiv, 
 1 1 — 20. Ps. xxvi, 23, and cvi, 29, 30. 
 
 Con . — Moses was pious ; but Jhe was not permitted to 
 enter the land nf Canaan. 
 
 Min. — This was owing to an offence which he com- 
 mitted. Though piety was necessary to entitle the Jews 
 to this land by covenant ; yet particular offences might ex- 
 clude from it even those that were pious. 
 
 Con.— The conclusion from all these remarks must be, 
 that holiness of heart and life was as necessary to a stand- 
 ing in the covenant and church of God, under the Jewish 
 dispensation, as the same qualification now is, to a stand- 
 ing in the covenant and church of God, under the Christian 
 dispensation ; and that without the spirit of piety, no ex- 
 ternal performances would be of any avail. 
 
 Min. — That is precisely my view of the subject ; and 
 it is very clearly expressed by Paul in his Epistle to the 
 Romans. u He is not a Jew which is one outwardly ; 
 neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh : 
 But he is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and circumcision 
 is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; 
 whose praise is not of men, but of God.”(g) By a Jew is 
 here meant, one of God’s professing covenant people ; or 
 a professor of religion under the Jewish dispensation. But 
 he was not one in reality, or in the sight of God, who was 
 so u outwardly who had nothing but a profession and 
 external forms of obedience : But he was a Jew who was 
 one inwardly ; whose heart was right with God. He was 
 what he professed to be, one of God’s covenant people ; 
 because he, and he only, had complied with the terms of 
 the covenant. The word Christian now denotes a profes- 
 sor of religion, one of God’s covenant people ; the same 
 
 g. Rom. ii, 28, 29. 
 
11 
 
 Conversations on Baptism, 
 
 precisely that the word Jew denoted formerly. Baptism is 
 now the token of God’s covenant, as circumcision was un- 
 der the Jewish dispensation ; both denoting purity of heart. 
 Substitute Christian for Jew, and baptism for circumcision, 
 and this passage will exactly apply to members of the 
 church under the Christian dispensation. “ He is not a 
 Christian who is one outwardly ; neither is that baptism, 
 which is outward in the flesh : But he is a Christian who 
 is one inwardly ; and baptism is that of the heart, in the 
 spirit, and not in the* letter ; whose praise is not of men, 
 but of God.” How plain is it that church members pro- 
 fessed the same thing both under the Jewish and Christian 
 dispensations ! Of course, that the church, which consists 
 of its members, must be established upon the same found- 
 ation or covenant ; or in other words, it must be essentially 
 the same church. 
 
 Con. — This, I admit, appears consistent and reasonable. 
 But is it certain that the church is now established upon 
 the covenant made with Abraham, because holiness of 
 heart was required in that covenant ? 
 
 Min . — Holiness of heart must be always the same ; and 
 as this is now required as a qualification for church mem- 
 bership, or a condition of the covenant upon which the 
 church is now organised ; these qualifications or condi- 
 tions are the same now, as formerly. And holiness of 
 heart must always be connected with the enjoyment of 
 spiritual blessings. If we love God, we shall enjoy him, 
 of course, as our God or portion. Spiritual blessings 
 must, therefore, be contained in the promises made to the 
 church under the Jewish dispensation. But if holiness of 
 heart were required, and spiritual blessings promised, un- 
 der both the Jewish and Christian dispensations, the re- 
 quirements and the promises, under both dispensations, 
 must be essentially the same. And as the covenant con- 
 sists of requirements and premises, the covenant must of 
 course, be essentially the same ; and consequently the 
 church which is organised on this covenant. 
 
 Con. — We are brought then, of necessity, it appears, 
 to this alternative ; either to admit the sameness of the 
 covenant, and consequently of the church under both dis- 
 pensations ; or else to deny that holiness of heart was 
 ever required in the Abrahamic covenant. 
 
 Min . — This alternative is unavoidable. Eithpr' the cov- 
 
12 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 enant with Abraham was merely external, requiring only 
 the observance of external rites ; or it extended to the 
 heart, requiring right affections. There is no possible 
 medium. If it extended to the heart, requiring right af- 
 fections, it must have been connected with spiritual prom- 
 ises ; it was a spiritual or holy covenant, both as to its re- 
 quirements and promises ; the same with that on which 
 the church is now established. All who do not admit 
 this conclusion, are driven to the necessity of adopting the 
 sentiment, that the covenant with Abraham was merely ex- 
 ternal ; requiring only the performance of external rites, 
 and promising, of course, only temporal blessings. This 
 always must be the essential difference between those who 
 maintain, and those who reject, the perpetuity of the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, and consequently the doctrine of infant 
 baptism. 
 
 Con .— I cannot believe that the covenant with Abra- 
 ham and the people of Israel, in which God promised them 
 so many blessings, was a mere display of forms and cer- 
 emonies^ without any reference to the spirit of true reli- 
 gion. 
 
 Min . — Then you must believe that it was a spiritual, ho- 
 ly covenant, both in its requirements and promises ; the 
 same, essentially, with that on which the church is now 
 organised. The difference can he in nothing else than ex- 
 ternal ordinances. The covenant, or body, must be es- 
 sentially the same ; the ordinances, or dress alone, can 
 have been changed. 
 
 Thus I have given you a general view of my sentiments 
 respecting the church under the Jewish dispensation ; en- 
 deavoring to illustrate and establish the doctrine, that 
 none hut true believers were in covenant with God , or 
 could have any right to covenant blessings. I should be 
 pleased to continue this conversation ; but I have an en- 
 gagement at this hour, which demands my attention. If 
 you will call to-morrow, about this time, I will attend fur- 
 ther, by the will of Providence, to your interesting enqui- 
 ries. 
 
CONVERSATION II. 
 
 Containing a particular description of the Abrahamic cov- 
 enant, with evidence of its continuance under the Christ- 
 ian dispensation . 
 
 Convert . — I have called on you again, Sir, according 
 to your proposal. 
 
 Minister . — I am happy to see you, and to find myself 
 at leisure to attend to your enquiries. 
 
 Con . — I would enquire, Sir, more particularly respect- 
 ing the nature and form of the covenant with Abraham. 
 
 Min . — It is recorded in the 17th chapter of Genesis. 
 It consists, as we formerly observed, of requirements and 
 promises. The sum of all its requirements is expressed in 
 these words : u Walk before, me and be thou perfect.” v. 1 . 
 And the sum of all its promised blessings is expressed in 
 the 7th v . — “ I will establish my covenant between me 
 and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations ; to 
 be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” 
 
 Con . — What are we to understand by these words? — 
 w Walk before me, and be thou perfect.” 
 
 Min . — To walk before God, or with God, in the lan- 
 guage of scripture, denotes the spirit and life of true re- 
 ligion. “ Enoch walked with God.” (r) “Noah walked 
 with God. ”(^) The same is meant by the word perfect. 
 It does not always mean sinless perfection ; but only a life 
 of piety. u Noah was a just man, and perfect in his gene- 
 rations.”^) u Job was a perfect and upright man.”(w) 
 Abraham was required to possess this character, as a con- 
 dition of the covenant which God made with him. The 
 same would, of course, be required of all who should af- 
 terwards profess to enter into this covenant y or who could 
 have any right to its promised blessings. 
 
 Con. — What are we to understand as included in the 
 promise — 41 1 will establish my covenant between me and 
 thee ; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” 
 Min. — The meaning must be, that God would be their 
 spiritual and eternal portion. This is always meant, when 
 
 r Ge n. v. 24 . s Gen. vi. 9. t Gen. vi, 9. u Job, i. 1, 
 
 B 
 
14 
 
 Conversations oti Baptism. 
 
 God promises to any individuals or any people, to be their 
 God . u He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and 
 I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”(t?) This phrase 
 is never used in any other sense, in the scriptures. That 
 this is its meaning in the Abrahamic covenant is certain, 
 from our Saviour’s application of it in reasoning with the 
 Sadducees : — u As touching the resurrection of the dead, 
 have ye never read that which was spoken unto you by 
 God, saying— X am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac^ 
 and the God of Jacob ? God is not the God of the dead, 
 but of the living* ”(w) God declared, long after Abraham, 
 Isaac and Jacob had been dead, that he was their God ; 
 repeating the promise in the Abrahamic covenant. This 
 expression, our Saviour assures us, proves that Abraham, 
 Isaac and Jacob were then in existence, enjoying in the 
 eternal world the fulfilment of this promise. The mean- 
 ing of this phrase, of course, must be, that God was their 
 spiritual and eternal portion. That this promise had refer- 
 ence to spiritual blessings in the future world, is evident 
 from Beb. xi. 16. u Now they desire a better country, that 
 is an heavenly. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be call ~ 
 ' ed tiieib God ; for he hath prepared for them a city.” 
 The inference is, he would have been ashamed to be call- 
 ed their God, in the sense of being a temporal ruler, to 
 conduct them only to the land of Canaan, and give them 
 temporal prosperity in that lapd. 
 
 Con.— The relation between God and the people of Is- 
 rael is often expressed in such terms as* these will he 
 
 your God , and ye shall he my people .” What, Sir, is that 
 relation which is expressed in these words ? 
 
 Min .- — It is the relation which was formed by the Abra- 
 hamic covenant ; as it accords with the words in which 
 that covenant was made.(^) Hence, in speaking of his 
 covenant relation to this people, God usually adopts such 
 language as this: Say unto the children of Israel— I 
 
 will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a 
 God ; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, 
 that bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyp- 
 tians.” (z) U I will .... establish my covenant with you. 
 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye 
 
 v Hey. xxi. 7. w Mat. xxii. 31, 32. 
 
 y Gen. xyii, 7, 8. z Exo, vi, 0 9 7. 
 
15 
 
 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 shall be my people,”^) “ Ye stand this day, all of you, 
 before the Lord your God ; — that thou shouldst enter into 
 covenant with the Lord thy God ; — that he may establish 
 thee to-day for a people unto himself; and that he might 
 be unto thee a God ; as he hath said unto thee, and as he 
 hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to 
 Jacob. ”(&) 
 
 Con. — Does this prove that the covenant with Abraham 
 was a spiritual covenant ; that holiness of heart was re- 
 quired and professed by all who entered into it ? 
 
 Min. — Holiness of heart was the great qualification al- 
 ways required of those who professed to enter into this 
 covenant with God. It was necessary to constitute this 
 covenant relation, in which God would acknowledge them 
 as his people, and would profess himself to be their God. 
 Without true holiness of heart and life, they had no right 
 to claim this relation to God ; nor did God even promise 
 them any covenant blessings. 
 
 Con. — Will you cite a few passages to establish this 
 point? 
 
 Min. — God says by the mouth of Jeremiah, “This thing 
 I commanded them, saying, obey my voice, and I w r ill be 
 your God, and ye shall be my people.”(c) That holiness 
 of heart was implied in this obedience, is plain from the 
 following passages : — “ I will give them an heart to know 
 me, that I am the Lord ; and they Shall be my people, and 
 I will be their God ; for they shall return unto me with 
 their whole heart. (d) Again: — “I will give them one 
 heart, and I will put a new spirit within you ; and I will 
 take away the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give 
 them an heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes , 
 and keep my judgments, and do them ; and they shall be 
 my people, and I w T ill be their God.”(c) The following 
 passages are of the same import : — Jer. xxxii, 38—40. 
 Ezek. xxxvi, 26 — 28, 37 ; xxiii,27, with 12, 13, 14. Jer. 
 xi, 3, 4. Zech. viii, 7, 8, &xiii. 8, 9. Lev. xi, 45. Num. 
 xv, 40, 41. Heb, xi, 16. 1st Chron. xvii, 21 — 24. Under 
 the Christian dispensation, the covenant relation between 
 God and his people is expressed in the same words : “What 
 
 a Lev. xxvi, 9, 12. [xxxiv. 30, 31. 
 
 h Deut. xxix, 10, 12, 13. 1st Chron. xvii, 22 — 24. Ezek. 
 
 c Jer, vii, 23. d Jer. xxiv. 7. e Ezek. xi, 19, 20. 
 
316 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 agreement hath the temple of God with idols ; for ye are 
 the temple of the living God, as God hath said — I will 
 dwell in them, and walk in them ; and I will be their God , 
 and they shall be my people .” (f) 
 
 Con. — I had never thought particularly of this argu- 
 ment ; but it seems very clear, and very satisfactory. This 
 covenant relation, it would seem, must be the same under 
 both dispensations, seeing it is expressed in the very same 
 words. 
 
 Min . — In Deut. xxvi, 18, the form of covenanting with 
 God is in nearly the same words that have been used bv 
 many Christian churches, in the covenant they have adopt- 
 ed, viz : u Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy 
 God, to walk in all his statutes and ordinances, and to 
 hearken unto his voice ; and the Lord hath avouched thee 
 to be his peculiar people, as he hath said unto thee.” 
 
 Con. — In Genesis, xvii, 8, we find this promise : — u I 
 will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee, all the land, 
 of Canaan , for an everlasting possession.” If we have an 
 interest in the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, why 
 have we not a right to this land ? 
 
 Min .- The following facts may lead to the answer. “ Abra- 
 ham himself had never a foot of this land ; and the same was 
 the case with many of his pious descendants. ”(g) It was a- 
 bout five hundred years after this covenant was made, before 
 his posterity entered the land of promise. Hence we con- 
 clude that the possession of Canaan was a circumstantial, 
 rather than an essential part of the covenant with Abraham. 
 If Abraham and his posterity could live five hundred years, 
 enjoying the blessings of their covenant with God, without 
 possessing the land of Canaan, doubtless believers, under 
 the Christian dispensation, can enjoy the same blessings 
 without it. 
 
 Con.— But circumcision, it has been often said, gave a 
 right to the land of promise. 
 
 Min. — The following facts must be sufficient to show 
 that this sentiment cannot be supported. One is, that the 
 body of the Israelites, who went out of Egypt, and who 
 had all been circumcised, were destroyed in the wilder- 
 ness ; while those who w^ere brought into the land of Ca- 
 
 f 2d Cor. vi, 16. Lev. xxvi, 11, 12. Rev. xxi, 2, 3. Jen 
 »xi, 31—33* with Heb. viii, 8—10. g Acts vi i, 5* 
 
Conversations on Baptism . 17 
 
 &aan had not been circumcised till after they had taken 
 possession of this land. ( h ) Circumcision, in this instance, 
 did not give them a covenant right to it. God did not de- 
 stroy in the wilderness those who had a covenant right to 
 the land of Canaan, and then give this land to others, who 
 had no such right. Again ; this people were afterwards 
 carried into captivity ; they were captives seventy years in 
 the land of Babylon. Ten tribes were driven out and dis- 
 persed among the Gentiles. The Jews, as a nation, were 
 excluded from Canaan, soon after the days of our Saviour. 
 But, in each of these cases, they had all been circumcised ; 
 and if the sentiment you have stated be true, they had all a 
 covenant right to this land, at the very time when they 
 were excluded from it. The mere rite of circumcision, 
 then, did not give them a covenant right to the promised 
 land ; for the covenant was not broken, on God’s part, in 
 these cases. 
 
 Cow.—- What then was the condition of their title to this 
 land? 
 
 Min . — It was nothing short of the faith and obedience 
 of a sanctified heart. Those who fell in the wilderness 
 were destroyed for their unbelief, (i) Caleb and Joshua 
 were the only persons that entered the promised land, who 
 had arrived to adult age when they came out of Egypt ; 
 and the reason is assigned in the following words : u Sure- 
 ly none of the men that came out of Egypt, from twenty 
 years old and upwards, shall see the land which I sware 
 unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob ; because they 
 ham not wholly followed the Lord ; save Caleb the son of 
 Jephunneh the Kenezite, and Joshua the son of Nun ; for 
 they have wholly followed the Lord”{k) That a right spi- 
 rit is implied in thus following the Lord, as well as right 
 external conduct, is evident from what is said of Caleb : — * 
 u My servant Caleb, because lie had another spirit with 
 Mm, and hath followed me fully ; him will I bring unto the 
 land whereinto lie went, and his seed shall possess it.”(Z) 
 That an unusual proportion of the whole nation were 
 pious, at the time they entered the land of Canaan, is evL 
 
 h Josh, y, 2 — -7, with iv, Iff. 
 
 i Heb. iii, 17-19, compared with Num. xiV, 10, 11, 22-24* 
 
 % Nutn, xxxii, 11, 12. I Num. xiv, 24. 
 
 B2 
 
18 
 
 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 dent from the following passages : Jer. ii, 2, 3, 21. Num, 
 xxiii, 21 — 23. Hoseaix. 10.* 
 
 * That the Jews could have bo covenant right to the land of 
 Canaan, or any temporal blessings, without the spirit and life 
 of holiness ; that they were never encouraged to expect such 
 blessings on any other condition, must be evident from the fol- 
 lowing considerations: — 1st. Obedience to all God’s com- 
 mands was required, to entitle them to any promised blessings ; 
 and these had an especial reference to the commands of the mo- 
 ral law ; which could not be obeyed without holiness of 
 heart. (a) 2d. Holiness of heart was expressly required as the 
 condition of their right to temporal blessings. “ If ye shall dili- 
 gently hearken unto my commandments, which I command 
 you this day, to love the Lord your God , and to serve him with 
 all your hearty and with all your soul ; .... that I will give the 
 rain of your land in due season; . . . that thou mayest gather in 
 thy corn, thy wine and thine oil. And I will send grass in thy 
 field for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full.”(6) 3d. 
 Temporal judgments were denounced against this people, for 
 unholiness or wickedness of heart.(c) 4th. Many were des- 
 troyed, and others banished from the land of Canaan, for unbe- 
 lief and for rejecting the Saviour. “ They could not enter in 
 because of unbelief ”(d) “ Because of unbelief they were bro- 
 
 ken off. n (e) “ Every soul that shall not hear that prophet, n 
 (i. e. Christ), “ shall be destroyed from among the people. ”(g) 
 5th. Evangelical repentance, arising from a renewed heart, 
 was required as the condition of removing temporal judgments 
 and restoring temporal blessings. u If they shall confess their 
 iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers that they have 
 walked contrary unto me ; — if their uncircumcised hearts be 
 humbled, and they, then, accept the punishment of their ini- 
 quity ; then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and with 
 Isaac, and with Abraham ; and I will remember the land,’’(/i) 
 6th. Forgiveness of sins was premised in connection with tem- 
 poral blessings, and on the same conditions. “ If I shut up 
 heaven that there be no rain ; — or if I command the locusts to 
 devour the land ; or if I send pestilence among my people ; — ° 
 if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble them- 
 selves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked 
 
 a Deut. xxviii, 1 — 14. xi, 13 — 23, & xxx. 6 — 20. 
 b Deut. xi, 13, 14, 15. xxx, 6, 20. Ps. xxxvii, 3, 11, 29, 34. 
 c Lev. xxvi, 14 — 18. Deut. xxviii, 14, 58, 59. Josh, xxiii, 
 It — 13. Jer. ix, 25, 26. Zech. vii, 11—14. 
 d Heb. iii, 19. t Rom. xi, 20* Ps. cvi, 24 — 27. g Acts iii,23. 
 h Lev. xxvi, 40 — 42. Deut. xxx, 2 — 10, & iv. 29. Jer. iii ? 
 10, k xxix, 13, 14, Joel ii, 12—14, Zech. vii, 4 ? 6. 
 
19 
 
 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 Con .*— Was not the Jewish church, with all its rites 
 and ceremonies, only a type of the Christian church ; as 
 we read in Hebrews, that “ the law” had “ a shadow of 
 good things to come V\m ) 
 
 Min . — The ritual law was a shadow or type, in many 
 respects, of Christ, and of the distinguished blessings we 
 are to enjoy through him. But the church itself we can- 
 not consider as a mere type or shadow. They were sure- 
 ly moral, accountable creatures ; under the same obliga- 
 tion to be holy as we are ; and they professed to be the 
 true children of God. The numerous rites of the Mosaic 
 law were designed not only as types of Christ, and of 
 blessings to be enjoyed under the Christian dispensation ; 
 but they were designed, especially, to exhibit to the Jews , ' 
 and to impress deeply upon their minds , the true spirit of 
 that worship which God required of them ; and they are 
 wisely calculated to answer this end. “ The whole ritu- 
 al” (says Lowman) “ plainly taught that a pure heart, as 
 well as clean hands, were requisite in the worship of God. 
 The ritual actions were manifestly designed to have a mo- 
 ral and spiritual meaning. All their washings taught the 
 necessity of internal purity ; their sin and trespass offerings 
 showed the necessity of gospel repentance ; their sacrifi- 
 ces pointed to the only way of forgiveness by the sacrifice 
 of Christ. That this was the design of these rites we are 
 taught by the law itself, and also by the prophets, the best 
 interpreters and authorised expositors of the ritual law.” 
 This was, probably, in that age of the world, the most suc- 
 cessful and impressive manner of communicating this spi- 
 riftial instruction. Thus we may see the wisdom of many 
 of those rites, which otherwise appear without any impor- 
 tant meaning. 
 
 m Heb. x, 1. 
 
 ways ; then will I hear from heaven, and yr\W forgive their sin , 
 and heal their land. y \i) 7th. Forgiveness of sics was includ- 
 ed among the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.(&) How 
 cer tain it must be, from all these considerations, that the Jews 
 bad no promise of any temporal blessings, and no right to ex- 
 pect them, without the spirit and life of holiness? 
 
 i 2d Chron. vii, 13, 14. 1st Kings, viii, 33 — 53* 
 k Micah vii, 13, 19, 20. 
 
m 
 
 Conversations on Baptism* 
 
 Con*— There appears to be a consistency in this view 
 of the subject : But if the covenant with Abraham was 
 what you have described it, the same with that bn which 
 the church is now established, we might expect to find ev- 
 idence of this in the New Testament. Is there any thing 
 to this effect in the writings of the Apostles ? 
 
 Min. — St. Paul has stated and illustrated fully the spi- 
 rituality and perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant. The 
 4th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans is almost exclu- 
 sively upon this subject. Abraham is here repeatedly 
 called the father of believers , of Gentile believers in this 
 Christian church ; and they are called his seed and his 
 children ; and are represented as enjoying distinguishing 
 blessings, by virtue of this relation which they bear to him. 
 Such expressions frequently occur in the New Testament. 
 And what are we to understand as being their true mean- 
 ing? 
 
 Con. — My mind has always been dark on that subject. 
 I have generally supposed that as Abraham was an emi- 
 nent believer, he is called the father of believers* and they 
 are called his seed and his children on that account. 
 
 Min. — Noah, Moses, David, Daniel, and many others, 
 were eminent believers under the Old Testament dispensa- 
 tion ; perhaps as much so as Abraham was. Why are 
 not they sometimes called the fathers of believers under 
 the Christian dispensation ; and such believers called their 
 seed and their children ? Why is no such language used 
 in any case, except in relation to Abraham ? 
 
 Con. — It may be because he was an eminent type of 
 Christ, and also his progenitor.. 
 
 Min.— Moses, Aaron, and especially David, were much 
 more distinguished types of Christ than Abraham was ; 
 and David* with a train of other believers, were also his 
 progenitors ; yet believers are never spoken of as being 
 their seed, or as receiving any blessings in connection with 
 them. It must be clear to every unprejudiced mind, that 
 Gentile believers in the Christian church sustain a different 
 relation to Abraham from what they sustain to any other 
 believer that has ever lived in any age of the world; and 
 ihe important question is, what is this relation ? 
 
 Con . — *1 confess I cannot very easily imagine. If it is 
 not because he was an eminent believer, not because he 
 was a type and progenitor of Christy I cannot discover 
 
Conversations on Baptism. 21 
 
 what this relation is, unless it be in some sense connected 
 with the covenant. 
 
 Min. — St. Paul has made this point very clear in the 
 chapter above referred to. “ Abraham received the sign 
 of circumcision , a seal of the righteousness of the faith 
 which he had, yet being uncircumcised ; that he mjght 
 be the father of all them that believe , though they be 
 not circumcised. ”(w) An important reason is here assign- 
 ed why Abraham received circumcision ; it was to consti- 
 tute him the father of all believers. 
 
 Con . — But how could circumcision constitute Abra- 
 ham the father of all believers, even though they be not 
 circumcised .? 
 
 Min. — Circumcision was the token of the covenant re- 
 corded in Genesis xvii, 11, and doubtless is here taken for 
 the covenant itself ; as we often use the name of the sign 
 for the thing which it signifies. Abraham was constitu- 
 ted the father of believers in this covenant transaction ; 
 i. e. he was their public representative in this cove- 
 nant. Though the covenant of grace , here made with 
 Abraham, had been always in existence before his time, 
 and all true believers had enjoyed its peculiar blessings ; 
 yet it had never before this, been made the foundation of 
 a visible church , regularly organised, with a visible sign 
 or seal and ordinances. Abraham was thus constituted 
 the public representative of the visible church , in all suc- 
 ceeding ages of the world. All believers in succeeding 
 generations, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether living un- 
 der the Jewish or Christian dispensations, are included in 
 the covenant that was established with him, and therefore 
 are entitled to the same covenant blessings. In this sense, 
 he is called their father, and they are called his seed and 
 his children. Thus he is “ the father of all them that be- 
 lieve, though they be not circumcised ; that righteousness 
 might be imputed unto them also.” That this is the Apos- 
 tle’s meaning, is plain from the fact, that he quotes direct- 
 ly the words of that covenant for the purpose of establish- 
 ing this very point. “ Abraham, who is the father of us 
 all” (i. e. all the members of the church at Rome, to 
 whom he directs this epistle, consisting of Jews and Gen- 
 tiles); “as it is written,” (Gen. xvii, 5)~“ I have made 
 
 » Rom, iv, I K 
 
2? Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 thee a father of many nations .” (o) God here declared to 
 Abraham that in the covenant recorded in the 17th of Ge- 
 nesis, he had u made him a father of many nations. 55 — 
 His name was changed from Abram to Abraham on this 
 account, (jr) Paul quotes this very passage, and applies 
 it to all believers in this church at Rome, though belong- 
 ing to different nations ; and assures them that Abraham 
 was their father, because God had made him, in this cov- 
 enant transaction, a father of many nations. 
 
 Con . — I have always supposed that this promise to 
 Abraham, that he should be a father of many nations, 
 meant nothing more than that many nations should pro- 
 ceed from him, as his natural posterity ; as the Jews, the 
 Edomites, the Ishmaelites, and others. 
 
 Min. — Did Paul understand this passage thus ? Did 
 he assure the Gentile converts in this church at Rome, 
 that Abraham was their father, because many nations 
 should descend from him, as his natural posterity ; when 
 it was a plain historical fact that they were not his na- 
 tural descendants? Besides, none could be entitled to such 
 blessings as the Apostle here speaks of, as belonging to 
 those who are the seed of Abraham, merely because they 
 are his natural descendants. Paul, then, did not under- 
 stand by this passage in Genesis, that Abraham should 
 merely be the natural progenitor of many nations, as his 
 posterity. He could have had no such view of this pas- 
 sage, when he applied it to the case of believing Gentiles, 
 in this Christian church. He had manifestly the same view 
 of it which has just been given, viz. that Abraham, in the 
 covenant of which circumcision was the token, was the 
 father or representative of all believers , in all succeeding 
 generations , to whatever nation they might belong ; and 
 they, being included in the covenant that was made with 
 him, are regarded as his seed and his children ; and with 
 him are entitled to the same covenant blessings. With this 
 view of the subject before us, all that is said by the Apos- 
 tle in this chapter is peculiarly pertinent and forcible ; and 
 it proves beyond any reasonable doubt the spirituality and 
 perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant. 
 
 Con . — Are there any other passages which are of the 
 •same import ? 
 
 q Rom. ir, 16, 17, 
 
 p Geo. xvii , 5, 
 
23 
 
 Conversations on Baptism* 
 
 Min , — In the 3d chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, 
 St. Paul dwells at length upon this subject. To show the 
 members of this church what blessings they enjoyed, he 
 points them to the covenant which was made with Abra- 
 ham. “ They which are of faith, the same are the child- 
 ren of Abraham.” “ They which be of faith, are blessed 
 with faithful Abraham.” “ That the blessing of Abra- 
 ham may come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that 
 they may receive the promise of the Spirit, through faith.” 
 ^ If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, ind heirs 
 according to the promise.” (q) These passages are of the 
 same import with those we have been considering ; and 
 the argument which they afford of the spirituality and per- 
 petuity of the Abrahamic Covenant rests, substantially, up- 
 on the same foundation. 
 
 Con . — There is one objection, Sir, to the doctrine you 
 have advanced, which I wish you particularly to answer. 
 In Jer. xxxi, and onward, we read — u Behold the days 
 come, saith the Lord, that X will make a new covenant 
 with the house of Israel and the house of Judah ; not ac- 
 cording to the covenant which I made with their fathers, 
 when I took them by the band to bring them out of the 
 land of Egypt. This shall be the covenant that I will 
 make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the 
 Lord; I will put my law in their inward parts, and will 
 write it in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and 
 they shall be to me a people.” If this be the covenant 
 that was made with Abraham, why is it here called a new 
 covenant? 
 
 Min . — -It cannot be new in this sense, that it had never 
 before been made known to mankind. It is the same that 
 had been made with all true believers from the beginning 
 of the world ; for there could be no salvation in any other 
 way. That it is not essentially different from the Abraha- 
 mic covenant appears from the fact, that the very words in 
 which it is here expressed, are the words generally used in 
 the scriptures, to distinguish the covenant with Abraham, 
 viz : “ I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a 
 people,” And that holy and sanctified hearts were neces- 
 sary to bring the people of Israel into this relation to God, 
 has, I apprehend, been fully established. Why then, 3 r ou 
 
 q Gal. iii, 7, 9, 14, 29» 
 
24 
 
 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 ask, is this called a new covenant? It is new, in distinc- 
 tion from the covenant at Mount-Sinai. This is what the 
 prophet especially refers to. “ Not according to the cov- 
 enant which I made with your fathers, when I took them 
 by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt .” This 
 covenant, which was made at Mount-Sinai, was four hun- 
 dred and thirty years after the covenant with Abraham ;(r) 
 and embodied all the rites of the ceremonial law. These 
 rites were all abolished at the crucifixion of Christ, {s) and 
 a new dispensation established, materially different in its 
 external form from that of the Sinai covenant. It was 
 now extended to believers of all nations ; and contained a 
 much more ample and luminous exhibition of gospel truths 
 than had ever before been made. On these accounts it 
 may, with propriety, be called a new covenant. John, 
 when speaking of the law of love, calls it a new command- 
 ment ; and in the verse preceding he calls it the old com- 
 mandment, which they had from the beginning.^) If you 
 ask, how then it can be a new commandment, I refer you 
 to the answer which he himself has given : ^ A new com- 
 mandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him 
 and in you ; because the darkness is past , and the true 
 light now shineth.” In the same sense, this is a new cov- 
 enant. The darkness of the Jewish dispensation, consist- 
 ing in a multitude of types and ceremonies, is past ; and 
 the true light of the gospel now shineth with peculiar re- 
 fulgence and glory. We speak of the Old and also of the 
 New Testaments ; but we do not consider that these are 
 essentially different as to the nature of the instructions 
 they inculcate. The same religion is taught ; the same 
 doctrines and duties, essentially, are included as the sub- 
 stance of both Testaments. The former was under a dark, 
 and the latter under a clear and luminous dispensation. It 
 is thus with the different dispensations of the covenant. If 
 this covenant had always been known and entered into by 
 believers, before the coming of Christ, all that could be 
 new since that time, must consist in its external adminis- 
 tration or ordinances. These, which are baptism and the 
 Lord’s supper, all will admit, are new under the Christian 
 dispensation. In this sense, all must agree that this is a 
 new covenant. 
 
 r Gal. iii, 17. $ Col, ii, 14. t IstJohibii, 7, 8. 
 
25 
 
 Conversations on Baptism * 
 
 Con.— I thank you, Sir, for these interesting remarks. 
 As we have no further time for conversation at present, I 
 must solicit the favor of another opportunity, whenever it 
 may suit your convenience to attend. 
 
 Min. — Call, if you please, at an early hour this evening. 
 
 CONVERSATION III. 
 
 Containing evidence from the New-Testament, that the 
 Church is the same both under the Jewish and Chris « 
 turn Dispensations . 
 
 Convert . — I have called on you again, Sir, to con- 
 tinue my enquiries on the subject of our previous confer- 
 ence. This I find a more extensive and more interesting 
 subject than I imagined ; and I have many questions yet 
 to ask, which I consider of primary importance. And 
 particularly I would now enquire, what evidence you find 
 in the New-Testament, to prove that the Christian church 
 is established on the Abrahamic covenant, in addition to 
 what has been already presented. Evidence from the 
 New-Testament is generally the most clear and satisfacto- 
 ry to my mind. 
 
 Minister. — Before I proceed directly to answer your 
 question, I would call your attention to the predictions of 
 the prophets, that the church existing in their days, estab- 
 lished, of course, on the Abrahamic covenant, should be 
 continued after the coming of Christ and setting up of the 
 Christian dispensation ; that it should be greatly enlarged, 
 -reformed and beautified by the accession of Gentile con- 
 verts, and should be continued to the end of the world ; as 
 you may see by examining, attentively, the following pas- 
 sages Isa. xlix, 14—22, and liv, 1—4 ; compared with 
 Gal. iv, 27 ; Hosea i, 9, and ii, 23 ; compared with Bom. 
 ix, 22 — 26 : Amos ix, 1 1, 12 ; with Acts xv, 16, 17 : Isa. 
 lx. 3 — 16 ; Ezek. xxxvii, 15 — 28 ; and Ps. cv, 8, with 
 Mat. i, 17. The writers of the New-Testament, in order 
 to set forth the privileges of believers, and the blessings 
 they enjoy in the Christian church, often refer them to the 
 Jewish dispensation, representing these privileges as the 
 same which believers then enjoved. St. Paul illustrates 
 C 
 
26 
 
 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 this by the similitude of an olive tree. u If the root be 
 holy so are the branches ; and if some of the branches be 
 broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed 
 in among them, and with them partakest of the root and 
 fatness of the olive ; boast not against the branches ; but 
 if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 
 Thou wilt say then unto me, the branches were broken 
 off that I might be graffed in. Well, because of unbelief, 
 they were broken off ; but thou standest by faith. Be not 
 high-minded, but fear ; for if God spared not the natural 
 branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold, 
 therefore, the goodness and severity of God ; on them that 
 fell, severity ; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue 
 in his goodness ; otherwise, thou, also, shall be cut off. 
 And they, also, if they continue not in unbelief, shall be 
 graffed in ; for God is able to graff them in again. For, 
 if thou wert cut om of an olive tree, which is wild by na- 
 ture, and wert graffed, contrary to nature, into a good ol- 
 ive tree ; how much more shall these, wdiich be the natur- 
 al branches, be graffed into their own olive tree.” (a) 
 
 Con ^ — Will you please, Sir, to show the application of 
 this passage to the point which is now under considera- 
 tion ? 
 
 Min . — The olive tree represents the visible church, as 
 established on the covenant made with Abraham. The 
 Jews were its natural branches. Gentile converts, under 
 the Christian dispensation, are the branches cut off from 
 the wild olive, and graffed into this good olive tree. How 
 clearly it appears from this representation, that the church 
 was the same imder both dispensations ! The old olive was 
 not cut down, and another tree planted of a different kind ; 
 but the very same tree continued standing. Some of the 
 natural branches, that bear no fruit, were broken off from 
 this tree ; i.e the unbelieving Jews were cast out of the 
 church. The rexoaining natural branches, or those that 
 were fruitful, continued still as they were ; i.e. the believ- 
 ing Jews retained their standing as members of the visible 
 church. Branches were cat off from the wild olive, and 
 graffed into this good olive tree, into the very same stocks 
 from which the unfruitful branches, had been broken off ; 
 pc* converts were taken from the Gentile nations, and 
 
 « Rom. xi, 16—24. 
 
Conversations on Baptism . 27 
 
 brought into the same church from which the unbelieving 
 Jews had been excluded, and in which the believing Jews 
 continued to stand, enjoying the same privileges with them ; 
 u partaking of the root and fatness of the olive,” And 
 the natural branches that were broken off will be reanima- 
 ted and grafted again into their own olive tree ; i.e, the 
 unbelieving Jews will be converted to Christianity, partic- 
 ularly in the days of the millennium, and will then be 
 brought into the same church from which they had been 
 excluded. How clear, then, it must be, that the church 
 itself, under both dispensations, must be essentially the 
 same! 
 
 Con . — This argument, indeed, appears conclusive, pro- 
 vided the olive tree denotes the visible church ; but it has 
 frequently been said that it represents Christ. 
 
 Mm.— Christ is never represented by the figure of an 
 olive tree. Such a construction of the passage must in- 
 volve the absurdity that some true believers have been bro- 
 ken off from Christ. Besides, we can see no propriety in 
 speaking of the Jews as the natural branches of Christ; 
 or of Christ as being himself their own olive tree. 
 
 Con . — But what evidence is there that the olive tree, in 
 this passage, means the visible church t 
 
 Min . — The visible church js called an olive tree in Jer. 
 
 16 “The Lord hath called thy name a green olive 
 tree, fair and of goodly fruit. With the noise of a great 
 tumult he hath kindled a fire upon it, and the branches 
 thereof are broken.” St. Paul very evidently alludes to 
 this passage in the 1 1th chapter to the Romans. His ob- 
 ject is to show to the Gentile converts at Rome, the great- 
 ness of the privileges and blessings which they enjoyed as 
 Christians ; and for this purpose, he informs them that they 
 were brought into a union with the ancient covenant peo- 
 ple of God, enjoying with them the same privileges and 
 blessings. To illustrate this in the clearest manner, he 
 takes the figure of the olive tree from this passage in Jer- 
 emiah, as being peculiarly suited to his purpose, and makes 
 the same use of it that the prophet did, as to the breaking 
 off of its branches. That he refers particularly to this 
 passage in Jeremiah, is very evident from the fhct, that 
 the sin of Israel, in offering incense to Baal, is particular- 
 ly spoken of by the prophet in connection with the fig- 
 ure of the olive tree ; and is particularly noticed by the 
 
28 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 apostle, also, as standing in this same connection, (fj 
 
 Con . — Are there are any other texts that illustrate this 
 doctrine ? 
 
 Min . — In the 21st chapter of Matthew, our Saviour 
 speaks of the visible church under the similitude of a vine- 
 yard. By this figure he portrays the wickedness of the 
 Jews, for a long course of years, by the great abuse of 
 their distinguished privileges ; and concludes by saying — - 
 u Therefore, I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be 
 taken from you, and be given to a nation bringing forth 
 the fruits of it.”(c) That the kingdom of God and the 
 vineyard mean the same thing in this passage, and that they 
 denote the visible church under the Jewish dispensation, 
 must be very manifest. This was to be taken from tlie 
 Jews and given to the Gentiles. While it continued with 
 the Jews, it was under the Jewish dispensation ; and when 
 given to the Gentiles, it was under the Christian dispensa- 
 tion. It w r as clearly the same church under both dispen- 
 sations. In his epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul establish- 
 es and illustrates this doctrine, by showing how the church 
 is continued while the dispensation is changed. u At that 
 time,” (i.e. while they were idolatrous Gentiles), “ ye were 
 without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of 
 Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise ; hav- 
 ing no hope, and without God in the world.” He 
 then shows them how, as Gentile believers, they were 
 brought into the ancient church of God, as it now exists 
 under the Christian dispensation, viz. by abolishing the 
 ceremonial law, which had always been as a partition wall 
 between the Jews and Gentiles. This wall of separation 
 having been broken down, or the ceremonial law abolish- 
 ed, by the crucifixion of Christ, [d) the church is now en- 
 larged by the accession of Gentile believers. u Now. 
 therefore,” (he tells them), “ ye are no more strangers and 
 foreigners ;” (i.e. ye are no more aliens from the common- 
 wealth ' of Israel ; and strangers from the covenants of 
 promise made with that people ;) but fellow-citizens with 
 the saints,” (God’s ancient covenant people being often 
 called by this name), (e) u and of the household of God ; 
 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and pro* 
 
 h Compare Jer. xi, 13, 17, with Rom. xi, 4, 5. 
 
 c Matt. xxi ; 43. dEph. ii, 12; ii, 15, 16. e Pa. cxlviii* 1-4*. 
 
Conversations on Baptism . 29 
 
 phetsf (the apostles under the new, and the prophets un- 
 der the old dispensation, both building upon the same 
 foundation), u Jesus Cfirist himself being the chief corner 
 stone , in whom all the building fitly joined together , grow* 
 eth unto an holy temple in theLord.”(^) How can the 
 sameness of the church, with the change of its dispensa- 
 tion, be illustrated more clearly than it is done by St. Paul 
 in this passage ? In the next chapter, the same subject be- 
 ing continued, the apostle says — “That the Gentiles” (i.e* 
 Gentile believers, when added to the Christian church) 
 “should be fellow heirs,” (i.e. with the Jews), “ and of 
 the same body , and partakers of his promise in Christ by 
 the gospel.”(g) In the 15th chapter of the Acts, v. 14 — 
 17, the conversion of the Gentiles, and their addition to 
 the church, is spoken of, as “ building again the taberna- 
 cle of David, that had fallen down ; building again its ru- 
 ins, and setting it up ;” which must be understood as rais- 
 ing up the church of God, which, under the Jewish dispen- 
 sation, had fallen to decay, like a shattered building ; re- 
 pairing it, enlarging it, and making it a spacious and beau- 
 tiful edifice. This is the fulfilment of a prophecy record- 
 ed in Amos ix. 11, 12. Surely, then, the ancient church 
 was not abolished, and a new one set up on a different 
 foundation. 
 
 Con. — If the church be essentially the same under both 
 dispensations, I should expect to find it distinguished by the 
 same names. 
 
 Min. — Your expectations, then, exactly accord with the 
 facts. It is called by the following names under both dis- 
 pensations, as you may see, by examining and comparing 
 'the passages referred to, viz : The church ;{h) God’s her - 
 forge ;(i) his portion ;(j) the people of God;{k) God’s 
 
 f Eph. ii, 19 — 21. g Eph. iii, 6. 
 
 h Acts vii, 38,* with viii. 1. 
 
 i Jer. xii, 7 — 9, with 1 Pet. v, 3. 
 
 j Deut. xxxii, 9, with Zech. ii, 12. 
 
 lc H eb. xi, 25, with 1 Pet. ii, 10. & Rom. ix, 25. 
 
 * “ The whole nation or commonwealth of Israel was oftenr 
 denominated “ Pasa e ekklesia Israel i.e. the whole church 
 of Israel. The word in Hebrew which is rendered in our Eng- 
 lish bibles, congregation, assembly, &c. when applied to the 
 people of Israel, is ekklesia by the Septuagint, which is trans- 
 lated church in the New-Testament.” “I know not,” (says 
 Dr. Campbell), “ for what reason our English translators have 
 
30 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 peculiar people ;(l) his chosen people ;(m) children of 
 God;{n ) sons of God ;(o) saints ;{p) beloved ;{q) redeem- 
 ed of the Lord ;{r) his sheep. (s) In a word, almost eve- 
 ry significant and endearing name is applied to the church 
 under both dispensations ; which must be strong evidence, 
 that under both dispensations, the church must be, essen- 
 tially, the same body. 
 
 Con.~ There is one significant name that was never 
 applied to the ancient church. u The disciples were call- 
 ed Christians first at Antioch. ”(/) 
 
 Min. — The reason is obvious why they were not called 
 Christians till after the appearing and ministration of 
 Christ. But this weakens not the argument we are now 
 considering, to prove the sameness of the church ; for it 
 was prophesied by Isaiah that the church should be called 
 by a new name , when it should be enlarged to embrace the 
 Gentiles under the Christian dispensation. The Gentiles 
 shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory ; and 
 thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the 
 Lord shall name.”(t<) Again — u Ye shall leave your name 
 for a curse to my chosen ; for the Lord shall slay thee, and 
 call his servants by another name.”(^) 
 
 Con.— Before we leave this branch of the subject, I 
 have one enquiry to make, which relates to the discipline 
 of the Jewish church. It is manifest that this church was 
 very corrupt ; few, comparatively, gave evidence of piety. 
 How, then, could the discipline of this church be such, as 
 to accord with its character as the true church of God ? 
 
 Min. — The corrupt practice of the church must not be 
 confounded with the nature of God’s requirements. The> 
 
 l Deut. xiv, 2, with Titus ii, 14. 
 
 m 1 Chron. xvi, 13, k Ex. xix, 5, 6, with 1 Pet. ii* 9 - .- 
 
 n Deut. xi r. 1 with Rom. ix, 26. 
 
 o Ex. ir, 22, 23, with 1 John, iii, 1. 
 
 p Ps. cxlviii, 14, and cxlix, 1, 2, with Phil, i, 1. 
 
 q Jer. xi, 15, with Rom. ix>25. 
 
 r Isa. xliii, 1, with lxii, 12. 
 
 s Jer. xxiii, 1, with John x, 2, 4, and Mat. XV. 24. 
 t Acts xi, 26. u Isa. lxii, 2. v Isa. lxv, 15. 
 
 never admitted the word church into the Old-Testament, not- 
 withstanding* the frequent use which they have made of it in 
 their translation of the N ew —CampbeWs Lectures on Eccle~ 
 siastical History , pp. 108, 163. 
 
31 
 
 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 rules of discipline which God established in this church 
 were manifestly designed to maintain the spirit and prac- 
 tice of true religion. All who were guilty of gross offen- 
 ces, were to be cut off from the church by death or other- 
 wise. They were thus to be cut off for idolatry, (w) 
 blasphemy, (#) murder, (j/) lewdness, (z) Sabbath break- 
 ing,(a) disobedience to parents, (b) neglect of divine ordi- 
 nances, (c) and for every other hind of presumptuous trans- 
 gression. (d) For offences of less magnitude, they were 
 to bring a trespass offering to the Lord, as a manifestation 
 of their penitence, and to make restitution to all whom 
 they had injured, (e) All who had transgressed and refu- 
 sed to make restitution, or to manifest their penitence on 
 the day of atonement, and seek for pardon and restoration to 
 the divine favour, according to the law, were to be cut off 
 from among this people. (f) Had this course of disci- 
 pline been strictly observed, there would not have been a 
 person continued among this people, and enjoying the pri- 
 vileges of this church, who did not give credible evidence 
 of piety. 
 
 The hour for tea has now arrived. We will suspend, if 
 you please, this conversation till evening. 
 
 Con. — I will endeavour, Sir, to call on you this evening, 
 at an early hour. 
 
 w Ex. xxii, 20. Num. ix, 13, & xix, 20. 
 
 x Lev. xxir, 15, 16. d Num. xv, 30, 31, and Deut. xvii, 
 y Lev. xxiv, 17. 12,13. 
 
 2 Lev. xviii 29. e Lev. vi, 2—7, & v, 14 — 19, & ir* 
 
 a Ex. xxxi, 14. 2 — 35. 
 
 b Ex. xxi, 15, 17. f Num. xix, 20. Lev. xxiii. 29 
 c Lev. xxiii, 29, 30 : Deut. xxvii, 26. 
 
 CONVERSATION IV. 
 
 Containing arguments directly in support of infant bap- 
 tism. 
 
 Minister . — You are quite punctual, Sir, to fulfil your en- 
 gagements this evening. 
 
 Convert . — It is very common to be punctual in attending 
 to subjects that interest us. We have now arrived to that 
 
32 
 
 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 part of our subject in which I am most deeply interested ; 
 it respects, directly, the proof of infant baptism. Will you 
 be pleased, Sir, to confine your remarks to this point ? 
 
 Min . — In support of this doctrine, I would direct your 
 attention to three heads of argument. One is derived 
 from the Abrahamic covenant ; another from the practice 
 of the Apostles ; and a third from the history of the Chris- 
 tian church . 
 
 Con. — Will you present, Sir, distinctly, a view of the 
 argument derived from the Abrahamic covenant ? 
 
 Min. — Though this was briefly stated in our first con- 
 versation, yet it may be useful here to dwell upon it with 
 more particularity. In the Abrahamic covenant, believers 
 were commanded to devote their children to God, by ap- 
 plying to them the appointed seal or token of his covenant. 
 This command has never been revoked ; it is therefore 
 still binding on believers. This seal or token was form- 
 erly circumcision ; it is now baptism. Therefore, believ- 
 ers are now required to devote their children to God in 
 baptism. 
 
 Con. — The covenant, I believe, is essentially the same, 
 under both the Jewish and Christian dispensations. The 
 Christian church, I am satisfied, was established on the 
 covenant made with Abraham, of which circumcision was 
 the token ; but I do not see clearly that baptism is now 
 the token of this covenant. 
 
 Min. — If baptism be not the token of this covenant, it 
 must be left wiihouut any token or seal, under the Christian 
 dispensation. Circumcision, the former token, is certain- 
 ly abolished ; and no one ever imagined that any thing be- 
 side baptism has been instituted in its place. But it 
 is incredible that God’s covenant should be without any 
 seal for so many centuries. It is reasonable, therefore, to 
 conclude that its present seal or token is baptism. A- 
 gain — Circumcision and baptism denote the same thing , 
 and are designed for the same ends . Circumcision im- 
 plied the doctrine that all mankind are sinners, and deno- 
 ted the necessity of an internal cleansing from sin by the 
 spirit of God. (a) Baptism, also, implies the same doc- 
 trine, and denotes the same thing. (5) Spiritual circumcis i 
 
 a Deut. x. 16, and xxx,6 : Col. ii, 11 : Rom. ii, 29. 
 
 b Acts xxii, 16, ii, 38, x, 47, 48, &xi, 16. 1 Cor. xii, 13 ; 
 
 Col. ii. 12* 
 
Conversations on Baptism . 30 
 
 loll, and spiritual baptism, or that which is signified by these 
 external rites, is precisely the same thing ; as the apostle 
 plainly teaches us.(c) Baptism, by the ancients, was call- 
 ed Christian circumcision. Circumcision was a seal of the 
 believer’s faith.(d) So is baptism. {e) Circumcision was 
 a token which distinguished the covenant people of God ; 
 it denoted their acceptance of the terms of his covenant, 
 with a profession of their interest in its distinguishing 
 blessings. Baptism, also, is a token, which distinguishes 
 God’s covenant people.^/’) It defiotes their acceptance 
 of the terms of this covenant, and their profession of an 
 interest in its peculiar blessings, (g*) As both are designed 
 to answer the same ends, it is an obvious conclusion that 
 they are seals of the same covenant. Circumcision was 
 abolished at the crucifixion of Christ ;(A) and baptism was 
 instituted shortly after he rose from the dead. Circumcis- 
 ion continued to the close of the Jewish dispensation ; and 
 baptism commenced with the Christian dispensation. How 
 then can we avoid the obvious conclusion that baptism is 
 appointed in the place of circumcision ; and therefore is 
 to be applied to the same subjects. 
 
 Con . — The Jewish dispensation, you observe, was abol- 
 ished when our Saviour was crucified. Were not infants 
 then excluded from the church with all the other Jewish 
 rites ? 
 
 Min. — The dedication of infants to God was not prop- 
 erly a Jewish rite. It did not respect the mode or admin- 
 istration of the covenant ; but the subjects to which the 
 covenant related. A change in the dispensation, or ex- 
 ternal ordinances, implies no change in tiie subjects to 
 which these ordinances are to be applied. As the chil- 
 dren of believers, under the former dispensation, were to 
 be dedicated to God in covenant, according to the divine 
 command ; they are now to be thus dedicated, seeing the 
 command for doing this has not been done away ; and 
 there is the same reason for it now that there ever 
 has been. Every command must be in force until it is 
 revoked or annulled by the same authority that gave it. 
 But how can believers perform this duty, if baptism does- 
 
 c Col. ii, 11, 12. f Acts ii, 41. 
 
 d Rom. iv* 11. g Acts ii, 38, 39, & x, 47. 
 
 t Mark xvi, 16; Acts viii^ 3T. h Eph. ii, 1 5^16 : Col» ii,. 1A 
 
34 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 not take the place of circumcision ; if their children are 
 not to be baptised? There can be no other way of devoting* 
 them to God, as they did under the former dispensation. 
 
 Con . — None but males were directed to be circumci- 
 sed. Why then do we baptise female children ? 
 
 Min. — Females were included in the covenant former- 
 ly, as fully as they now are ; and were evidently consider- 
 ed as represented by the males. We have a particular di- 
 rection that they should be baptised. The fact that we are 
 directed to extend baptism to females, by no means im- 
 plies that it does not come in the place of circumcision, 
 and is not to be extended to the children of believers. 
 
 Con . — Why was there not a command to baptise in- 
 fants, if they were to be baptised under the Christian dis- 
 pensation ? 
 
 Min. — I will answer you in the words of the Encyclo- 
 paedia, in speaking to this point. u Where institutions 
 are to remain the same as they have been, a command for 
 them to remain so, would not only be superfluous, but it 
 would be foolish.” («) 
 
 Con . — Our Saviour says, u He that believeth and is bap- 
 tised, shall be saved.”(&) Does not this show that we 
 must believe before we can be baptised ; and of course, 
 that infants, who are not capable of believing, can have no 
 right to baptism ? 
 
 Min. — If this passage proves that infants cannot be bap- 
 tised, it equally proves that they cannot be saved. If none 
 can be baptised before they believe, because believeth , in 
 this passage, stands before baptised , then none can be sa- 
 ved before they believe ; because believeth , here, stands 
 before saved . If this passage excludes all infants from 
 baptism, it will, of course, exclude them all from salvation. 
 Those who will not admit this conclusion, must grant that 
 there is no force in this objection. By the same reason- 
 ing, from another passage, we might prove directly the op- 
 posite : u Except a man be born of water and of the Spi- 
 rit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”(Z) To be 
 born of water, is generally understood to be baptised. 
 This was the sentiment of all ancient Christians, respect- 
 ing this passage. But this is put before being born of the 
 Spirit ; therefore, baptism must always be before regene * 
 
 i Art. Baptism, page 158. k Mark xvi, 16. I John iii, 6- 
 
Conversations on Baptism. 35 
 
 ration. This shows that your objection is not well found- 
 ed. What is said in this passage is strictly true of those 
 who have been baptised in infancy, and afterwards become 
 believers. They believe, and are baptised, therefore, they 
 shall be saved. Under the Jewish dispensation, the di- 
 vine direction was, to Gentiles, and to all who had not re- 
 ceived the rite of circumcision — Believe, or repent, and 
 be circumcised. These were required as pre-requisites to 
 this ordinance ; and those who were circumcised profess- 
 ed to comply with these directions. Under the Christian 
 dispensation, this direction applies to baptism. In both 
 cases, it applies to those, and those only, who were capa- 
 ble of believing or repenting, and who had not been pre- 
 viously circumcised or baptised according to the divine 
 direction. It presents no objection, therefore, against the 
 baptism of infants not capable of believing. By the figure 
 of the olive tree, in the use which St. Paul makes of it, in 
 the 11th chapter to the Romans, we may have a clear il- 
 lustration of this doctrine. You will here bear in mind 
 what has been said upon this figure. I shall apply it, in 
 this case, only to the standing of children. And here I 
 would ask — How were the unfruitful branches broken off 
 from this olive tree ? i. e. how were the unbelieving Jews 
 excluded from the church ? Doubtless it was just as they 
 had stood in it ; parents and children together, under the 
 seal of the covenant. How did the fruitful branches con- 
 tinue their standing in the olive tree ? How did the be- 
 lieving Jews retain their standing in the church ? Doubt- 
 less it was just as they had always stood in it ; parents 
 and children together, under the seal of the covenant. 
 How were the branches of the wild olive graffed into this 
 good olive tree ? How were the believing Gentiles brought 
 into the church ? Evidently it w r as as the unfruitful branch- 
 es were broken off; as the unbelieving Jews were exclu- 
 ded ; as the live branches, or believing Jews, continued 
 their standing ; parents and children together, under the 
 seal of the covenant. And how will these unfruitful branch- 
 es, that had been broken off, be again graffed into their 
 own olive tree ? How will the Jews that had been exclu- 
 ded for their unbelief, when converted to Christianity, be 
 again brought into the church ? Will it not be in the same 
 way that they had been excluded from it ; parents and 
 children together, under the seal of the covenant ? Does 
 
36 
 
 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 not Jeremiah refer to this, when he says — u Their child- 
 ren, also , shall he as aforetime ; and their congregation 
 shall be established before me.”(m) 
 
 Con . — I would thank you. Sir, to make some remarks 
 on the practice of the apostles. Had they the same view 
 of the subject that you have expressed ; and did they prac- 
 tice accordingly ? 
 
 Min. — There are not many instances of baptism record- 
 ed under the Christian dispensation. Among these there 
 is a record of three household baptisms. The first in or- 
 der is that of Lydia, recorded in Acts xvi, 14, 15 : u The 
 Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended to the 
 things that were spoken of Paul. And when she was bap- 
 tised, and her household, she said : If ye have judged me 
 to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide 
 there.” That Lydia was the only believer in this family, 
 appears from the fact, that she only is mentioned when 
 the Apostle speaks of believing ; but her household are 
 mentioned with her, when he speaks of baptism. Had 
 her household been all believers, the conversion of each 
 one would have been an event of as much importance as 
 that of Lydia herself. Indeed, had they all been convert- 
 ed on this occasion, it would have been a signal display of 
 grace, peculiarly meriting special notice ; an event of far 
 greater importance than their baptism ; and could not fail, 
 we should think, of being particularly noticed by the Apos- 
 tle, when he recorded their baptism. Neither should we 
 suppose that their baptism would have been recorded 
 without any distinction of persons, merely as a household 
 baptism ; while both the conversion and baptism of Lydia 
 are particularly distinguished by name. It is evidently 
 implied in the language which she used, that Lydia was 
 the only believer If ye have judged me to be faithful 
 to the Lord,” &c. Had all her household just been con- 
 verted, and just made a profession of their faith and obe- 
 .dience to Christ, would she have used such an expression 
 ns this, implying that she herself was the only believer, 
 who, they might charitably judge, 'would be faithful to the 
 Lord ? 
 
 Con. — But, it is said in the last verse of this chapter, 
 that u when Paul and Silas were brought out of prison* 
 
 m Jer. xxx, £0/ 
 
37 
 
 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 tl*ey entered into the house of Lydia, and when they 
 had seen the brethren, they comforted them and depart- 
 ed.” Were not these brethren members of Lydia’s house-, 
 hold, and evidently believers. 
 
 Min.— Doubtless they were believers ; but I see little 
 evidence that they were members of Lydia’s family. Paul 
 and Silas had just been released from prison. They were 
 under circumstances of peculiar interest, and were imme- 
 diately to leave the city. It would have been strange, in- 
 deed, if the young converts in the neighbourhood had not 
 called upon them, in these circumstances, to rejoice with 
 them in their deliverance, and to receive their parting in- 
 structions. 
 
 Con . — -Will you consider, Sir, the next instance of house- 
 hold baptism. 
 
 Min. — The next instance is that of the jailor, recorded 
 in the 33d verse of this chapter. 44 He took them the 
 same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was 
 baptised, he and all his, straightway.” The jailor and all 
 his, i. e. all who were under his authority, who properly 
 belonged to his household, were baptised. This accords 
 with the practice of the church under the Jewish dispen- 
 sation, that when a Gentile householder became a believer 
 he was to be admitted into the church, and his household 
 taken with him under the seal of the covenant. To this 
 the apostle probably had allusion, when he said — 4 4 Believe 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and 
 thy house.” (n) It accords with the direction which Peter 
 gave to his hearers — 44 Repent, and be baptised, every one 
 of you, for the remission of sins ; and ye shall receive the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost ; for the promise is unto you and to 
 your children .”(o) 
 
 Con. — It is written, the jailor 44 rejoiced, believing in 
 God, with all his house.” Does not this prove that his 
 'household were all believers ? 
 
 Min. — I will refer you to the notes of Dr. Scott on this 
 text, which all who understand the Greek language know 
 to be correct. 44 He” (i. e. the jailor) 44 rejoiced through 
 all his house, or with all his house, having believed in 
 God. The word for believed is in the singular number,” 
 (and of course, can refer only to the jailor.) * * * * 
 
 n Acts xvi, 31. 
 
 D 
 
 o Acts ii, 38, 39. 
 
38 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 “ So that the passage contains no proof that every one 
 of his family actually believed.” 
 
 Con.— You mentioned. Sir, three cases of household 
 baptism. What is the third ? 
 
 Min. — It is that which St. Paul mentions, in 1 Cor. 
 i, 16 “ I baptised, also, the household of Stephanas.” 
 
 Con . — It is said that the household of Stephanas was 
 the “ first fruits of Achaia ; and that they had addicted 
 themselves to the ministering of the saints. ”(jp) Must 
 they not have been ail believers ? 
 
 Min . — If households were regarded in the apostles’ 
 days, as they were under the Jewish dispensation, when 
 a Gentile was brought to the vrorship of the true God, and 
 his family with him brought into connection with the visi- 
 ble church ; the household of Stephanas might well be 
 called “the first fruits of Achaia,” and be accustomed to 
 the hospitality of “ ministering to the saints,” though Ste- 
 phanas were the only true believer among them. The 
 manner in which these baptisms are recorded, is different 
 from what we should expect to find, in case they had all 
 been true believers ; as it is different from that which is usu- 
 ally given by those who reject household baptism. They 
 mention the individuals by name, as believing and being 
 baptised. The Acts of the Apostles is a missionary jour- 
 nal. Should you read on the journal of some missionary 
 to the Heathen, that on a particular occasion, a certain 
 woman believed, and he baptised her, and her household, 
 or family ; and that soon after, a certain man believed, and 
 he baptised him, and all his, straightway ; and that he 
 baptised also the household of another man; what would 
 you think were his sentiments and practice, in regard to 
 the subjects of baptism ? 
 
 Con.— I should conclude that he believed in household 
 baptism, and that he was accustomed to baptise the house- 
 holds of believers. 
 
 Min. — Must you not conclude, then, that this was the 
 sentiment, and this the practice of the apostles ? 
 
 Con. — This may be a fair conclusion ; but why are 
 there not more instances of household baptism recorded 
 by the apostles, if this were their general practice ? 
 
 Min. — Of the few instances which are recorded of th« 
 
 p l Cor. xvi ; 15 f 
 
39 
 
 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 apostles’ baptising, several are mentioned collectively. In 
 every instance where the person baptised is distinguished 
 as the head of a family, his household is mentioned, as 
 baptised with him. This is perhaps all that we could ex- 
 pect to find recorded, in case the apostles were uniformly 
 in this practice. 
 
 Con. — Are there any other passages that illustrate this 
 doctrine ? 
 
 Min.— It is implied in the words of the apostle Paul : — 
 u 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. ”( 2 ) 
 As the word holy, in this passage, cannot mean holiness of 
 heart, it must mean external or consecrated holiness ; i.e. 
 something which is especially consecrated to God. The case 
 referred to appears to be this. There were many instances 
 in the apostles’ days in which the wife or husband only was a 
 believer; and there were children belonging to such families. 
 An important question would now arise, whether these 
 children ought to be devoted to God in baptism ? If con- 
 sidered as the children of the believing parent, they ought 
 to be thus devoted ; but if considered as the children of 
 the unbeliever, they would have no right to this ordinance. 
 The apostle decides, that the influence of the unbeliever, 
 to deprive the children of this ordinance, shall be so far 
 removed by the faith of the believing parent, that the chil- 
 dren shall not be excluded from baptism ; but shall have 
 the same privilege in this respect, as though both the pa- 
 rents were believers. Most of the ancient writer^ under- 
 stood this passage in this sense. There is another passage 
 in Matthew xix. 14 — “ Jesus said, suffer little children, 
 and forbid them not to come unto me ; for of such is the 
 kingdom of God.” These children were brought to 
 Christ by their parents, who were doubtless believers, for 
 his blessing. And u he took them up in his arms, and 
 put his hands upon them, and blessed them.”(r) The 
 reason which he assigns for approving this act of these 
 believing parents, and for blessing these children accord- 
 ing to their request, is — u For of such is the kingdom of 
 God.” The relation which these children of believing 
 parents stood in to the kingdom of God, being the partic- 
 
 2 1 Cor, viii, 14, r Mark x, 16, 
 
40 
 
 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 ular reason which Christ gives why they should be brought 
 to him for his blessing ; the conclusion seems obvious, 
 that they are proper subjects of the token of that cove- 
 nant, which contains at) the blessings of God’s kingdom. 
 
 Con. — You mentioned, Sir, the history of the Christian 
 church , as furnishing an argument in support of infant 
 baptism. Will you please to state the evidence which is 
 derived from this source ? 
 
 Mm . — I must be very brief in illustrating this point. 
 “ The earliest direct testimonies we have on the subject, 
 are clear and decisive, that infant baptism was uniformly 
 practiced in the church in the apostles’ days, and down- 
 wards for many ages.” Origen, who flourished about one 
 hundred years after the apostles, says— “ What is the rea- 
 son, that whereas the baptism of the church is given for 
 forgiveness of sins, infants, also, by the usage of the church, 
 are baptised ; when if there were nothing in infants that 
 wanted forgiveness and mercy, baptism would be needless 
 to them V\s) At a council of sixty-six bishops convened 
 at Carthage, by Cyprian, about one hundred and fifty 
 years after the apostles, the question was considered, 
 whether the baptism of infants ought to be deferred to 
 the eighth day, according to the law of circumcision ? It 
 was decided unanimously in the negative, (t) There vras 
 no question here in regard to the validity and universal 
 practice of infant baptism. “ Gregory , Nazianzen , Basil, 
 Ambrose , Chrysostom and Jerome , all of whom flourished 
 within about one hundred years of Origen and Cyprian, 
 are all explicit on this subject ; explain the design of in- 
 fant baptism ; mention it as coming in the place of cir- 
 cumcision, and speak of it as the universal and undisputed 
 practice of the church.” About three hundred years af- 
 ter the apostles, the Pelagian controversy arose about ori- 
 ginal sin. 4t -If any one do ask for divine authority in this 
 matter,” (says Austin against Pelagius, speaking of infant 
 baptism), “that which the whole church practises, and 
 which was not instituted by councils, but was ever in use , 
 Is very reasonably believed to be no other than a thing de- 
 livered by authority of the apostles. ”(w) Again — u They” 
 (i. e. the Pelagians) “ grant that infants must be baptised, 
 
 s Wall’s His. In. Bap. vol. i, page 82. 
 
 t ib. vol. i, p. 102. u ib. vol. ii, p. 203^ 
 
41 
 
 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 y not being able to oppose the authority of the whole 
 church i which was doubtless delivered by our Lord and his 
 apostles.”(r>) Again, he declares that he u never met with 
 any Christian , catholic or sectary , nor until any writer , that 
 owned the scriptures, who taught any other doctrine,” 
 than that infants are to be baptised- (w) This was but 
 three hundred years from the time of the apostles. Yet 
 Austin had so extensive a knowledge of the history of the 
 church, that he wrote and published a history of all the 
 sects , that had been in Christendom since the days of our 
 Saviour. With this argument in proof of original sin, 
 Pelagius and his followers were constantly pressed, and 
 found the greatest difficulty. To use the language of 
 Dr. Wall, it 44 nettled and puzzled Pelagius more than all 
 that was said by Austin.” Yet Pelagius never pretended 
 to deny this doctrine. He says — - 44 Men do slander him, 
 as if he denied the sacrament of baptism to infants 
 and then declares, that he 64 never heard , wo, not even any 
 impious heretic , that would say that infants are not to re- 
 ceive baptism.” 44 Who” (says he) 44 can be so impious 
 as to hinder infants from being baptised. ”(#) Pelagius 
 was a man of great reading, and had travelled extensively. 
 He was born in Britain, resided some time at Rome, and 
 made the tour of christianised Africa and Asia, by the 
 way of Egypt and Jerusalem. Yet in the whole of his 
 reading and his travels, he never heard of any who denied 
 the divine institution of infant baptism. This controver- 
 sy continued a long time, and engaged the greatest learn- 
 ing and talents of the age ; and all, on both sides, admitted 
 the doctrine of infant baptism as a divine institution. Cat- 
 alogues of all the primitive sects of Christians were early 
 written, and are now extant. Ireneus, a disciple of Poly- 
 carp, who was a companion of St. John, wrote his trea- 
 tise concerning sects, about seventy-six years after the 
 death of St. John. In this he mentions, professedly, all the 
 sects which arose in the time of the apostles, and which 
 had sprung up after their death. Epiphanius, who wrote 
 about two hundred and seventy years after the apostles r 
 mentions eighty, which he says are 44 all the sects of Chris- 
 tians that he had ever heard of in the world.” Austin, 
 who wrote a little later, mentions eighty-eight; and Phir 
 
42 Conversations on Baptism* 
 
 lostrius, who made a difference of opinion about any tri- 
 fling matter a heresy, gives the number of different sects 
 at one hundred. Theodoret’s account of heresies was 
 written after the apostles about three hundred and thirty 
 years, and is very learned, methodical, particular, and 
 full.” (y) w In all these several catalogues, the differences 
 of opinion which obtained in the primitive ages respecting 
 baptism, are particularly recounted, and minutely desig- 
 nated. But in no one of these catalogues is there to he 
 found the least intimation of any (except such as denied 
 water baptism altogether) who did not hold to the baptism 
 of infants as a divine institution Joseph Milner, the 
 ecclesiastical historian, speaking of the council at Car- 
 thage, convened by Cyprian A. D. 253, to consider wheth- 
 er the baptism of infants should be deferred to the eighth 
 day, says : “To those who say that the custom of baptis- 
 ing children was not derived from the apostolic ages, the 
 traditional argument may fairly run in language nearly 
 scriptural. If any man seem to be contentious, we 
 have never had such a custom as that of confining bap- 
 tism to adults, wetter the churches of God. ”( 2 ) The edi- 
 tors of the Christian Observer, a periodical work, now 
 publishing in England, which has never been exceeded for 
 learning, talents, candour and piety, by any thing that has 
 ever appeared in the English language, have published the 
 following sentence as their own declaration ; and stand ac- 
 countable to the public for its correctness as it relates to 
 historical facts, viz. “ We challenge the opponents of in- 
 fant baptism to produce one single instance, for ike first* 
 thousand years of Christianity , of any writer that has left 
 it on record as his opinion that infant baptism is not law- 
 ful to be practised ; some few declared heretics excepted, 
 who rejected water baptism altogether.” Dr. Wall, in 
 his History of Infant Baptism, has the following words : — * 
 “ For the first four hundred years, there appears only one 
 man, Tertullian, * who advised the delay of infant bap- 
 
 y Wall’s His. voh ii, p. 304, 5. z Eccl. His, vol. i, p. 401; 
 
 * Tertulian embraced the sentiment, that sins committed af- 
 ter baptism were next to being unpardonable ; and for this rea- 
 son, advised the delay of baptism till the person had arrived to 
 adult age. For the same reason, he advised that persons 
 should not be baptised till after they were married . But in 
 
Conversations on Baptism. 43 
 
 Usm in some cases; and one Gregory, who did, perhaps, 
 practice such delay in case of his own children ; but no 
 society so thinking or practising, nor one man so saying 
 that it was unlawful to baptise infants. In the next seven 
 hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be 
 found, that either spoke or practised such delay ; but all 
 the contrary. And when about the year 1130, one sect 
 among the Waldenses declared against the baptising of 
 infants, as being incapable of salvation, the remaining 
 body of that people rejected that opinion ; and the sect 
 that still held to it quickly dwindled away and disappeared, 
 and there was nothing more heard of holding that tenet, 
 till the year 1522.” (a) Again he observes, speaking of 
 the first thousand years of Christianity — u There is not one 
 saying , quotation or example, that makes against it” (i. e. 
 infant baptism), “ produced or pretended , but what has 
 been clearly shewn to be a mistake .” u As in the first 
 four hundred years, there is none but one Tertullian, who 
 advised it to be deferred till the age of reason ; and one 
 Nazianzen, (Gregory), till three years of age, in case of 
 no danger of death ; so in the following six hundred 
 years, there is no account or report of any one man that 
 opposed it at all.” (b) “ The Christians of St. Thomas, in 
 
 India, were utterly unknown, and not heard of by us of 
 the west, for one thousand years or more, viz. till about 
 the year 1500, when those parts were discovered by the 
 Portuguese.” Here, were “ fifteen or sixteen thousand 
 families,” who wrere all in the practice of infant baptism. 
 They had never heard of such a part of the world as Eu- 
 rope, and must have derived the practice of infant baptism 
 from the early ages of Christianity, (c) To all this may 
 be added the acknowledgment of Menno, a distinguished 
 antipedobaptist of the 16th century, and leader of a large 
 and respectable sect of Christians, called Mennonists or 
 Minnists, who rejected infant baptism. Speaking of 
 certain persons w 7 ho endeavoured to fix the origin of in- 
 
 a Wall’s His. vol. ii, p. 386. b ib. p. 179. e ib. p. 218, 219 
 
 ease of sickness, or danger of death* he advised that children 
 should be baptised without delay. Gregory’s advice was similar 
 to Tertullian’s. Both spoke of infant baptism as the universal 
 practice of the church ; nor did they pretend that it was not 
 derived from the apostles*. 
 
44 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 fitnt baptism upon some Pope of Rome — •“ Merino (says 
 Dr. Wall) had more sense, or was more wary, than to do 
 so. He was forced to aver that it had been in use from 
 die apostles’ time.”(<2) Dr. Worcester, in his discourses 
 on infant baptism, has the following declaration u For 
 more than three thousand years,” (referring to the period 
 from the days of Abraham to the rise of the Petrobrusians, 
 A.D. 1 130), “ the seal of the covenant was universally ap- 
 plied to the seed of the church ; no one forbidding iT.”(e) 
 And nothing has yet appeared from the history of the 
 church, to disprove the correctness of this assertion. 
 Thus I have given you a summary view of the historical 
 testimony in support of infant baptism. 
 
 Cow.— Is there not ground, Sir, to question the correct- 
 ness of these as historical facts ? 
 
 Min . — The character of the authors, that have given 
 these statements, is beyond impeachment for correctness 
 and candour. Dr. Milner, as a historian, is in universal 
 estimation for the accuracy of all his statements. None 
 will question the learning or candor of the editors of the 
 Christian Observer. The other statements have all been 
 taken from Dr. Wall’s History of Infant Baptism, and Dr. 
 W orcester’s Discourses and Letters to Dr. Baldwin. The 
 character of Dr. Worcester is universally known. To 
 those who are acquainted with the character of Dr. Wall, 
 nothing need be said of his learning, accuracy and candor ; 
 and to those who are not acquainted with his character, 
 the following statement may be sufficient. Mr. Whiston, 
 a Baptist, and a man of eminence for literature in England, 
 in a public address to his brethren, frankly declares, that 
 “ Dr. Wall’s History of Infant Baptism, as to the facts , 
 appeared to him most accurately done , and might he de- 
 pended on hy the Baptists them selves. ”(/) Such is the 
 character of the authorities produced in support of this 
 historical testimony. 
 
 Con. — If this be the state of historical facts, in regards 
 to infant baptism, the doctrine, I must acknowledge, has 
 all that support which historical testimony can give it. 
 
 Min. — My avocations will not admit of proceeding any 
 further at this time. Call* if you please, to-morrow 
 
 d Wall’s His. vol. ii, p. 232. e ib. p. 57, 
 
 / Worcester’s Discourses. j». 59, note. 
 
45 
 
 Conversations on Baptism* 
 
 evening ; when, Providence permitting, I shall be ready to 
 resume our conversation on this subject. 
 
 CONVERSATION V. 
 
 On the use of Infant Baptism . 
 
 Convert — According to your proposal, Sir, I have call- 
 ed on you this evening ; and the particular object of my 
 enquiry now is, to understand the use of infant baptism. 
 I often hear this question asked — 44 What good does it do 
 to baptise infants?” 
 
 Minister.— If this be a divine institution, it is doubtless 
 designed for wise ends ; but our obligations to observe it 
 do not depend on our knowing what these ends are. 
 We might ask, with equal propriety, what good does it do 
 to baptise adults ? Does it wash away their sins, or pro- 
 duce purity of heart ? You will doubtless answer, no. It 
 is only observed as an external rite ; as a commanded du- 
 ty. It is to answer a good conscience. The same is the 
 use of infant baptism. It is observed, by the parent, as a 
 divine requirement ; as complying with a divine institu- 
 tion. It is to answer a good conscience, in performing 
 what he regards as an important duty. And it is not an 
 unmeaning ceremony; but a sign or seal of the parent s 
 faith in the requirements and promises of God's gracious 
 covenant , which he hath given to believers respecting their 
 children ; and also , of the believer's covenant engage- 
 ments , to train up these children in the way they should 
 go. God’s covenant is made with believers only ; but it 
 relates to the salvation of their children, as connected with 
 the parent’s faith in devoting them to God, and his fidelity 
 in training them up in obedience to God’s commands. 
 There is, therefore, an obvious propriety in having the 
 token of the covenant, the seal of the believer’s faith in its 
 peculiar privileges and blessings, applied to his children. 
 
 Con. — If these children are not in covenant with God, 
 and can claim no right to covenant blessings, while they 
 are unbelievers, how does the covenant apply to them ? 
 
 Min. — Special provision is made in this covenant for 
 their conversion and salvation.. 
 
46 
 
 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 Con . — Does God respect believers’ children more than 
 he does the children of unbelievers ? 
 
 Min. — The children of believers are no better than oth- 
 ers ; and God regards every one according to his true cha- 
 racter. But the character of believers’ children is one 
 thing ; and the means which God hath appointed for their 
 conversion and salvation is another ; and between these 
 two there is no necessary connexion. None are saved for 
 any worthiness in them, or in those who are the means of 
 their salvation. But it is the purpose of God to perpetuate 
 his church to the last period of time, and to do this by 
 means which he hath appointed. All will admit the cor- 
 rectness of this position. It is plain, also, that the cove- 
 nant which God hath made with his people, and on which 
 his church is established, he will continue to the end of 
 the world. It is, therefore, called an u everlasting cove- 
 nant.” In this covenant he hath made provision for the 
 perpetuity of his church , with all its distinguished privile- 
 ges and blessings ; and he hath instituted the means by 
 which it shall be accomplished. Among these means 
 are, the faith of believing parents , in devoting their child- 
 ren to God , and their fidelity in training them up in obe- 
 dience to his commands . 
 
 Con. — It is plain that God will perpetuate his church to 
 the end of time, and that this will be accomplished by the 
 use of means. The preaching of the word, the ordinan- 
 ces of the gospel, the prayers of God’s people, are among 
 these appointed means. But how does it appear that the 
 faith arid fidelity of believing parents, in devoting their 
 children to God, and in training them up for his service, 
 are appointed as means for the salvation of such child- 
 ren, and for perpetuating the church to the end of the 
 world ? 
 
 Min. — It appears from the express word of God upon 
 this point : — u I know Abraham, that he will command his 
 children and his household after him ; and they shall keep 
 the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment ; that the 
 Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken 
 of Aim.” (a) The fidelity of Abraham is expressed in 
 these words : “ He will command his children and house- 
 hold after him.” The meaning is, he will exercise all the 
 
 a Gem xviii. 19, 
 
Conversations on Baptism* 47 
 
 Influence and authority that he possesses, to train them up 
 for the service of God. The effects produced by these 
 means are expressed in the next words : u And they shall 
 keep the way of the Lord.” This they could never do 
 without true holiness of heart and life. The consequence, 
 then, of Abraham’s fidelity, would be the piety of his child- 
 ren and household. And all this was to prepare the way 
 for God to fulfil his promise to Abraham, viz. that he would 
 he the God of his seed , as well as his God — expressed in 
 these words : u That the Lord may bring upon Abraham 
 that which he had spoken of him.” Thus, by the faith of 
 Abraham, and his fidelity towards his children and house- 
 hold, he enjoyed the fulfilment of the divine promise, 
 that the Lord would be a God to him , and to his seed af- 
 ter him. 
 
 Con. — Could none of Abraham’s children have the 
 Lord for their God, in a covenant sense, till after they had 
 Lecome believers ? 
 
 Min. — They could not. u Thou shalt keep my cove- 
 nant,” says God to Abraham, u thou and thy seed after 
 thee , in their generations.” (b) They must all keep this 
 covenant ; k e. must comply with the conditions or terms 
 of it, before they could be entitled to covenant blessings ; 
 and this they could not do without the spirit of holiness 5 as 
 must be evident from the remarks that have been made 
 upon this point. 
 
 Con. — Are there any other passages that establish this 
 sentiment ? 
 
 Min. — In Psalm ciii, 1 7 , 18 , we read — u The mercy of 
 the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that 
 fear him ; and his righteousness unto children’s children ; 
 to such as keep his covenant , and to those that remember 
 his commandments to do them.” The mercy of the Lord 
 and his righteousness can mean nothing less than true ho- 
 liness. This descends to children’s children. It is thus 
 perpetuated from everlasting to everlasting, or from the 
 beginning to the end of time. This is according to the 
 tenor of God’s covenant. It is the blessing which he hath 
 promised to such as keep his covenant , that remember his 
 commandments to do them. Again, Psalm lxxviii, 5 — 7 : 
 
 He established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a 
 
 h Gen. xvii ; 9. 
 
48 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers that they 
 should make them known to their children ; that the gen- 
 eration to come might know them, even the children that 
 should be born ; who should arise and declare them to 
 their children; that they might set their hope in God , and 
 not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments 
 This testimony or law which God established in Israel, his 
 church, was that parents should give religious instruction 
 to their children ; and that this should be continued from 
 generation to generation : And the end to be accomplish- 
 ed by these means was, that they might set their hope in 
 God, and keep liis commandments ; or in other words, 
 that they might become holy in heart and life. These 
 were the means which God had appointed for the accom- 
 plishment of this end. Thus true religion was to be con- 
 tinued from generation to generation. This was accord- 
 ing to an established law of divine operation , under the 
 Jewish dispensation ; and there is no evidence that this 
 law has ever been altered. This direction, then, does 
 still remain a standing law in the church of God. The 
 following passages are of the same import : “ This is my 
 covenant with them, saith the Lord. My spirit, that is 
 upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, 
 shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of 
 thy seeS,, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed , saith the 
 Lord, from henceforth and forever. ”(c) Also — “ I will 
 make an everlasting covenant with them ; and their seed 
 shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring 
 among the people. All that see them shall acknowledge 
 them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath bless- 
 ed”(d) “ They shall be my people, and I will be their 
 God. And I will give them one heart and one way, that 
 they may fear me forever, for the good of them , and of 
 their children after them ”(e) “ Fear not, O Jacob, my 
 
 servant ; for I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed , and my 
 blessing upon thine offspring . And they shall spring up 
 as among the grass, as willows by the water courses. One 
 shall say, I am the Lord’s,” &c.(/) “Mine elect shall 
 long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor 
 in vain, nor bring forth for trouble ; for they are the seed 
 
 c Isa. lix, 21. d Isa. lxi, 8, 9, e Jen xxxii, 38, 39. 
 f Isa. xliv, 2 — 5. 
 
'Conversations on Baptism. 4 
 
 . oj the blessed of the Lord , and their offspring with them (s' 
 “I have been young,” says the Psalmist, “and now am 
 old ; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his 
 seed begging bread. He is ever merciful, and lendeth 
 and his seed is blessed. r, (k ) “ Train up a child in the 
 
 way he should go,” says the wise man, “ and when he is 
 old, he will not depart from it.”(i) “A just man walketh 
 in his integrity, and his children are blessed after him. ”(k' 
 “ The curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked'- 
 but he blesseth the habitation of the just.”(Z) p au ] re f er ' 
 directly to this doctrine, when speaking to Timothy in 
 these words : “ I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith 
 that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois , 
 and in thy mother Eunice , and I am persuaded that in thee 
 also. (») In support of this doctrine we might appeal 
 to facts. Notwithstanding the great unfaithfulness ofthose 
 who professedly devote their children to God in baptism 
 such as would seem almost to exclude them from a hope 
 of the promised blessing ; yet it is a notorious fact, that a 
 vast proportion of all that are converted , are persons who 
 had been baptised in infancy. Infant baptism, then is 
 not an unmeaning or useless ceremony ; but an important 
 institution of heaven, designed, together with its corres- 
 ponding duties, as means of perpetuating the blessings of 
 salvation, and the church of God, from generation tofene- 
 iation, to the last period of time. ® 
 
 Con. I am satisfied, Sir, with your remarks upon this 
 point ; and 'have only to request that I may have one more 
 conversation, particularly on the mode of baptism. 
 
 Afm.— Will you call to-morrow, about two o’clock > 
 quiries GndeaV ° r then t0 ^ at leisure, to attend to yeuren* 
 
 t Jrov'Tv 2 ? 23 ‘ \ v' XXXV % 25 > 26 ' *!**«*. 
 
 rror. xx, 7. I Pro r. m, 33. m .24 Tim. i, 5. 
 
 £ 
 
CONVERSATION VI. 
 
 Respecting the mode of Christian Baptism . 
 
 Convert . — I have called once more, Sir, in compliance 
 with your proposal, to enquire particularly respecting the 
 mode of baptism. In what mode do you consider that 
 baptism should be administered ? 
 
 Minister . — I do not find evidence that any particular 
 mode is essential to the validity of this ordinance. Sprink- 
 lings ox pouring water on a person, is, I think, a proper 
 and scriptural mode . 
 
 Con. — It is often said that sprinkling is not baptism ; 
 that the Greek word which is render ed baptise, properly 
 signifies nothing but immersion. 
 
 Min . — Volumes have been written to show the mean- 
 ing of this word. Most dictionaries define it as being ap- 
 plicable to different modes. In the scriptures, where it is 
 not rendered baptises it is generally, if not always, render- 
 ed by the English word trash ; and this accords with the 
 most learned criticisms that have been made on its genu- 
 ine meaning. In Ileb. ix, 10, we read of divers wash- 
 ings — Greek, divers baptisms. This does not mean di- 
 vers immersions ; but refers to the various purifications 
 of the Mosaic law, the most of which were by sprinkling. 
 Some of these baptisms, or sprinklings, are particularised 
 in the 13th and ISth verses of this chapter. When our 
 Saviour was invited to dine with a Pharisee, u the Phari- 
 see marvelled that he had not first washed, (Greek, had 
 not been baptised), before dinner.’ 5 (a) From Mark 
 we learn, that this baptism was only the washing of hands : 
 “ For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash 
 their hands oft, eat mot— holding the tradition of the eld- 
 ers.” (6) Here we are taught, that to wash the hands was 
 to be baptised ; or to baptise the person. Mark goes on 
 to observe—^ And when they come from the markets, ex- 
 cept they wash,” (Greek, be baptised ), “ they eat not. 
 And many such like things they do, as the washing” 
 (Greek, baptisms) u of cups, and pots, and brazen ves* 
 
 a Luke xi, 38, 
 
 b Mark vii 5 3, 
 
Conversations on Baptism . <5.1 
 
 sels, and tables.” These most evidently could not be all 
 immersions ; and therefore this Greek word, baptizo , does 
 not signify immersion exclusively. To wash was to cleanse 
 or purify, which was often done by sprinkling. “ I will 
 sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean. ”(c) 
 Paul speaks of the “ washing of regeneration ;” which is 
 always represented by sprinkling, pouring, or some kind 
 of affusion. 
 
 Con . — Was not our Saviour baptised by immersion ; 
 and is not this a sufficient reason why we should be thus 
 baptised, if we profess to be his followers ? 
 
 Min . — It is by no means certain that immersion w as 
 the mode in which our Saviour received baptism. It is 
 said, indeed, that he w r as baptised in Jordan. So he di- 
 rects the blind man, “ Go wash in the pool of Siloam.”(d) 
 But the direction was only that he should wash his eyes. 
 It is also written, that “ when he was baptised, he w ent 
 up straightway out of the water.”(e) But “ going up out 
 of the w r ater,” was no part of his baptism. This took 
 place after he was. baptised ; and in what mode he receiv- 
 ed baptism w r e are not informed. The Greek w 7 ord apo. 
 here rendered “out of,” is generally translated from. It. 
 is rendered from , in tw 7 o hundred and thirty-five instances 
 within the first five books of the New-Testament ; and it 
 is rendered out of in but forty-tw^o instances w T ithin the 
 same limits. Every school-boy in Greek knows thaXfrom- 
 is its most common and appropriate signification. Had 
 it been rendered from , in this case, I leave you to judge 
 how much evidence this passage w 7 ould have afforded, that 
 immersion was the mode in which he received baptism. 
 But in whatever mode our Lord was baptised, it will not 
 determine the mode of our baptism ; because, if I am able 
 to judge correctly, he did not design, in this particular, to 
 be an example for his followers. 
 
 Con . — Are we not, Sir, to follow our Saviour’s exam- 
 ple ? 
 
 Min. — Certainly we are, in every thing in which he de- 
 signed that we should follow him ; but not in every thing 
 that he did. 
 
 Con. — True, Christ fasted forty days ; he wrought ma- 
 
 cEzek. xxxvi, 25. Nura. viii, 7, & xix, 18—21. Lev* xiv, 7. 
 d John ix 5 7. e Mat. iii, 16, 
 
52 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 By miracles; but it is impossible that we should imitate 
 him in these things. But should we not follow his exam- 
 ple so far as we are capable of doing as he did ? 
 
 Min. — Christ had no worldly possessions ; he had no 
 iixed place of residence ; he engaged in no worldly em- 
 ployments after he was baptised ; he received no pecunia- 
 ry reward for his services ; he led a life of celibacy, hav- 
 ing no wife or children. In all these respects, we have a 
 duty to perform ; and we are capable of doing as he did. 
 But is this our duty ? 
 
 Con. — It cannot, indeed, be the duty of all Christians to 
 do all these things. But baptism is an institution of heav- 
 en ; and I should think we ought to follow Christ’s exam- 
 ple in complying with divine institutions. 
 
 Min. — Christ was circumcised in infancy ; he kept the 
 Jewish passover ; he observed the seventh day Sabbath ; 
 and he complied with all the rites of the Mosaic law. 
 These he observed as divine institutions. But did he de- 
 sign, in these respects, that we should follow his example ? 
 
 Con. — These were Jewish rites, which have been long 
 since abolished. But baptism is a Christian ordinance; 
 therefore Christ, I should suppose, must be our example in 
 regard to his baptism. 
 
 Min. — Christ could not, as to his baptism, have been 
 our example in all respects. He was not baptised for the 
 same purposes that we are. His baptism could not be a 
 token of the remission of sins, or of the necessity of an 
 internal cleansing from sin ; for he had no sin to be for- 
 given or washed away. He was not baptised till he was 
 about thirty years old, though he had always been a child 
 of God ; but he did not design that we should delay our 
 baptism till that age. He was not baptised in the name 
 of the Trinity ; but he hath commanded us to be baptised 
 in that name. If the name of the Trinity be not called in 
 our baptism, the ordinance is of no validity. To follow 
 his example in this respect, would be to disobey his com- 
 mand, and to nullify this ordinance. He was not baptised 
 because he was a believer. In short, there is not one 
 particular that can be named, in which it is our duty, 
 or would even be right for us, to be baptised as Christ 
 was, the mode of applying water excepted. Would it not 
 seem, from these considerations, that the baptism of our 
 Saviour was not designed to be an example for his follow- 
 

 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 ^rs ? Had this been the design of his baptism, would he 
 have waited till “ all the people had been baptised ?” (f) 
 Would he have commanded his disciples to be baptised in 
 a different manner from what he was ? Would he have so 
 ordered the case, that it would not have been right for them 
 to be baptised as he was, in any one particular, except in 
 the mode of applying water ; so that to follow his exam- 
 ple fully, would be to disobey his command, and to render 
 this ordinance a nullity ? 
 
 C on.— — What, them could be the design of our Saviour's 
 baptism ? 
 
 Min,— It Was the rite by which he was visibly induct- 
 ed into his official work , as the Messiah. In this char- 
 acter he was u an high priest over the house of God J ’(g) 
 He entered upon this work in a regular manner. “ No 
 man taketh this honor upon himself, but he that is call- 
 ed of God, as was Aaron ; So also , Christ glorified, not 
 himself \ to he made an high priest ”{h) Now, Aaron 
 was called of God, or by God’s appointment, into 
 the priesthood, by the rite of washing or baptism. (i) 
 Christ, also, was inducted into his office by this rite. 
 This reason he gives why he should be baptised. 
 u Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.”(&) 
 Hence his baptism was deferred till he was about thirty 
 years of a ge.(l) Before his baptism, Christ lived in a 
 private station ; but “from that time, he began to 
 preach.' ”(m)- That this was the time when he entered 
 upon his official w r ork, cannot admit of a question. Ii 
 his baptism was not the inaugural rite, he entered upon 
 this work, or was inducted into it, without any order or 
 formality whatever . But if this were the design of our 
 Saviour’s baptism, it was not to be our example. 
 
 Con. — How can we know, Sir, in what respects we are 
 to follow Christ, if there are so many particulars in which 
 we are not to follow him ? 
 
 Min.— We must always possess the spirit of Christ, 
 
 , and do as he did, so far as our condition and circimstances 
 
 f Luke iii, 21. k Mat. iii, 15. 
 
 g Heb. x, 2l,and>vii ; 11. I Luke iii, 23 v compared with 
 h Heb. v, 4,-5. Nurh. iv, 3. 
 
 i Lev. m Mat. iv. 17.. 
 
 E.2 
 
54 
 
 Conversations on Baptism, 
 
 me like his . As we do not live under the Jewish dispen- 
 sation, we are not to observe the ritual law. As we do 
 not sustain the same offices that Christ did, we are not to 
 perform the duties which those offices require. Whatever 
 Christ did, or would have done, in our circumstances ; 
 whatever his spirit would lead us to do ; or, in other 
 words, so far as our condition is similar to his, his example 
 is to be taken as a perfect rule of conduct. 
 
 Con.— John baptised in Enon, because there was much 
 water there, (w) Could he need much water for any thing 
 but immersion ? 
 
 Min . — The words here rendered much water , are in the 
 Greek both plural ; literally many waters , which must be 
 many places of water. These words are rendered many 
 waters in every other place where they occur in the New- 
 Testament. (o) But many places of water could not be 
 needed for one man to administer baptism, whatever might 
 be the mode of administration. They might, however, 
 be needed for the convenience of the vast multitudes that 
 followed John, and for the beasts which they would natu- 
 rally have with them. 
 
 Con.— But do you not believe, Sir, that John immersed 
 all whom he baptised ? 
 
 Min.— I have not sufficient evidence that he immersed 
 any of them. We always read that he baptised with water, 
 whether it were in Jordan, in Enon, or in the wilderness ; 
 but it would be absurd to say he immersed with water. 
 
 Con. — It is said that the Greek word translated with , in 
 these places, ought to have been rendered in. 
 
 Min,— This word i3 sometimes rendered in, and some- 
 times with , in the New-Testament ; and which is the most 
 proper in any particular case, must depend on the circum- 
 stances* It is rendered with in the following passages, 
 where in would be evidently absurd. “ They that take 
 the sword, shall perish with the sword.” (p) u He shall 
 baptise you with the Holy Gho$t.”{q) 
 
 Con. — Are there any circumstances which show that 
 this word ought to be translated with, rather than in, when 
 relating to John’s baptism ? 
 
 Min.-r- All those circumstances which render it improb-> 
 
 n John iii, 23. p Mat. xxvi, 52 v 
 
 or. Key. if 15, xiv, 2, xji 1, & xix 6. q Mat. iii, 1 K 
 

 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 able that John immersed his disciples, illustrate the propri- 
 ety of this translation. 
 
 Con . — What circumstances do you refer to ? 
 
 Min . — u All Judea, and all Jerusalem, and all the re- 
 gion round about Jordan,” (r) were baptised by John du- 
 ring his ministry, which must have been short of two 
 years ; and it seems incredible that he could have immers- 
 ed so great a multitude in so short a time. They were all 
 here in the open country ; and it does not seem probable 
 that they either changed their apparel in this place, or that 
 they were immersed without changing it. When the Ho- 
 ly Ghost fell on Peter’s hearers, in the house of Cornelius, 
 it reminded him of John’s baptism. u Then remembered 
 I the word of John, how he said — I indeed baptise you 
 with water ; but ye shall be baptised with the Holy 
 Ghost.”(s) The propriety of rendering the word with 
 rather than in water, in this place, is obvious from the re- 
 semblance which is manifestly designed to be marked be- 
 tween baptising with water and with the Holy Ghost. 
 This word, in both cases, is the same in Greek, and obvi- 
 ously it ought to be the same in English. But to render 
 it, “ He shall baptise you in the Holy Ghost” would be 
 absurd. Therefore, “I baptise you in water” would not 
 be so consistent with unity and propriety in this place, as 
 the words now stand in our English bibles. But whatever 
 might have been the mode in which John baptised, it can 
 prove nothing as to the mode of Christian baptism, because 
 these are different institutions. 
 
 Con . — How does it appear that the baptism of John is 
 not the Christian ordinance ? 
 
 Min . — In the first place, John did not baptise in the 
 name of the Trinity. This, I believe, is universally ac- 
 knowledged. But if this name be not called, Christian 
 baptism is of no validity ; it cannot be the ordinance 
 which our Saviour appointed. 2d. John’s baptism began 
 and ended before Christian baptism was instituted ; before 
 that commission was given by our Saviour, which confers 
 upon his ministers all the authority which they have to ad- 
 minister this ordinance, recorded in Mat. xxviii, 20. 3d. 
 
 There is a marked distinction throughout the New-Testa- 
 menfc, between the ministry, disciples and baptism of Jobrx 
 
 r Mat. Ui. 5, 6. 
 
 s Actsii, 16 . 
 
56 Conversations on Baptism* 
 
 and those of our Saviour ; as you may see in the follow- 
 ing passages : — Luke v, 2, 3, and xi, 1. Mat. xi, 1, 2* 
 and xxi, 25. Luke vii, 29. Acts xviii, 25, 26, and xix, 
 2, 5. 4th. Numbers, who had been baptised by John, 
 were afterwards baptised by the apostles, (t) 
 
 Con. — What then was the design of John’s baptism ? 
 
 Min. — It was to prepare the way for the coming of 
 Christ ‘(u) to prepare the Jews to receive him ;(d) and to 
 introduce him into his sacred office : “ That he should he 
 ?nade manifest unto Israel , (says John); therefore am 
 i come baptising with water. ”(w?) Our Saviour was 
 manifested to Israel by John, at the time when John bap* 
 tised him ; when he proclaimed in the audience of the 
 people — “ This is he of whom I spake — He that cometh 
 after me is preferred before me.” w He that sent me to 
 baptise with water, the same said unto me— Upon whom 
 thou shalt see the Spirit descending like a dove, and abi- 
 ding upon him, the same is he that baptiseth with the Ho- 
 ly Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son 
 of God.”(.r) Soon after this event, the ministration of 
 John closed ; and with it ended his baptism. 
 
 Con. — If the mode of Christian baptism is not to be de- 
 termined from the meaning of the word baptizo ; nor from 
 the baptism of our Saviour ; nor from John’s baptism ; 
 where shall we go for evidence to teach us our duty in this 
 respect ? 
 
 Min. — It may be derived from the signification of this 
 ordinance , and from the practice of the apostles , under the 
 Christian dispensation, after receiving and while acting un- 
 der that grand commission , that gives gospel ministers all 
 the authority they have to administer baptism ; recorded 
 in Mat. xxviii, 19, 20. 
 
 Con. — What do we learn from the signification of bap- 
 tism, in regard to the mode of applying water, in this or- 
 dinance ? 
 
 Min. — Baptism represents the work of the Holy Spirit, 
 in renewing and sanctifying the hearts of men. This work 
 is therefore called baptism- — baptism of the Spirit, and 
 'baptism of the Holy Ghost. “ By one spirit we are all 
 
 t Acts xix, 1-12, and Mat. iii, 15. compared with Acts ii, 41, 
 and xxi, 20. u John i, 23. Luke vii. 27* 
 
 t? Mat. iii, 2-12* w John i, 31. x John i, 30, 33, 34. 
 
Conversations on Baptism . 67 
 
 baptised into one body,” &c .(y) “ He shall baptise you 
 
 with the Holy Ghost. ”(2;) The name of the sign is here 
 used to denote the thing signified,, a figure which i* very 
 common among all writers. This work of the Spirit is 
 always represented by some kind of affusion, as pouring , 
 sprinklings shedding forth, and coming down like rain ; as 
 in the following passages : “ I will pour my Spirit upon 
 thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring. ”(a)^- 
 u Then will I sprinkle clear water upon you, and ye shall 
 be clean. A new heart will I give you.”(&) “ Renew- 
 
 ing of the Holy Ghost, which was shed on us abundant- 
 ly. ”(c) u The Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the 
 word.”(d) u He shall come down like rain upon the 
 mown grass.”(e) As water baptism is the external sign 
 of this spiritual work, and is designed to represent it ; 
 must not sprinkling, pouring, or shedding forth water, 
 on the subject, in this ordinance, be a peculiarly proper 
 and scriptural mode of baptism ? Does it not answer most 
 Hilly to the design and signification of this ordinance ? 
 
 Con . — So far as the mode of baptism can be determin- 
 ed from the design and signification of it, the argument 
 must be altogether in favor of affusion. But the practice 
 of the apostles will doubtless give the most satisfying evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Min. — We will examine, if you please, the several ca- 
 ses in which baptisms are recorded under the Christian dis- 
 pensation. They are ten in number, and are all included 
 in the acts of the apostles. The first case is that of three 
 thousand, who were baptised in Jerusalem on the day of 
 Pentecost.(jf) Immediately before they received this or- 
 dinance, they had been baptised by the Holy Ghost. It 
 is said He was “ poured out,” and u shed forth” upon 
 them.(g) They were then baptised with water, as an ex- 
 ternal sign of this spiritual work. How suitable it would 
 seem that water should be poured out, or shed forth upon 
 them, in this ordinance, as the Spirit had been, which their 
 baptism was to represent? That affusion, and not immer- 
 sion, was the mode in which they were baptised, appears 
 evident from several considerations. It is hardly credible, 
 
 y 1st Cor. xii, 13. z Mat. iii, 11. a Isa. xliv, 3. 
 
 b Ez. xxxvi, 25, 26. c Titus iii, 5, 6. d Acts x, 44. 
 
 e Psalm Ixxii, 6. /Actsii, 41. g. Ib.it, 17,18, 33. 
 
58 
 
 Conversations on Baptism, 
 
 that in half a day,* three thousand persons could have 
 been immersed by the apostles in Jerusalem. It is diffi- 
 cult to conceive where places for so many immersions 
 could have been found within the walls of that city. They 
 had made no preparation for being baptised ; and it is not 
 probable, either that they had all changes of apparel with 
 them, or that they would have been immersed without 
 such change. There is no intimation of any circumstance 
 whatever, that would lead us toj suppose they were bapti- 
 sed by immersion. Hence, I Conclude, that affusion in 
 some form, was the mode in which they received this ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 Con . — Will you proceed, Sir, to remark on some of the 
 
 other cases ? 
 
 Min . — The next case in order is that of Simon Magus, 
 recorded in Acts viii, 13. But there are no circumstan- 
 ces related, which afford any evidence as to the mode in 
 w hich he w 7 as baptised. The same is true of others, whose 
 baptism is recorded in the 12th verse ; of many Corinthi- 
 ans, whose baptism is noticed in xviii, 8 ; and of twelve, 
 who were baptised by Paul, recorded in xix, 5. There 
 remain five other instances, in which circumstances are 
 related, that may afford evidence as to the mode of their 
 baptism, viz. that of the Ethiopian eunuch ; of Paul ; of 
 Cornelius and others ; of Lydia and her household ; and 
 of the jailor and his household. 
 
 Con . — -Will you remark, Sir, on the case of the Ethio- 
 pian eunuch ? 
 
 Min . — His baptism is recorded in Acts viii, 38, 39. 
 u He commanded the chariot to stand still ; and they went 
 down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and 
 he baptised him. And when they had come up out of the 
 water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the 
 eunuch saw him no more ; and he went on his way rejoic- 
 ing.” All the circumstances of this case are related just 
 as they would be, were the eunuch baptised by affusion, 
 except the words into and out of. It was most natural and 
 convenient, and it was probably necessary for them both, 
 to go down to the water, whatever was to be the mode of 
 baptising. If there be any evidence, then, favoring im~ 
 
 * All that took place before their baptism, would seem i© 
 have occupied as much as one half of the day. 
 
59 
 
 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 inersion rather than affusion, it must be taken wholly from 
 the words into and out of. But these words do not ex- 
 press the act of baptizing, or any part of it. They went 
 down both into the water. After that Philip baptised him. 
 After he was baptised, they came up both out of the wa- 
 ter. Now, in what mode was this baptism administered ? 
 It is not even so much as intimated in this description. I 
 will here state a fact which recently took place. Four 
 persons were baptised in a stream of water. In two of 
 these cases, they went down both into the water, both the 
 minister and the candidates, and he baptised them by im- 
 mersion. After their baptism they both came up out of 
 the water. In the two other instances, they went down 
 both into the water, both the minister and the candidates, 
 and he baptised them by taking water into his hands and 
 pouring it upon their heads ; one of the candidates receiv- 
 ing baptism while standing upright in the water, and the 
 other while kneeling upon a board in the stream. After 
 they were baptised, they both came up out of the water. 
 Now, in which of these ways was the eunuch baptised ? Do 
 the circumstances related favor one of these modes any 
 more than they do the other ? There are some circumstan- 
 ces which render it probable that he was not immersed. It 
 is not very probable that the first place of water they should 
 come to on a journey, would be a convenient place for 
 immersion. As all the evidence that can favor immer- 
 sion is derived from the words into and out of it may be 
 important here to remark, that the Greek word eis , here 
 rendered into , is often translated to. It is rendered to in 
 one hundred and eighty-eight instances within the first five 
 books of the New-Testament ; and it is rendered into in 
 three hundred and eighty-eight instances within the same 
 limits. In this very chapter, eis is rendered to and unto 
 six times, and into but once. In the following passages 
 eis most evidently does not mean into. u They ran both 
 together ; and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and 
 came first (eis) to the sepulchre. And he, stooping down, 
 and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying ; yet went he 
 not in.'\h) Christ directs Peter, “ Go thou (tis) to the 
 sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first 
 cometh up.”(i) The Greek word ek , translated out of is 
 
 h John xx, 4, 5. 
 
 i Mat. xviij 27. 
 
60 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 most frequently rendered from. It is rendered/rom in one 
 hundred and two instances within the first five books 
 of the New-Testament ; and it is rendered out of 
 in but seventy-seven instances, within the same limits.* 
 Had these words been translated to and from in the 
 passage we are now considering, so that the reading would 
 have been, They went down both to the water, and when 
 they had come up from the water,” there would have been 
 no particular evidence in favor of immersion. Another re- 
 mark may here be worthy of notice. Philip was at this time 
 .expounding to the eunuch the prophecy in Isaiah Jiii, 7, 8, 
 describing the character and sufferings of Christ, with the 
 privileges and blessings of the gospel through his ato- 
 ning blood. While dwelling on this subject, u as they 
 went on their way, they came to a certain water ; and the 
 eunuch said — See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to 
 be baptised ?” How strange that the eunuch should have 
 here interrupted Philip, endeavouring to turn off his 
 attention from the subject of this prophecy, by in- 
 quiring why he might not be baptised ! He was mam 
 ifestly ignorant of the Christian dispensation, when Philip 
 began this exposition ; for he did not know whether the 
 prophet, in this passage, was u speaking of himself or of 
 some other man.” How deeply he must have been interr 
 ested in the instruction, which Philip gave him, while ex- 
 plaining this prophecy, and applying it to Christ, with the 
 
 The words here translated into and out of not only may, 
 but it is believed, actually should be translated to and from, in 
 this passage which records the eunuch’s baptism. Where the en- 
 trance of a body into a place, or the passage of a body out of a 
 place, is certainly intended to be expressed in the original of 
 the New-Testament, two particles or prepositions, that may 
 signify to or from. , are uniformly employed ; one in immediate 
 connection with the word denoting the place ; the other in the 
 composition of the word expressing the action.” On the oth- 
 er hand, when the passage of a body to a place, or the pas- 
 sage of a body from a place, is only intended, but one parti- 
 cle, signifying to or from, is used. In this passage, relating to 
 the eunuch’s baptism, but one particle or preposition is used; 
 therefore, the words should have been rendered to and from , 
 rather than into and out of — Rev . John Brown's Discourses on 
 Baptism, p. 18 . 
 
 Mr. Brown has fully illustrated the correctness of the rule 
 Ijere laid down. 
 
Conversations on Baptism, C l 
 
 privileges and blessings of the Christian dispensation ! How 
 unaccountable, then, that he should have broke in upon 
 Philip, by enquiring why he might not be baptised, unless 
 baptism had been a subject of their previous conversation t 
 Is there any thing in this prophecy that would have 
 led to this subject ? A few verses preceding that which 
 the eunuch was reading, in considering the same subject, 
 the prophet observes, in speaking of Christ — “ So shall 
 he sprinkle many nations.’ 5 (ft) What was his meaning in 
 these words ? It must relate to something that was to take 
 place under the Christian dispensation ; for the whole pro- 
 phecy is a description of the Saviour’s character and suf- 
 ferings, with the events that were to succeed them. Be- 
 sides, no gospel blessings were to extend to u many na« 
 lions,” till after the Christian dispensation was set up. 
 Now, what is there existing under the Christian dispensa- 
 tion, to which this prophecy could relate ? It must be ei- 
 ther the work of the Spirit in renewing the heart , or the 
 external ordinance of Christian baptism . In the former 
 case it denotes spiritual baptism ; and since baptism with 
 water is to represent this work, it is an obvious conclusion 
 that sprinkling is a proper mode in which it is to be ap- 
 plied. But if this be a direct prophecy of the ordinance 
 of Christian baptism, as I consider we are fairly warrant- 
 ed to believe, then we are here taught directly that sprink- 
 ling is Christian baptism . By taking this construction of 
 the passage, we see an evident propriety in the eunuch’s 
 question to Philip, If Philip, in expounding this prophe- 
 cy, gave the eunuch to understand, that in consequence of 
 the sufferings and death of Christ, a new dispensation of 
 the gospel was to be set up ; that gospel privileges and 
 blessings were then to be extended to many nations ; that 
 believers of all nations were to enjoy them, and that bap- 
 tism with water was to be the visible token of their inter- 
 est in these blessings, what would have been more natural 
 than for the eunuch to enquire, at the first sight of water, 
 (his heart glowing with love to Christ, and exulting in 
 view of the privileges and blessings which Philip was de- 
 scribing) — “ See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to 
 be baptised ?” Does Philip then ask whether he understood 
 the nature and design of baptism ? Nothing of this ; he 
 
 ft Isa. lii, 15. 
 
 F 
 
Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 had probably explained to him this subject before. The 
 only question now was, whether the eunuch wa? a true 
 believer On professing this he was baptised, and bapti- 
 S must we not suppose, in a mode that corresponded 
 
 l^iave 1 gcnerahy supposed that the eunuch was 
 •mmersed ; but the evidence, I find, will not bear exami- 
 nation. Will you now proceed. Sir, to some of the othei 
 
 CEl The next case is that of the apostle Paul. “ A- 
 
 nanias entered into the house, and putting his hands on 
 him said-Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that ap- 
 peared unto thee in the way as thou earnest hath sent ^ 
 hither that thou shouldest receive thy sight. And there 
 fef £ m his eyes as it. had been K d» ; andj he ~ 
 forthwith and was baptised ; and when > « e . 
 
 meat he was strengthened ”{i) Laid was m the house ot 
 Judas on his wav from Damascus to Jerusalem. He bait 
 beerTthree days without food whi^hfim shock he ie- 
 cexved, andA^agi^ion^u is , circurostan- 
 
 some stream or fountain of 
 
 waterTor the purpose of immersion? Or therea^ p^- # 
 bability that he was immersed in this house 'h P 
 states that - he arose and was hapt^d Jb Bank 
 
 .lpolares in giving an account ot his baptism, mai a. 
 SJS23 Lto arise, for the 1 
 
 S2/SS aw^S£”^ ' He was evidently 
 
 baptised *. ^a/down 
 
 sion or sprinkling- Immediately a he ’ received mea t 
 
 and ” n *The whole took place, evidently, 
 
 ?n the room there Ananias found him. The next case is 
 m the room wnore , hoi(L » When she was bapti- 
 
 have W I - JjJ 
 
 ? foithbil to the Lord, come into my house and abide 
 there ”<1) The phrase “ come into my house,” woul sesa 
 
 & ytatrirewas baptised near the door, rfnchwould 
 
 mobablv not he an immersion. ,„*ien 
 
 F ° Cen L We read that Lydia was by the river side, whea 
 
 i Aeti ix, 17. k Acts xxii, 16, l Acts xvi, 15. 
 
63 
 
 Conversations on Baptism , 
 
 Paul preached to her, and the Lord opened her heart. Does 
 not this afford evidence that she was immersed in this 
 river ? 
 
 Min. — This place was, doubtless, a proseucha or house 
 for prayer, as such houses were common among the Jews, 
 and were usually erected in some retired place. Certain 
 women were accustomed to resort here for prayer. This 
 building, however, was not erected by the river side ; nor 
 did Lydia come here at this time for the convenience of 
 baptising, or with the remotest reference to this ordinance. 
 This must be evident, when we consider that Paul was the 
 first person that ever preached the gospel in this city, un- 
 der the Christian dispensation ; that this was the first time 
 he came there ; that this discourse was soon after he arri- 
 ved ; that Lydia was probably the first Christian convert, 
 and the first person in the 'city that ever received Christian 
 baptism ; and that she could have had no thought of being 
 baptised, when she went to this prayer-meeting. 
 
 Con. — In this chapter we have an account of the bap- 
 tism of the jailor and his household. Will you express 
 your views, Sir, in regard to this case ? 
 
 Min.— The account is doubtless familiar to you. The 
 leading facts you will remember are these. Paul and Si- 
 las were thrust by the jailor into the inner prison, a place 
 for the worst of criminals. From this place the jailor 
 brought them out, i.e. into the outer prison, a more decent 
 and comfortable apartment. Here Paul and Silas preach- 
 ed to him ; the jailor believed ; he washed their stripes, 
 and was baptised, he and all his straightway. After this 
 the jailor u brought them into his house,” i.e. into that a- 
 partment of the building which the jailor and his family 
 occupied, and “ sat meat before them.” All this was 
 done u in the same hour of the night,” and it was u about 
 midnight.” Now, in what mode was this baptism admin- 
 istered ? Were they all immersed here in the outer prison ? 
 Is it probable that there was here any place for immersion ? 
 Or can we suppose that they went out to some stream or 
 fountain for this purpose ? There is no intimation of this. 
 Philippi was a great city. Had they gone out at midnight, 
 they would have been apprehended by the watchmen. It 
 would have been a violation of his trust and duty for the 
 jailor to have suffered the prisoners to go out, and Paul 
 and Silas could not have lawfully countenanced this. They 
 
64 
 
 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 refused to go out the next day, till the magistrates should 
 come and fetch them out. Well then may we believe that 
 they did not leave the j ail for the purpose of receiving bap- 
 tism ; and it seems hardly credible that they were immersed 
 within the walls of the prison. The conclusion is, that 
 immersion is not the mode in which they were baptised. 
 Of course, it was performed by affusion. 
 
 Con .-~ The case of those has not been noticed, who 
 were baptised in the house of Cornelius. 
 
 Min . — -This case is recorded in Acts x, 44—47. While 
 Peter was preaching in the house of Cornelius, u The 
 Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word ; and they 
 of the circumcision were astonished, as many as came 
 with Peter, because that on the Gentiles was poured out 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then answered Peter — Can 
 any man forbid water , that these shall not he bapti- 
 sed, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?” 
 These persons had just been baptised with the Holy Ghost, 
 that u fell on them;” that was u poured out ” upon them. 
 This is the reason which Peter gives why they should be 
 baptised . Their baptism was to represent this spiritual 
 work. How suitable it must be that water should be 
 poured upon them to represent that work of the Spirit 
 which they had just received I How unsuitable would im- 
 mersion be to represent this work! That they were not 
 baptised by immersion, appears highly probable from the 
 fact that they were all baptised in the house of Cornelius, 
 where it is not probable there was any place for immer- 
 sion. Numbers of them were from home. They came 
 with no expectation of being baptised. It is not very 
 probable they had any change of apparel with them, or 
 that they were immersed without such change. “ Who,” 
 says Peter, u can forbid water, that these shall not be bap- 
 tised ?” Does not this imply that they were to be baptised 
 with water, as John baptised his disciples ; or that water 
 was to be applied to the subjects in this ordinance, and not 
 the subjects to the water ; and if so, affusion in some form 
 was the mode in which they were baptised. 
 
 I have now remarked on all the instances on record, in 
 which baptism was administered under the Christian dis- 
 pensation, and have exhibited concisely my view of the 
 evidence to show that sprinkling or affusion is a proper 
 
Conversations on Baptism . €6 
 
 scriptural mode of baptism . From the view we have ta- 
 ken of these several cases, the following conclusions arc 
 manifest 
 
 1st. The mode of administering baptism is no where de- 
 scribed in any part of the New-Testament. We are no 
 where informed how any person was baptised . The evi- 
 dence, therefore, from apostolic example, must be taken, 
 entirely, from the circumstances, as they are related in 
 each case. Of course, it can afford only a greater or less 
 degree of probability. 
 
 2d. These accounts are not such as we should expect to 
 have received, had immersion been the mode in which bap- 
 tism was generally practised ; especially in regard to the 
 following particulars : — 1st. There is no intimation of any 
 changing of apparel. Nothing is said in reference to ap- 
 parel, as connected with baptism, in any part of the New- 
 Testament. 2d. There is no account of leaving the place 
 where the subjects believed or heard the word. Wherev - 
 
 er they might- be , there they were baptised ; whether it 
 were in a populous city, in a private house, on a journey, 
 or in a jail ; and it is hardly credible that in all these places 
 there was water sufficient for immersion. 3d. Baptism 
 was never delayed at all for the want of conveniences for 
 baptising ; though it is plain, from examining these several 
 cases, that in no instance , could the person have expected 
 to be baptised , when he came to the place where he receiv- 
 ed this ordinance, and therefore could have made no pre- 
 vious preparation for it. 4th. In six of these instances, 
 various circumstances are related which took place on the 
 occasion of baptising *, and in three or four of these cases 
 the circumstances are numerous and particular ; but in no 
 instance , (unless we except that of the eunuch, and per- 
 haps of Lydia and her household), do we find a single cir- 
 cumstance that presents any particular evidence in favor of 
 immersion. In four of these cases, viz. that of Paul, the 
 jailor, Cornelius, and the three thousand, the circumstan- 
 ces related render it highly improbable that immersion 
 was the mode in which they were baptised. 
 
 Con. — There is a passage in Rom. vi, 4, which I have 
 often heard adduced to prove that immersion is the only 
 proper mode of baptising, viz : u Buried with him ” (i.e 
 Christ) “ in baptism , unto death.” 
 
 Mm. — -By looking at the preceding verse, vou will be 
 F 2 
 
66 Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 led to the true meaning of this passage. u As many of 
 us as were baptised into Jesus Christ , were baptised into 
 his death ; therefore, we are buried with him by baptism,” 
 <&c. The baptism of which the apostle is here speaking, 
 is one which hr mgs us into a union with Christ ; by it we 
 are Ct baptised into Jesus Christ ” Does water baptism 
 effect this ? If not, it is not the baptism of which the apos- 
 tle is here speaking. This, we believe, is the same which 
 he speaks of in similar language, in 1 Cor. xii, 13. “ By 
 
 one spirit we are all baptised into one body ” (i.e. the spir- 
 itual body of Christ, as is certain from the connection), 
 u whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or 
 free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit.” 
 This change, which is regeneration, produces the death 
 and burial of the old man, and raises us up to newness of 
 life ; which is typified by the death, burial and resurrec- 
 tion of Christ. The same thing is represented in the next 
 verse, by being planted with Christ, and in the verse after, 
 by being crucified with Christ. The latter expressions, all 
 will admit, are to be taken only in a spiritual sense. Why, 
 then, should the former, standing in the same connection , 
 and designed for the same general purpose , be taken in 
 any other than a spiritual sense? But granting that this 
 passage refers to water baptism, and that the mode of ad- 
 ministering it is designed to represent the burial and resur- 
 rection of Christ, how will it prove that immersion is to be 
 the mode ? Christ was not buried under the surface of the 
 earth, but in a sepulchre above the ground, and probably 
 was laid in a niche or kind of shelf in the side of it. This 
 would not much resemble an immersion. 
 
 Con.— I have always supposed that this was water bap- 
 tism ; but that, I must acknowledge, does not baptise us . 
 into Jesus Christ, and therefore, it seems, is not the bap- 
 tism of which the apostle is here sp eaking. In connection 
 with this subject, I would thank you, Sir, to relate your 
 sentiments on sacramental communion , with some of the 
 leading arguments in support of those sentiments. 
 
 Min. — My sentiment on this point is, that all true 
 Christians ought to receive each other in communion at 
 the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. The arguments 
 that might be adduced in support of this sentiment are nu- 
 merous ; the most important of which may be ranked un- 
 dor the following heads : 1st. Christ requires all his disci- 
 
G? 
 
 Conversations on Baptism . 
 
 pies to attend upon this ordinance. “ This do” (he says) 
 • 4 in remembrance of me.” This gives them all a right to 
 partake of it, wherever it may be administered according 
 to his direction. And if all Christians have a right to this 
 ordinance, they ought all to receive and commune with 
 each other , when attending upon this institution. If Christ 
 gives to all his people a right to this sacrament, by enjoin- 
 ing it upon them as a duty ; who can have a right to 
 exclude from it any one, that gives evidence of being a 
 Christian ? 2d. The evident design of this sacrament was 
 to be a bond of union in the family of Christ. Here they 
 remember him as their common Saviour ; show them- 
 selves a body distinct from the world ; all united to Christ 
 and to each other in the bonds of Christian love ; sustain- 
 ing towards him and each other, the most endearing rela- 
 tions, as members of the same family ; and entitled to the 
 same privileges and blessings. This union is denoted by 
 the bread which typifies the spiritual body of Christ with 
 its members. How can this design be answered, if all 
 Christians do not receive each other to communion, in 
 partaking of the Lord’s supper ? 3d. The direction of St. 
 Paul confirms this doctrine. “ Receive ye one another, 
 as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.”(m) 
 Christ received us as soon as we received him, and solely 
 on the ground of our being true believers. Thus we are 
 directed to receive one another ; to receive one another as 
 Christians ; and of course partake of all the privileges 
 which Christians are to enjoy. How can this be done if 
 we refuse to receive and commune with each other at the 
 table of the Lord’s supper ? Arguments might be multi- 
 plied in support of this doctrine ; but the duty is so obvi- 
 ous that it seems needless to dwell upon them. It accords 
 with the feelings of every believer. He feels an ardent 
 love to all true Christians ; a cordial and endearing union 
 to them, so far as they have the spirit of Christ ; and he 
 ardently desires to manifest this, by receiving them to fel- 
 lowship in all Christian ordinances. This union is pro- 
 duced by the spirit of God ; and no direction which is giv- 
 en in his word, will be found to oppose or counteract its 
 influence. As this sentiment accords with the spirit of the 
 gospel, and the feelings of all true Christians* so it 
 
 m Romans xw.7.\. 
 
OB Conversations on Baptism. 
 
 accords with the practice of the primitive Christians, and 
 of the Christian church for many generations. What- 
 ever differences of opinion there were in the church, on 
 points not essential to salvation * and notwithstanding the 
 great number of different sects that arose, from one age to 
 another ; yet for more than fifteen hundred years from the 
 days of the apostles, it was the universal practice of all 
 who regarded each other as Christians, to receive each 
 other and hold communion together, at the sacrament of 
 the Lord’s supper. This we learn from Dr. “ Wall’s His- 
 tory from Dr. Mason’s “ Plea for Catholic Commu- 
 nion and from many other writers. This sentiment, we 
 
 think, is confirmed as fully by the scriptures, by reason, 
 and by the practice of the church, as any that is inculcated 
 in the whole of the sacred volume. And when we look 
 at the evils resulting from the opposite practice, we cannot 
 but feel that it is a doctrine of much importance. 
 
 Con . — I have now presented all the enquiries in which 
 I feel especially interested, relating to the subjects and 
 mode of baptism ; and I would express, Sir, my particu- 
 lar obligations to you, for the patience you have exercised, 
 and the instruction I have received from your friendly re- 
 marks. This subject appears in a very different light from 
 that in which I have been accustomed to view it. The 
 consistency and harmony between the Old and New Tes- 
 taments ; the spirituality and perpetuity of God’s ever- 
 lasting covenant ; its accordance in all ages with his holy 
 character, and with the spirit of all his holy requirements : 
 with the invaluable privileges and blessings which it se- 
 cures to his people, are considerations with which I have 
 been much interested, and will be the means, I trust, off 
 enabling me to lead a life, in some good measure, com 
 sistent with the Christian character. 
 
 Min . — Iff I have assisted you in any degree, to attain so 
 important an object, I shall indeed feel amply rewarded. 
 May the Lord direct you by his word and spirit in all the 
 ways of obedience to his commands, and grant you an in- 
 terest in the distinguished blessings of his gracious an & 
 everlasting covenant 
 
'CONTENTS. 
 
 Page * 
 
 Conversation I, containing a general view of the Church 
 under the Jewish dispensation ; showing that none 
 but believers were in covenant with God, or could 
 have any right to covenant blessings, 5 
 
 Conversation II, containing a particular description of 
 the Abrahamic covenant, with evidence of its contin- 
 uance under the Christian dispensation, 13 
 
 Conversation III, containing evidence from the New 
 Testament , that the church is the same both under the 
 Jewish and Christian dispensations, 85- 
 
 Conversation IV, containing arguments in support V of 
 infant baptism, ] 31 
 
 Conversation V, on the use of infant baptism, r 45 
 
 Conversation VI, representing the mode of Christian 
 
 baptism, 50 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 23, line 18, read Jer. xxxi, 3t. 
 
 Page 44, in reference (e), dele ib. The work quoted is 
 u ’ Worcester’s Discourses on Infant Baptism . v 
 
^ r- 
 

The person charging this material is re- 
 sponsible for its return to the library from 
 which it was withdrawn on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 
 
 for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 
 the University. 
 
 To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 
 
 L161— 0-1096