■^-^0^ 
 
S^'^ 
 
 /o^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 i.MiflUjA 
 
A 
 TREATISE 
 
 ON 
 
 BAPTISM: 
 
 BEING 
 
 A REPLY ' 
 
 To a Book ev\t'\t\ed 
 A DEBATE UN CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 BETWEEN 
 MR. JOHN WALKER & ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, 
 
 Held at Moimtpleasantf on the i9th 8C 
 
 20th June, 1820. 
 
 TO WHICH IS .flDDED 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 to tHB 
 
 REV. SAMUEL RALSTON. 
 BY JOHN WALKER, 
 
 '•liNTSTF.R OP THE GOSPEL IN THE ASSOCIATE CONGHE- 
 GATIONS OF MOUNTPLEASANT AND UNITT, OHIO. 
 
 Let another man praise thee, and not thine own 
 tnouth. Prov. 27. ?, 
 
 The last shall be fir«t, & the first last. Matt. 20. 16. 
 A double minded man is unstable in all his yvsiys. 
 
 James, 1. 8, 
 
 MOlWTPLEMJiJ^'T, OHIO. 
 
 «« WRIGHT & B. BATES — PRINTERS. 
 
 1824. 
 
DISTOICT OF OHIO, Scr. 
 
 Be it remembered, that on the nineteenth 'dav 
 of July in the year of our Lord, one thousand, eight 
 hundred and twenty three, and in the forty eighth 
 yparotthe American Independence, JOHN \VALK- 
 Mi ot saul District, hath deposited in t^iis Office, the 
 title of a book, the right whereof he claims as author, 
 in the words and figures following, to wit: -'A 1 rea- 
 tise on Baptism, being a reply to a book entitled a 
 WA V'i'^T, "f*'^" Baptism, jjetween Mr. JOHN 
 . ^; S? ^'"^ ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, held 
 at Mt. Pleasant on the 19th and £Oth June. 1820, to 
 Which IS. added, a Letter to the Rev. 8 xMUEL R AL 
 feJON,by JOHN WALKER, Minister of the Gos. 
 pel, in the associate congregations of Mt. Pleasant 
 ano Unity Ohio." In confotraity to the act of Con- 
 gress of the United States, entitled «an act for the 
 encouragement of learning, by securing the Copies 
 of Maps, Charts, and Bonks, to the authors and L- 
 pnetors of such copies, during the times therein men- 
 tioned, and aiso of the act entitled, "an act supple- 
 mentary an act entitled, an act for the encourage- 
 ment of learning by securing the Copies of Maps, 
 Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of 
 such copies during the times therein mentioned, and 
 extending the benefits thereof to the arts of design- 
 pf.its!'"^''^''"'^' ^"'* ^*"''"^' »^i«torical ;and other 
 
 I L. S. I HARVEY D. EVANS. 
 
 ^^''^'•^^'^ C^erk of the District of Ohio,' 
 

 m. 
 
 FREKflCE:, 
 
 At the time of the public dispute, ] inti- 
 mated that I had no dcsio'o of vM'itiiig uj»on 
 th<' subject of baptism. Mr. Camp!)cll cftea 
 iulimalcd his intention of wriiing, I then be- 
 liev<'d as lspo'\e; and hud Mr. C. given my 
 a»'S'J»!;Pnts as tht\y were delivered, vr ' veri 
 hav done me tolerable Justice; I . should 
 never hsve written. 
 
 it;> bonk however was harmless inthe neigh- 
 bduihood of the place w here the di?«pnte was; 
 th' rp people h d h»aid the dispute & judgtd. 
 for themselvrs. Still I had nointentii)n of pub- 
 lishing. Hut some considerable time after, 
 I received letters from distant places, w here 
 people had no knowledge, either of Mr. C. 
 or myself, earne>tl;y' requestirtg me to publish. 
 I at length complied, and commenced mukiiig 
 some preparations. Sometime after thi**, X 
 understood, that a second edition of Mr. C's. 
 bock wrffe about to be published in Pitts-burg. 
 I waited anxiously, but yet waited n long 
 time, hoping that Mr. C. w ould make su' h 
 alterations, or concessions, as would either 
 supercede the necessity of my pni)lication, or 
 make me think that he designed to be can- 
 did and tell the truth, But I was astonished 
 when the second edition made its appearance. 
 -—It was Mr. C. still. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 .f muiniilicity of official concerns and nro» 
 vidential occuiTences delate! this work 
 otherwise U might have a'ppeared mS 
 
 nnT^JV''^?"'''^ "[ *'"^'' ^'^«' *he end I pro- 
 posed by th. puolic debat., n was the ^end 
 f ^*"^ »" view when I wrote. How far ifc 
 IS pineo the reader maj jndge 
 
 1 m.ght mention that 1 understand xVIr. G. 
 18 pubhfthine; a historv of the dinute Hp 
 
 jecton«hicl, Wft dispute,!, I lioi.e the pub- 
 
 ceroed! ' '™''' *'''™ *'■"""'/!» ^»«- 
 
 The chuicl. of Christ feels the effect of 
 
 aieour defects; but any person who by known 
 sh'S'r'b"""';"" "''' '" '■"grievance^ 
 
 I only ask the reader to pass over all mv 
 
 "delects in conalni>~ii..n „„ i X 
 
 .«„„:. "'nsiructiDn, or lanzuaM. and 
 
 thr^idi/^S"'^"'''^^"^"^^'^"^- 
 
 *\eMj Athens, Jammry, 14th. 18:^4. 
 

 INTRODUCTION. ^ 
 
 Sometime early in the year 1820, Mr. Walker 
 was requested to preach on the subject of baptism, 
 at the house of a Mr. John Gray; about five miles 
 S. W. from Mountpleasant, Ohio, in the vicinity of 
 a Baptist meeting house. The Baptists about that 
 time, were making a considerable stir in the 
 neighbourhood, and such preachers as 'they had, 
 were zealously opposing the doctrine of infant 
 baptism, and the mode of sprinkling, in the ad- 
 ministration of this sacrament. Mr. W. answered 
 the request, and preached upon the subject. He 
 felt conscious of the unpopularity of preaching 
 on any disputed subject; but believed it to be his 
 duty, rather to consult the interests of truth, than 
 popular opinion. Accordingly, he preached on 
 that passage, Math. 3.11. / indeed Baptizeyou, 
 with water. In answering objectrons ofiered by 
 Baptists, Mr. W. found it necessary (o reply to 
 some observations made by a Dr. Baldwin; be- 
 cause the Baptists were industriously circulating 
 these pamphlets, in the neighbourhood at that 
 time. When the sermon was closed, and the 
 public worlf^ofthe day finished, a Mr. Birch, said 
 to be a Baptist preacher, requested Mr. W. to 
 point out the part quoted in any of the works of 
 Dr. Baldwin. Mr. W. had the pamphlet in his 
 pocket, and the different passages marked, to 
 which he refered, in the sermon. He mi medi- 
 ately showed Mr. B. the passaye. After some ob- 
 servations upon it, Mr. VV. observed, that he under- 
 stood there were two Baptist preachers piesent; 
 that men professing this character, should be un- 
 williijg to mislead people; and that he-thought it 
 6 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 was now their duty to enter into a public conver' 
 sation upon the subject: tliis would do justice to 
 all parties, and would give the people an opportu* 
 nity of judging for themselves. Mr. B. replied 
 that he had to preach at some distance from that 
 place, on tliat evening; and could not detain. Mr. 
 W. observed that if it wsls not convenient for him 
 then to detain, he thought it a duty they owed to 
 their respective hearers and the church, again to 
 meet, and converse upon the subject publicly. Mr. 
 B. without agreeing, intimated to the people the 
 day on which he would preach on the subject, and 
 so closed the conversation. 
 
 Sometime after this, Mr. W. received a line 
 from the same Mr. B. informing him, that he 
 should be met on the subject of the sermon, by 
 some Baptist minister. To which Mr. W. express- 
 ed his readiness to comply, upon two conditions^ 
 1st. That he should be of good moral character: 
 and 2udly. Tliat he should be a regular minister of 
 the baptist society. Mr. B. in reply, wrote that he 
 liad obtained a consent from Mr. Alexander Camp- 
 bell, a regular minister of their church, and inti- 
 mated that he should meet Mr. W. for a public 
 dispute on the 19th of June, at Mountpleasant. 
 This is the whole foundation of the pompous and 
 bantering advertisement of which Mr. C. declared 
 himself the author. 
 
 Mr. W. neither challenged Mr. Campbell, or any 
 other minister of the baptist church, for a public 
 dispute. He requested a public conversation, with 
 any who heard him preach the sermon on that 
 subject, but did no more. 
 
 On the morning of the public dispute, Mr. W. 
 requested some proof of Mr. C's being a regular 
 Baptist minister. Mr. Birch read some of the ex- 
 
( INTRODUCTION^. ' S 
 
 tracts of the minutes of their associations; these 
 mentioned that Mr. C. was a writing clerk at some 
 of their meetings; but whetlier he took any part 
 in their deliberations, or decisions, was not stat- 
 ed: or whether he was a hired, voluntary, or stat- 
 ed clerk, no hint was given. Mr. W. as he had 
 no disposition to decline the debate, however ad- 
 mitted that he was some species of Baptist minis- 
 ter; although he felt persuaded that the state of 
 the Baptist church was low, when Mr. C. was 
 chosen for their best.* 
 
 The followini* rules were presented by the 
 Judges, Mr. Martin and Rev. Findly, and sigi> 
 ed by the disputants. 
 
 *It is disputed by some baptists, whether Mr. C. 
 was ever admitted as a regular minister of their 
 church; yet I think it probable he was, because I 
 understand some left their communion in conse- 
 quence of his admission. However, let this matter 
 be as it may, some years ago, no baptist association, 
 would have admitted him; for whatever were the 
 conditions of his admission, it is now completely 
 in his power to disseminate all his particular views 
 amongst the members of that society — his opinion 
 of the moral law — covenant of works, and parti- 
 cularly of the sabbath, will, in due time, take root 
 among them. And, as there are but few learned 
 ministers in that church, in the western country, 
 it will give him influence. Whatever may be the 
 opinion of his learned acquaintances, he considers 
 himself no mean scholar. Influence, without 
 soundness, is dangerous. It would be well for the 
 Baptist association to read Paul's 1st. Epistle t» 
 the Corinthians. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 'This controversy shall be conducted by thefol- 
 ' lowing regulations, viz. 
 
 ' 1st. It shall be opened with prayer, by some 
 'person agreed upon by the part-es. 
 
 '2ad. Tlve parties shall not be pei-mitted to in- 
 ' terrupl: e.iCt'. other, except to corrf-ct mistalces. 
 
 '3rd. All dimiiiutive, or disre.!^pectful personal 
 'allusions, and ali impassioned declamation, shall 
 •be deemed disorderly, 
 
 '4th. In all cases,* the privileges, and regula- 
 ' lions of each party shall be equal, 
 
 '5th. Thcpoints to be adhered to in the discus- 
 ' sion, are first, the subjects, and secondly, the 
 'mode of christian baptism, viz. Are believing 
 'adults alone (o be baptized, or are their infant 
 ' offspring to be included with them, in their right 
 ' to that ordinance? and is immersion as the mode, 
 'exclusively to be used? 
 
 '6th. Each of the parties may, at their option, oc- 
 ' cupy forty minutes in their stated replies, but 
 ' shall not lie obliged to fill up tliat length of time; 
 'nor on the account of stopping,even atthecxpira- 
 ' tion of 3 or 5 minutes, be considered as yielding 
 ' the question." 
 
 ' 7th. This controversy will be the subject of ad- 
 ' journment, from day to day, until the subjects are 
 ' discussed, to the satisfactionof the judges."* 
 
 * These rules being the constitution by which' 
 the disputants w^ere governed, must have been 
 more radically fixed in the memory of Mr. C. than 
 any of Mr W's speeches. The reader will do 
 well to compare these rules with those mentioned 
 by Mr. C. in his preface; and if, in the rules of the 
 debate, such v«^ere his deviations, what is to be ex- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 Before signing the above, Mr. C. contended a 
 longtime upon the impropriety of first discussing 
 the subjects of infant Baptism, telling the audience 
 that the mode was the most important subject, and 
 should be first discussed; that "sprinkling was no 
 more baptism, than a thong of leather was his 
 boot." The parties agreed to choose twelve men, 
 to decide upon the question, that should be first 
 discussed; these were to choose the thirteenth. 
 These men returned, in a few minutes, and report- 
 ed that the proper subjects of baptism was to bethe 
 first, and most appropriate question, to be discuss- 
 cd.f 
 
 Mr. Walker then proceeded to read the advertise- 
 ment mentioned above, in which it was stated that 
 *'Mr. Walker having challenged any minister of 
 the baptist church" ^c. Mr. Walker tben public- 
 ly denied, that ever he had challenged any min- 
 ister of the Baptist church, for a dispute. Mr. C. 
 after stating that he was the author of the pub- 
 lication, said that he had received the information 
 from Mr. Birch: by request, Mr. B. then made a 
 full statement of what had passed at the place, at 
 
 pected in the view he has given us of the speech- 
 es? 
 
 Tliese rules were obtained from Mr. Findly,by 
 Mr. Munroe of Canonsburg, Washington Co. Pa. 
 
 t The persons chosen by Mr. C. were Esq. Cur- 
 tis, Messrs. Martin, Birch, Dawsey, Thomas Camp- 
 bell, and Bryant. 
 
 Bv Mr. W. Rev. Findly, Anderson, Dr. Hamil- 
 ton, Messrs. Adams, P. Miller & McLaughlin. The 
 13th chosen by them was Mr. McMillen. 
 B2 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 which Mr. W. preached. || The substance of which 
 is already given. Mr, Birch gave no hint of suc]i 
 a challenge. A falsehood rested some place; and, 
 although Mr. W. proved to the satisfaction of the 
 public, that no such challenge was given, Mr. C. 
 never blushed — he appeared at ease; this however, 
 Vvas tolerable. The size of the audience, and Mr. 
 C's opinion of himself, now required him to put 
 the best possible face upon the matter: but extra- 
 ordinary as it may appear, we have the game as- 
 sertion in his printed history of the dispute, Page 
 1. The conversation Mr. W. had with Mr. B. was 
 public. The public statement made by Mr. B. 
 was accurate — Mr. C. is left alone in the asser- 
 tion. 
 
 The import of the advertisement was, that, as Mr. 
 W. Goliah-!ike has defied the whole forces of 
 the Baptist church — I Alexander Campbell, a regu- 
 lar minister of the Baptist church, still mightier 
 than he, in the name of the whole Baptist society, 
 am determined to meet him. J 
 
 Mr. 0. long anxious' tomake a publick appearance, 
 endeavouring by every possible exertion to have 
 him-ielf noticed, having failed with the best class- 
 es of religious society, appears under the signature 
 of '■'• Candidus'^ (a term the least appropriate to 
 himself) in which he openly enlists. against moral 
 societies — against the religious observation of the 
 
 II The friarht in which Mr. B. appeared, 1 think 
 did not prevent him from telling the truth, 1 be- 
 lieve he was candid. 
 
 I Mr. C styles himself a regular minister of the 
 Baptist Church, in ihe title p <§e of ins book — 
 has this church two orders of the ministry, one 
 regular— another irregular.'' 
 
INTRODUCTION. . 7 
 
 sabbath, Ac. — securing to himself a retreat, when 
 the assylum of regular churches became hopeless. 
 But now an excellent opportunity offers in public 
 debate; he embraces it; and, when thf^ world refu- 
 ses approbation, he easily supplies the defect, by 
 giving it to himself. 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 That there was a public dispute between Mr, 
 Campbell and Mr. Walker, on the 1 9tli . and 20th 
 of J'liie, 1820, is almost the only truth (Contained in 
 a publication, written by Mr. Campbell; pupport- 
 ing tobe a history of that dispute, & stating tho sub- 
 stance of the speeches delivered by the disputants. 
 
 If it had been the intention of Mr. C. to do jus- 
 tice, he would have only published such notes as 
 were taken by disinterested persons; the dispu- 
 tants themselves had another employment than ta- 
 king notes — those observations were alone noted 
 by them to which they intended to eply.H Mr. 
 T. Campbell, Father of Mr. A. Campbell, with 
 whose notes Mr. C. says he was favored — page 2nd, 
 actively commenced taking notes at the beginning 
 of the dispute; but after the second reply made by 
 Mr. W. he ceased, in a great measure,, noting; and 
 wrote tickets and handed them across the table to 
 his son. This conduct, certainly unjust, was men- 
 tioned to Mr. W. in the first recess: but he felt no 
 disposition to forbid it. Mr. Findly, one of the 
 judges, also mentioned this circumstance, but said 
 he would not cause him to desist, unless I required 
 him; lestfhey should think he was assumir^. The 
 truth is, the son needed the assistance of the Fa- 
 ther, without whose help, the debate would not 
 
 H A short publication in the Washington Repor- 
 ter, signed Fluto, was the first truth published re- 
 specting this debate — I am not certain who was 
 the author of that paper — he has certainly done 
 justice to the disputants, though his signature 
 would have permitted him to havfe taken all the 
 liberty of Mr. Campbell. 
 
10 
 
 OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 probably have lasted through the first day Mr 
 TV .contended with the father^: the son fortwoday.' 
 Had this m any degree aided the investigation 
 of truth, It miffht have been borne with But it 
 was generally observed, that when the son re- 
 ceived a note from the father he, always made an 
 efforttochange bis ground; because the old sen- 
 tieman thought it not tenable. The truth i= the 
 son only excells the father, in ease of communi- 
 cation; bur in disputation, the father as far e.xcells 
 the son--and, although the father is deservedly 
 unnoticed by the li^^ng, n is not because he is 
 de^c:ent,eltherin literature or talents; but be- 
 cause, from some species of delirium, his faith, his 
 creed was as changeable in character and positi- 
 on?, as the aurora borealis. 
 
 On the 19 and20 of June Mr. C. had not the 
 power of forming his opponent; but when he comes 
 to write, be makes one small enough— one easily 
 vanquished. This is first manifest in the len-th of 
 his peeches compared with those of Mr W' The 
 following certificate I received from a learned 
 gentlemen.member of the general assembly church 
 who attended everv moment of the debate ' 
 
 "Debate on baptism by J walker and A Camp- 
 bell; length of time spoken by each. Each 
 spoke 16 t>mesin the following proportion- 
 *;Quesi,OD 1st. Who were the fit subjects of Bap- 
 tism r •' r 
 
 Mr. Walker. Mr. Campbell. 
 
 SpucK rmmites. Speech. miiiuUi. 
 ^ ' 3 2-19 
 
 8 ^ 13 4-1 
 
 5-29 6-21 
 
 * - 22 8-32 
 
 ^ - 20 10-26 
 

 OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 
 
 11 - 
 
 ^5 
 
 12 - 
 
 27 
 
 13 - 
 
 15 
 
 14 - 
 
 28 
 
 15 - 
 
 25 
 
 16 - 
 
 40 
 
 17 - 
 
 26 
 
 18 - 
 
 10 
 
 19 - 
 
 37 
 
 20 - 
 
 32 
 
 21 - 
 
 14 
 
 22 - 
 
 27 
 
 23 - 
 
 29 
 
 24 - 
 
 24 
 
 25 - 
 
 27 
 
 26 - 
 
 31 
 
 2"^ - 
 
 29 
 
 28 - 
 
 40 
 
 II 
 
 Q. 2nd. What is the proper mode of Baptism? 
 Mr. Walker. Mr. Campbell. 
 
 Speech, minutes. Speech, minutes. 
 
 1 14 2 39 
 
 3 20 4 35 
 
 Total length of Mr. C's speeches, 7 hours 12 mi- 
 nutes. 
 
 Total length of Mr. W's speeches, 5 hours 48 
 minutes. 
 
 Difference in favor of Mr. C. during the 2 days, 
 1 hour 24 minutes. 
 
 I certify the above to be correct. 
 
 JOHN m'cracken. 
 
 But the form in which we find the speeches of 
 Mr. W. in the miserable statement of his argu- 
 ments, may indeed render them an easy prey to 
 Mr. C, Some of the most important observations 
 are entirely omitted. He appears only to have 
 introduced as many of Mr. W's arguments as serv- 
 ed his purpose; & even these are presented in 
 such a mutilated form, that he (Mr. C.) might the 
 more easily manage them. Thus Mr. C. makes a 
 ccdlection of arguments in a pitiful shape indeed; 
 then displays his eloquence in causing them to ex- 
 pire. Had Mr. C. by writing, only intended to re- 
 ply to those arguments used by Mr. W. in the de- 
 
12 OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 bate, which he found himself unable, at that time 
 to answer, there might have been some excuse : but, 
 when the whole history of the debate is his declared 
 object; the world can never approbate his honesty. 
 
 Out of many examples I shall only note a few; and 
 let these serve for the remaind- r — page 51. He re- 
 presents Mr. W. as asking tor "a positive command 
 for the institution of a church." To this Mr. C. 
 replies with great activity, page 52. The question 
 was never asked, nor iiad it any meaning; and of 
 course the reply was lost. The question was. 
 "Have we a positive command, for all the ac- 
 knowledged institutions of the church?"' Had 
 he stated the question, as it was, we might have 
 expected some form of an answer. We might then 
 have tried hi,n upon some of those rites in the church 
 he acknowledges. 
 
 To save himself the odium which every man of 
 sense must of necessity attach to him, we have 
 him setting his phrases of astonishment different- 
 ly, in his book, from the facts, as they were deli- 
 vered in the debate. When speaking of the new 
 covenant, pag. 39, 'Paul saith the new covenant 
 ' is better than the old. Mr. W. says it is just the 
 same.' He then adds that burst of acclamation 
 page 86, • I stand on the first ground on which I 
 'hare ever heard &c.' But this he has omitted; 
 for then it vvould have bfen evident that he never 
 had read any theological work, and that he never 
 had been a pedo-Baptist. 
 
 Pag. 65. He has Mr. W. asserting that the 
 church received its origin with Abraham'^ cove- 
 nant. ButMr. W. had no disposition to date the 
 commencement of the existence of a church, with 
 Abraham; but throughout the whole debate he 
 maintained that the church coma.enced its exis- 
 
OBSEUVATIONS. 18 
 
 tence with tlie first person on earth that believed; 
 yet asserted that the church received a particular 
 organization in Abraham. 
 
 Pag. 81. Mr. W. asks, what did circumcision seal 
 Mo Ishmael?' This question was important — Mr. 
 C to have given it an honest answer, would have 
 lost a paint: but after he diverts the reader with a 
 few Jiourish4:s upon it, he takes an easy way of re- 
 moving the difficulty, P. 90, 'Mr. Walker will 
 
 * please to answer the folloiving queries. 1st, 
 What did circumcision seal to Ishmael? 
 
 P. 75. In a part of Mr. W's. speech, we have 
 this expression — "I maintain that temporal bless- 
 ' ings as well as spiritual are enjoyed through 
 ' Christ, or were a part of Christ's purchase". Up- 
 on this he adds a few jests, and intimates a fact, 
 which otherwise might never have been leaNied, 
 that he hadheard of the Covenanters & Seceders in 
 Scotland, P. 78. But the truth is, Mr. W. ne- 
 ver made the assertion; or even Mr. C. these re- 
 marks, until they were made in his book. For 
 the satisfaction of the resider, I shall copy the 
 notes of Mr. Miller as they were taken. 'As all 
 ' the blessings believers enjoy, come through the 
 
 * covenant of grace, and as circumcision was a 
 *seal of that covenant, circumcision confirmed Vie 
 'promise of temporal blessings, as well as spiritu- 
 ' al; but, as it was a seal of the covenant of grace, 
 ' denied that it confirmed the promise of temporal 
 'blessings only.' Throughout the debate, Mr. 
 W. expressed no other sentiment than that com- 
 mon to pedo — Baptists; much less did he oppose a 
 sentiment of that branch of the church, to which 
 he has the honor of belonging. Mr. C. whose 
 christian system (ifit maybe so called,) las be- 
 come so general, seems incapable of comprehend- 
 
 C 
 
14 OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 ing, that right which the covenantor grace con- 
 veys to believers, in their enjoyments of temporal 
 blessings; and of understanding why the earthly 
 Canaan was promised to Abraham and to his seed 
 by Isaac. 
 
 Mr. W. showed that the right which Abraham 
 had to that land, was materially the same with that 
 jvhich any believer had to his earthly possessions. 
 Ahlessing through Christ, removes the curse from 
 temporal things. And this is universally true, to 
 all saints; whether they lived under the old or 
 new testament. Thus, by misrepresentation, 
 which I hope was not wilful, and then by some 
 sporting upon it, a share of the arguments of the 
 debate was lost. 
 
 I might notice such things in almost every page, 
 but why complain? the sacred oracles have receiv- 
 ed the same treatment; some of these will be no- 
 ticed in due time. I would now call the atten- 
 tion of the reader to one, Pag. 164 — Mr. C. says 
 Christ was born to perform 'the mercy promised by 
 'the father, and to remember his holy covenant.'' 
 Luke 1 72, '■To perform the mercy promised to our 
 ' FATHERS and to remember his holy covenant.^ 
 If Mr. C. had done this passage justice, even in 
 quotation, it would have told the reader a fact, 
 that the covenant of grace had an entailment — 
 that promises were made by God to children 
 through their parents; a truth which every Bap- 
 tist feels unwilhng to grant. 
 
 In Page. 196, he makes the following state- 
 ment ' I would observe, that at the close of the 
 
 * debate at Mountpleasant, some of the Pedo-Bap- 
 
 * lists (as 1 afterwards understood from some of 
 
 * the most creditable witnesses) proposed violently 
 
 * forcing us to quit the ground by argumentum Ba- 
 
OBSERVATIONS. 15 
 
 * culinum.^ The truth of this matter is known to 
 Mr. C. He should not have made this statement. 
 I will now narrate the substance of the whole mat- 
 ter. Mr. Thos. Campbell, Father of Mr. A. C. 
 when the work was over, rose and addressed the 
 audience; as he had no legal concern in the mat- 
 ter, and was guilty of improperly aiding his son, 
 in the dispute, and for many years had been ex- 
 tremely unpopular — a few of Mr. C's own country 
 mencryedout — 'Down the old apostate,' 'Down 
 THE old apostate.' When the old gentleman began 
 to speak, Mr. W. mentioned to Mr. C. to icq'.iest 
 his father to desist; lest the resentment of the pub- 
 lic would be expressed too far — Mr. T. C. had 
 no more right to ^peak than any other man 
 in that assembly. He declared in that 
 speech, that he had "retired behind the curtain" 
 and it was generally believed that he would do the 
 most good by staying there. 
 
 But as it respects Mr. A. Campbell, a leading 
 pedo-baptist had spoken to a respectable iiikeeper 
 in the town of Mountpleasant; to treat him well 
 and keep him free of expense; all of which was 
 done, Mr. W. feels persuadt d that there were no 
 affronts offered to Mr. A. Campbell during that de- 
 bate,that he received honorable treatment,through- 
 out that occasion, by all classes of the audience. 
 These complaints, howeter, serve to character- 
 rise Mr. C. — and show what those are to expect 
 who treat him well. 
 
 The observations of Mr. C. upon the Rav. Find- 
 ly are both unju'^t and ungenerous Although 
 Mr. W. is in a grent measure unacquainted with 
 Mr. Fiudly, yet his conduct as a judge in that de^ 
 
16 OBSERVATIONS: 
 
 bate was upright.* Mr. Findly objected to the 
 reading of Rtbison's observations upon the char- 
 acter of Cyprian, noticed by Mr. C. in page 118 
 — because at that time, it was an unnecessary ruin 
 oftlie character of a good man. Had any autlior 
 of good standingbeen brought forward to impeach 
 the character of Cyprian, as it respected truth 
 and veracity; it would • liave been relevant; and 
 Mr. Findly would not have objected — Because the 
 only use Mr. W. had made of the works of Cypri- 
 an, was to enquire after the truth of a single fact, • 
 whether infants were baptised or not, in that age. 
 But to expose what Mr. Robison supposed were 
 his errors, did not effect his veracity as an histo- 
 rian. 
 
 The address of Mr. Findly as one of the judges 
 was only a discharge of the duty of his station, 
 during the debate. The judge of Mr, C. had the 
 sanie opportunity, if he thought his cause would 
 not justify him in using his privilege. Mr. F. was 
 not to blame: and because lie told his sentiments 
 without disguise, Mr. C. should not have been of- 
 fended. For the satisfaction of the reader I shall 
 now publish the substance of the speech of Mr. 
 Findly as handed me by one who noted the sub- 
 stance of what he spoke. 
 
 "Mr. Findly remarked as follows." 'To my 
 'satisfaction, my brethren, Mr. Walker has 
 
 * Mr. Findly was chosen by Mr. W. as ins Judgb, 
 not from any previous acquaintance, but for two 
 reasons. 1st. Because he was not a minister of the 
 same communion and therefore impartial, and 2ad. 
 Because he had publicly defended the moral as- 
 sociation of West Middleton agamst the attacksof 
 Mr. Campbell. 
 
OBSERVATIONS, 11 
 
 ' proven that the church received its "first public 
 
 * org'^nization in Abraham, by that covenant called 
 
 * the covenant of circumcision — and that inthis 
 
 * covenant was revealed the covenant of qrace, 
 ' which presented to men the everlasting gospel, 
 
 * and orgfanized ;hem into a vii^ible body called 
 *the church; and it has been proven to my satisf ic- 
 'tion, that circumcision was, at that time, the only 
 
 * visible sign of that ory^atiiz'^d body, the church; 
 
 * and so long as the body will remain visible, it will 
 
 * have visible signs necessarily connected with the 
 
 * administration of the covenant of grace." 
 
 *It is certainly admitted that the church thus 
 
 * defined, exists in the present day. The chang- 
 
 * ing of the outward sign, no more destroys the 
 
 * church, than the changing of a man's name, 
 
 * changes his being. In this visible organization of 
 
 * the covenant of grace, children were introduced 
 
 * by positive Divine authority. It is admitted that 
 *.the sign is changed, but the members are not ex- 
 
 * pelled.' ■ . 
 
 ' There is still a sign; this is baptism; children 
 
 * were formerly acknowledged members of the vis- 
 ' ible church, as divinely constituted.. When? 
 
 * where? or by whom is this abrogated?" 
 
 " It is acknowledged' that members of the 
 
 * church are entitled to baptism; but the member- 
 ' ship of children is proved v stt^er little children to 
 
 * come unto me^ for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 
 * God has, in every age of the- church,, acknow- 
 
 * ledged the children of his people as near to him. 
 ' So the apostle argues Rom. 11. and 1st. Cor. 7. 
 ' And the continued history of the church confirms 
 
 * and illustrates the scriptHres on this point." 
 
 " Brethren; it is now evident, on the side of the 
 ' opposition, that their principles not only tend ta 
 C2 
 
18 OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 'the denial, but in fact do deny the being, of a 
 ' church before the c omnia; of Christ — and since 
 ' that time, their principle8 do actually un'churcli 
 ' the whole christian world, with the exception 
 ' of that small section of the church called Baptists.' 
 * Permit me also to observe that on the side of 
 ' the opposition, the question in debate was seldom 
 ' touched; the speaker wandered from the point, 
 ' flew from the subject, and with gigantic strides^ 
 'entered into an uncultivated, field of witticisms; 
 ' and thereby attempted to diiect the attention of 
 ' the audience from the subject in dispute, or di- 
 ' vert by touches of oratory, or rather gtZcZcd. & 
 ^painted buffoonery, and satyrizim, not only his 
 ^ opponent and the cause which he ably and judi- 
 
 * ciously defended; but also those precious men of 
 *■ God who. being dead yet speak. He has also 
 *■ awfully abused the sacred oracles of the living 
 
 * God, by profanely jestuig, and by turning, or en- 
 *• deavoring to turn the sacred text from its real 
 
 * import. This, my brethren, is my judgment of 
 ' the debate. The other judge is at equal liberty 
 
 * with me to speak his mind."* 
 
 Mr. C. states that he; received a letter from Mt. 
 rieasant, dated June 16^ 1820. Signed Philo Jus- 
 titi(e — which 'e ter he gives to the public at length, 
 page 4, 5. Not one word of this letter is true. All 
 those who attended the public ministrations of Mr. 
 W. can attest its falsity. Neither the public 
 banter of Mr. C. or the dread of his mightiness on the 
 mind of Mr. W. made any change in the public 
 discourses either previous to, or since the debate* 
 
 From an intimate acquaintance with the leading 
 
 * Mr. Martin, the other judge, did not think pro^ 
 per to give his sentiments. 
 
OBSERVATIONS. 19 
 
 charactfrs of that place, Mr. W. knows of none 
 who have any acquaintance with the Latin or 
 Gieek langnae:es, except one, who, whoever, is a 
 gentlemnn; and of course was not the author of 
 that letter, and if any other citizen unacquointed 
 Willi these languages, used the signature of Philo 
 Justilifff he was not in possession of common sense; 
 and therefore was^not entitled to credit. But^ tlie 
 probability is, few saw this letter except Mr. C. 
 who was well accustomed to a signature * of like 
 import — and as unfairly applied. Why did Mr. 
 C. give for a truth, the malicious surmise of an 
 individual? Is the object of Mr. C. the investiga- 
 tion of truth? 
 
 We have an instance of, Mr. C's ingenuity, great- 
 ness of soul, and unexpected candor; which more 
 than compensates for all his misrepresentations. 
 As an opponent at last he appears, generous. He 
 writes a letter to Mr. W. gives him an opportunity 
 of correcting his book now finishing in the office 
 at Steubenville, and with a generostiy unequaled, 
 at his own expense, and to the great injury of his 
 purse, dedicates iweniy four pages of that work to 
 the mxly use ofMr. W. in order that Mr. W. might 
 correct mistakes if any should unfortunately be 
 made. He had three full weeks given him for this 
 purpose — The reader will please-to read Mr. Mil- 
 ler's certificate. 
 
 Steuhenvilh^ May Srd. 1823. 
 T do hereby inform all who may feei themselves 
 interested in the information, that to my know- 
 ledge Mr. Walker, did not receive the 'etter adr 
 dressed to my care for him by Mr. Campbell, until 
 the time specified in the letter had el-.ipsed, say a 
 Treek or two at least. JAMES P. MILLER. 
 *Candidu6. 
 
20 ©BSERVATrONS. 
 
 The probabilifyi?, tf'aiMr. C. V.i^^nt cnffrr the 
 lettf r to depart from hiin>ie If until tf.e three w p^ks 
 were nearly closed - lest, unhappily, Mr. W. 
 might attend to his rtquest. Mr C. knew thai Mr. 
 W. lived in a pnst-town; as a few weeks before the 
 debate he bad directed a letter to him. At any 
 rate, Mr. W. wa? rot a private charoc'er; and it 
 must have been a fact, that Mr. C. knew that if he 
 ywould dirpctly senda letter to Mr. W. he would 
 be as likely to receive it as any other person. 
 
 Why did not Mr. C. know that Mr. W. had re- 
 ceived that letter before he printed Ml As an evi- 
 dence of his honesty, had he taken the trouble cf 
 askinjr Mr. Miller, he would have found tl e truth. 
 No — Mr. C. must appear honest, let the truth be 
 as It will. But had Mr. W. received the letter, 
 what could be hare done? either put ore black 
 stroke upon the whole, or have written remarks 
 and left them in the power of Mr. C. to be manag- 
 ed as his speeches were — so that when Mr. C. was 
 done with the remarks they would not have beea 
 Mr, W's but Mr. C"s remarks. 
 
A REPLY. 
 
 It is not our intention, in the prosecution of 
 the subject before us, to follow the devious track 
 marke(3 out by Mr. C. This would leave the sub- 
 ject in that form, in which none could be edified. 
 But in the establishment of our assertions, we 
 shall attend to all the ob^ervations of Mr. C. wor- 
 thy of notice. Our first assertion is: 
 
 That God did immediately, alter the fall of 
 man, establish a church upon earth, which, has 
 continued ever since— and will remain an ever- 
 lasting kingdom. 
 
 That there is a difference between the church 
 visible and invisible will appear by observing, 
 1st. That she has a vi^ib;e exietence, aider vis- 
 ible laws, rules and regulations. There may be 
 membersliip in this visible body, without any 
 union in reality to Christ: although such profes- 
 sion will nei her be profit-r«blc lo the persotj in 
 in time, or eiernity. Tnis appears from Math. IS- 
 IS. "Every plant which m} heavetily Adl.er hath 
 no.t planted shjiU be rooted up.'* These are 
 plants inserted by men in God's vineyard — such 
 were Simon Magus, Demas &:c. If they had not 
 been plante(3 thev could not have been rooted up. 
 
 I wciuld therefore ciefire the church visible to 
 be, a nuniher of" the family of Adam, sepertited 
 from the uorld by profession, and umied together 
 as a body, in professed relation to C< rist their ac- 
 kf owledged head, promising obediet'ce to his 
 l.tws, and declaring that they will receive eternal 
 salvation from him. 
 
 Bui by the ctiurch invisible, v.e n enn such 
 members of thiB visible body as are united to 
 
22 BAPTISM. 
 
 Christ Jesus,* living amongst the members of the 
 visible cliurcli, and with them professing. This 
 body I define to be a number of sinners called out 
 of the world by the special grace of God, to eter- 
 nal communion and fellowship Avith him — and this 
 effected by the agency of the holy spirit, sent by 
 Jesus Christ the Lord. 
 
 The scripture represents (he church, of Christ, 
 as composed of the different classes 1 have speci- 
 fied. Math. 13. 27. "Sir, didst thou not sow 
 good seed in thy field? from whence then has it 
 tares?" The distinction is also warrantable from 
 1st. John2. 19. 'They went out from us, but 
 they were not of us." From which it is evident 
 thatthej stood in scnne relation — it was not carnal, 
 for no such relation exists in the church; it must 
 then have been in some sense, spiritual. But 
 they were not in fact spiritually united; because 
 ' they were not of us.' It is evident that all the 
 union such professors had to the church, was 
 a professed visible relation. — They had nothing 
 
 *Why some distinguish the old and Nt'w Tes- 
 tament church, by calling the latter the Gospel 
 church I cannot well understand. The dispensa- 
 tioii of grace under the old testament, was the 
 gospel, althc ugh it was m the form of law. They 
 were therefore as truly members of a gospel 
 church, as we are. Todehcribe \ht N<^w-testament 
 church by tie appellation olgospel churchy seeme 
 rather to deny that the former djspeuaation was 
 the gospel. 
 
BAPTISM. 23 
 
 more, they were not united to Christ. 'They 
 went out from us.'* 
 
 Several things were necessary to coftstitute a 
 church of Christ. 
 
 1st. They must be a body seperated from the 
 world. The Greek word eklesia, usually translat- 
 ed church, very well expresses this — called out of 
 the world by the ordinances appointed by God for 
 that purpose. 
 
 2nd. That the body, thus called, be considered 
 as purchased by Christ; seeing they, wilh the rest 
 of the world, were enslaved by sin, they must be 
 a body redeemed — they must possess a plea of 
 Justification, such as the Judge will admit. This 
 is the ris^hteousness of Christ. Hence the sonsf 
 of the true members of this body — Rev. 5. 9. 
 Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by 
 thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and 
 people, and nation.' 
 
 3rd. That they be recognised by Christ, as his 
 people, to whom he gives promises, and all (he or- 
 dinances of his house. 
 
 4th. That he stands related to them by a mar- 
 riage covenant, in which they are his Spouse and 
 he their husband. 
 
 That such was the church under the old testa- 
 ment, will appear from a few considerations. 
 
 1st. They were distinguished from the world 
 by God himself — Amos 3. 4. 'You only have I 
 known of all the families of the earth.' Here was 
 a relation acknowledged to the Jews, distinct 
 from all others. Considered abstractly as a na- 
 
 *It would not have been necessary to b« so ex- 
 plicit in the above distinction had it not been ma- 
 terially denied by Mr. C, 
 
24 BAPTISM. 
 
 tion, the relation of all nations, to God i« the same. 
 It is true, that under a theoeratical government 
 they possessed more privilcires than other na- 
 tions; but the difference of privilea^e will not va- 
 ry the nature of relation — Considtrred as a nation, 
 they were governed by a positive law from Hea- 
 ven, specially and particularly revealed, — called 
 the Judicial law — but, to a certain degree, he 
 knows all other nations in the same sense. The 
 law of nature is also the divine privilege of na- 
 tions, although Heathen— and, to all the extent 
 that this law goes, has all the natural authority of 
 any law. But the passage cited, expresses a dis- 
 tinct relation, which can only be understood of 
 the church. 
 
 2nd. They were a people purchased. Jacob 
 acknowledged this. Gen. 48. 16. He speaks in 
 the true language of a member of the old-testa- 
 ment church. 'The angel who redeemed me from 
 all evil.' The redemption of the church was ac- 
 knowledged from the beginning. Isaiah 63. 9.' In 
 all their affliction he was afflicted, and the an- 
 gel of his presence saved them; in his love and in 
 his pity he redeemed them, and he bare them and car- 
 ried them all the days of old.^ But if any should 
 suppose that this was a prophetic description of 
 the New-testament church, let them attend to the 
 words cited— that which he will do, he has done 
 in 'the days of old.'* 
 
 3id. That they were organized his people, is- 
 evident from their being frequently called in scrip- 
 ture, by God himself, 'my people.' 'The congre- 
 gation of the Lord.' &c. Nay, their unity as a 
 body is directly expressed, Song 6. 9. 'My dove, 
 my undef^led, is but one.' 
 
 4th. That he stood related to them, by a mar- 
 
BAPTISM. 25 
 
 riage covenant, is expressly declared, Isaiah 54. 
 5. 'for Ihy maker is thine hushand; the Lord of 
 Hosts is his )iame.' Jer, 3. 14. 'Turn, O back- 
 sUding children, saith the Lord: for I am married 
 unto you.' 
 
 But against this doctrine Mr. C. zealously con- 
 tends. He is probably the first Baptist writer, 
 that so fully asserls his opinion tn opposition to it. 
 
 Mr. C. not terrified at any assertion, throws off 
 all disguise, and lets himself appear. However 
 evident the truth of tlte New and Old testament 
 church being one, is; yet the confirmation of a fa- 
 vorite point demands its sacrifice — it must be of- 
 fered, an object is to be gained. Mr. C. mufit be 
 well aware that it never entered the minds of the 
 original Baptists to pass this sweeping rcvohitionf by 
 cutting olF all the Old-testament saints, by one 
 blmo from church membership. 
 
 P. 26. 'This remnant according to the election 
 ' of grace' did not continue in the same visible state in 
 ' which they formerly existed. This remnant was 
 'the root or beginning of the new testament 
 ' church. This remnant had no priest, no pro- 
 *phet, no king, no temple, no sacrifice, but the 
 crucified Jesus' 8{c. It is therefore evident that 
 a difference of privileges must make a difference 
 in the identity of a body. A man cannot be the 
 same now he was ten years ago; for this unan- 
 swerable reason; he was then poor and he is now 
 rich. So the church has had her times of pover- 
 ty and persecution; her wealth and prosperity: 
 she cannot therefore be the same now, she was in 
 former times. 
 
 There was a time when she needed her temple, 
 altars, priests &c. — but the arrivals? her Lord has 
 made her independent of these. Is she therefore 
 D 
 
2.6 BAPTISM. 
 
 not the same body? But will Mr, C. argue, that 
 the difference of circumstances will destroy the 
 identity of the church? He will then destroy e- 
 ven identity itself — scarcely any individual body 
 is one heurin the same precise state. 
 
 But the church has now her crucified Jesus — 
 So had Abraham the father of the faithful "he saw 
 his day afar off & was glad." Christ was seen by all 
 in the s:ame way — viz. by faith. But when Christ 
 disappear in the flesh it was to ^confirm the promi- 
 ses made unto tlie fathers:" that is, to the old-tes- 
 tament church, Rom. 15, 8. These promises were 
 the ground of their faith. He was their hope, 
 their i-ighteousness. Jer. 23, C. 
 
 Christ was the person revealed in the first pro- 
 mise made to man. He is as truly tlie substance 
 of the OH as of the New testament. "All things 
 must be fulfiled, which wei'e written in the law of 
 Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, con- 
 cerning me." Luke 24.44. The difference be- 
 tween the faith of Old and New testament saints, 
 oould never affect the justification of either: both 
 possessed the same legal plea, and the same way 
 of claiming it — and each had the same iVee grant 
 of elcnial life in the everlasting gospel. Christ 
 came to increase both the privileges and numbers 
 of the New- testament church; but not to destroy 
 the former and create the latter. 
 
 But his last reason, is fatal; it decides the point; 
 none must controvert it. Page 26. 'To this soci- 
 ety of Jews, this remnant, according to the elec- 
 tion of grace, the Lord added the saved daily" 
 "This was called the first christian church Acts 2. 
 47. But tlie honest reader will turn to the scrip- 
 ture passage quoted by Mr. C. and he will find the 
 argument has this disadvantage, that its pioof is 
 
BAPTISM. iJl 
 
 not in the Bible; and its highest authority is Mr. C's 
 brain. Read the passage — "and the Lord addtd 
 to the church daily, such as should be saved." 
 But where have ive any account that this "was 
 called the first christian church?"' a writer that 
 can make scripture is never at a loss for proof. 
 But Mr. C. unhappily connects a declaration of 
 the apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, with 
 this expression of Luke, in the book of Acts, becau.-e 
 Paul,Avhen bespeaks of this remnant according to 
 the election of grace, includes all the Jews 
 'saved daily' Act. 2. 47 — of course, (common sense 
 sayti) there could be no addition to tlie remnant. 
 
 Tijis argument is therefore defective in two re- 
 spects — 1st. apart of it is self created — because 
 they arc not called the first christian church — 
 2ndly. Because those converted by the mmistry 
 of Peter were not added to the remnant saved ac- 
 cording to the election of grace, being a part of 
 their number- Let us inquire for the simple fact! 
 It is: those converted by the ministry ot the apos- 
 tles, were added to the church, which annunces 
 to us this truth, that before this time the church 
 of Christ existed; these converts were not the -first 
 christian church' — but an addition to the church. 
 I believe tbot Abel, Enoch, Paul and Peter, were 
 equally members of the 'first christian church;' a- 
 g iinst which assertion, we have not a smgle hint 
 given in all Divine revelation. 
 
 'Query — was it the Jewish nation, or Hhe first 
 'church of Christ converted in Jerusalem, to 
 ' which the Lord added such as should be saved?' 
 Page 42. Mr. C. grants, very properly, that it could 
 not be the nation; and mast therefore be the first 
 Christian church. This? was in the -first place, 
 useless; because that every one who can read the 
 
28 BAPTISM. 
 
 scriptures, knows, that the first New testament 
 believers were Jews, of course could not be ad- 
 ded to the nation. That they were added to the 
 lirst Christian church, is true, if bj the first Cliris- 
 tian church is meant that precise church, to whiclif 
 Abraham, Moses and Paul belonged — and that 
 there is another first or second church, is the 
 thing to be proved. 
 
 The Jews, like other nations wiicre the gos- 
 pel is, had a twofold relation to God; as a nation 
 and as a church — but these relations were as dis- 
 tinct in their nature, then, as they are now. As 
 a nation, they had privileges, which nations under 
 tlie Nev\'.testament have not. God was their only 
 lawgiver, and governed them by positive laws, re- 
 vealed for that special purpose — and chose their 
 kings by particular appointment: hence tlieir gov- 
 ernment was theocratical. They were also privi- 
 leged with being a nation, professing the true re- 
 ligion; which profession they were bound to make, 
 by positive law. They were a nation of professors. 
 
 But distinct from this, they were the church of 
 Christ. And although these relations were distinct, 
 they met in the same person. A simple statement 
 of the truth will enable Mr. C. to understand if, at 
 least almost any other person may. As the mem- 
 bers of a nation, even baptists will elect officers, 
 take civil offices, collect debts, make contracts, 
 &c. The same persons as members of the church, 
 will go to sermon, take the sacrament, engage in 
 religious duty, &.C. To understand this, you will 
 comprehend our assertion, that the Jews were both 
 a ^nation and a church. A naiion receives ad- 
 dition, by births, longevity &lc. A church re- 
 ceives addition by conversions, accessions &c. 
 'Seth, Abraham, and Timothy, were members of 
 
BAPTISM. 2S 
 
 the saire'church, although of disUnct nations. In 
 Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek. The 
 privileges of the Old testament paints, prove their 
 character as a church. They all professed to re- 
 ceive eternal life, by sacrifice. This they declar- 
 ed by the continual sacrifices they offered: which 
 could not have any meaning, but a typical repre- 
 sentation of the blood of Jesus. The particular 
 efficacy which that sacrifice now has, was tauii;ht 
 them both by the flesh they eat, & the blood that was 
 sprinkled upon them. Compare Exod. 24, with 
 Heb. 3. From which it is evident tha:t blood le- 
 gally offered in any age of the world was typically 
 the redemption of the person offering. 
 
 This blood was either typically or really offered 
 — the church before the coming of Christ, did 
 the former, and Christ himself the latter. The 
 .Jews acknowledged by this, that in all ages of 
 the world saints met in Christ Jesu^, and had 
 communion in his blood. This doctrine is mate- 
 rially conceded by Mr. C. Ho grants that David, 
 Samuel, Isaac &c. were saints. Page 44. But when 
 a number of these saiiils, under the Old testament 
 collected for religious purposes, had dedicated 
 themselves to God, and pledged themselves indi- 
 vidually and as a body united, to walk 'in. the law 
 of the Lord, and keep his commandments,' why 
 will Mr. C. refuse to have them called by the 
 name ddesial — a church called out of the world. 
 But in every age oftheworid, such a collection 
 was found united to God and to one aj^other — 
 therefore in every age of th» world there has been 
 a chruch. 
 
 It is conceded that this body, under the present 
 dispensation, possesses more privileges than in 
 former periods; yet the idenily of the body, is the 
 D 2 
 
30 BAPTISM. 
 
 same. A saii'.t may have more enjoyment today 
 than iie had ycsicfd-ij', but he remains the same 
 person. If the doctrirte of Mr. C. be true, the 
 church, in the time of the heathen, persecutions, 
 was a distinct body from that church in the reign 
 cf Cjnslantine; nay we have had, gpon the 
 same principle, more than a thousand distinct 
 churches since tlie commencement of the New- 
 lestameiit dispensation. She has had at least so 
 many changes in lier historj'. 
 
 Mr, C. objects to an argument Mr. W. had 
 given on Rom, 11. 17. 18. 'And if some of the 
 branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild 
 olive tree, wert jj;raffed in among them, and with 
 ihem pajrtakest of the root and fatness of the Olive- 
 tree, boast not acjainst the branches.' He declares 
 the comment of Mr. W. to be contrary to the scope 
 of tiie passage, and the intention of the writer — r- 
 ' v/hich was to show that God had not cast away, 
 ' a!id tinallj rejected his Jewish people* although 
 *a great majority of them was cast away.' P. 26. 
 
 I reply, that when any writer, intends to esta- 
 bhsh a leading principle, he mostly travels to that 
 end by a series of arguments. But it does no in- 
 justice to the writer, to reason, either from the po- 
 sition he intended to prove or any intermediate ar- 
 gument; because, no honest writer will prove a 
 
 ^Rejection 'of his Jewish people* could mean 
 no more with Mr. C.than the rejection of Tyre — 
 Babylon, Greece, &c. Because *his Jewish peo- 
 ple' had only the same kind of relation. — There 
 are only the two relations; church and national. 
 Mr. C. says they had not the first— all then that is 
 left for them is the second, Reader, judge £or 
 yourself. 
 
. BAPTISM. 31 
 
 position, from false principles: this is true of all 
 souiid book?, at d is beyond all dispute, when we 
 speak of divine revelation. Suppo.-e the Apos'le 
 had this irencral obj' ct in view, «hicli Mr. C. ?f<y8 
 — lliere is no injustice done. This is one of Mr. 
 C's logical prcofs — he liostens the reader beyond 
 the aposiles arguments, to something — he calls 
 tKe "Apostle^ intention' — lest his reader might 
 pause, and view the process of divine argument, 
 by which the apostle came io his coi'clusion. 
 
 The whole sclieme of Mr, C. on tl;e passage is 
 false reasoning. I observe that next to divine sov- 
 renity, the humility of tl'e New testament 
 church, is the 'Apostles intention.' Read his con- 
 clusion, V. 20. 'Well: because of utibelicf they 
 were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be 
 not high minded, but fear.' The Apostle thus 
 reasoned. The Old testament church was unit- 
 ed to Christ the Head, and had received all the 
 ordinances of the gospel — yet by its apostacy 
 had lost its standing — its rotten branches 
 were cut off by Christ; some few branches re- 
 mained, among which wfre grafted in members 
 of other nations — grafted into the same stock, 
 partaking of the same nourishment. You must 
 take care 'lest, by apostacv, you in turn, be cut 
 off. 
 
 This tree bad taken root in the covenant of 
 grace; it was planted nigli a rivci ; it was watered 
 every momeiit. The head of the church had of- 
 ten cut ctf its fruitless biar che? — his servants 
 h5?d dug about it. Notwithstanding of all that had- 
 been done, about the time that Christ paid her a 
 personal visit, this tree bore little else than leaves; 
 its fruitful branches were few; now, acc(!rdiog 
 to the decree of reprobation, Christ broke off all 
 
32 BAPTISM. 
 
 the fruitless branches, and in their room graft- 
 ed in Heathens: not into another stock, (as Mr. 
 C. would have you believe,) but annongst the 
 br-nches that were left standi ngf. The few saints 
 that Christ found on earth when he came, were 
 living branches — they were ready to receive 
 him — the faith of their fathers looked forward to 
 the happy period — 'Abraham saw his day afar off 
 and was glad.' 'Moses, Samuel, David, &,c.' 
 Were branches of this tree, as were all the saints 
 before and since the coming of Christ. The only 
 difference, stated by the Apostle is, that the saints 
 under the Old testament were the natural branch- 
 es, while sinners called from other nations, were 
 inserted into the same tree by grafting. 
 
 Mr. C, afraid of those inferences which com- 
 mon sense would draw, endeavours to patch his 
 
 defective system 'The good olive tree, was the 
 
 'Jewish nation; the natural branches denote the 
 ' Jews; and grafting expresses union by faith to 
 'Jesus Christ, the life giving root"'— Well aware 
 that some might object to this novel theory, he 
 ' anticipates this. 'Some may object to my applying 
 ' the same metaphor, a good Olive tree; both to 
 'the Jewish state and christian cl\urch.' P. 29. 
 I acknowlege myself one of the objectors; and I 
 think for a very good reason, — Because, the theo- 
 ry destroys the metaphor. While the apostle 
 uses the figure 'good Olive tree,' and applies th6 
 same to the church, 1 cannot tell by what autho- 
 rity Mr. C, changes its very nature and applies it 
 to the nation of the Jews. The 'olive tree' must 
 therefore, mean two things, in tlieir nature en- 
 tlvfly distinct. I shall now for a moment reason 
 on Mr. C's plan. The good olive tree in the llth. 
 of Rom. means the lewish nation; this natjon be,- 
 
BAPTISM. 33 
 
 came apostate, profane &c. In process of time, 
 God cut off the Jewish branches, and instead there- 
 of inserted, by grafting, the heathen converts — 
 and, as the stock was national, and all its living 
 circulation national, the branches inserted into 
 this stock, of course, were made members of 
 the Jewish nation — and therefore all christians 
 are Jews, bound by all the Judicial laws. A man 
 who gathers a burden of sticks on the sabbath day, 
 must 'be stoned to death.' Christianity has been 
 a great increase to the Jewish nation. But to 
 rid himself of this very natural conclusion, speak- 
 ing of his own comments, he says — 'This only 
 'shows, that either in a different sense, or in a 
 ' higher sense, the same words may be used. For 
 ' instance, a man's children, his lands and his live 
 'stock, are called his property; now it is obvious 
 ' that they are not all his property in the same 
 sense.' Let this be granted; yet Mr. C. is not 
 delivered from the dilemma. Because every 
 man's children are his own in the same 
 sense — his lands, his live stock in the same sense. 
 If a man having children, lands, live stock, &:c. 
 would in consequence of the death of a child, 
 adopt the child of a stranger, he would not in- 
 graft it amQng his live stock, as Mr. C. supposes, 
 but among his children, the child would not be 
 any addition to his live stock, or his lands, but to 
 his children. The Apostle speaks of but one 
 olive tree, and ot the branchesof the same tree: 
 but the ingrafted branches received the same sap 
 and nourishment which those branches, belong- 
 ing to the tree, received when they stood. The 
 escape which Mr. C.' tries to make, will not do 
 with relider^ wlio pos^sess common sense — no per- 
 son will believe Mr. C. that we are engrafted into 
 
34 BAPTlSiM, 
 
 the Jewish nation or, in other words, that we 
 
 are now Jews. 
 
 In a word, Mr. C. all you have established by 
 every turn you take, is, that the church un- 
 derwent all the change by the introduction of the 
 New testament dispensation, that a tree would 
 undergo, that lost some of its branches by^ the 
 knife of the gardener, and had others ingrafted in 
 their room. Yet ask a child and he will tell you, 
 the tree is the same. 
 
 Mr. C. makes an attempt to state the relation, 
 between Christ and the Jews. 'Jesus Chi-ist was 
 their relative according to the flesh.'' 'He came 
 ' unto his own (by nation) and his own received 
 ' him not.' That Christ was their relation accord- 
 ing to the flesh, is not denied — but the question 
 is, had he any other than a natural, or national re- 
 lation? However, in the same place Mr. C. grants 
 * he was federally, or by covenant their King.' P. 
 30. These expressions are not so improper, did 
 Mr. C. not undeceive the reader by letting him 
 know, that by Christ bting 'federally and by cove- 
 nant their king, he means so, in a 'natural or na- 
 tional sense' — or in plain terms he was their ci- 
 vil king; for, if he was their king only in a natural 
 or national sense, then this proposition must be 
 true, that Christ Jtsus was the civil king of the 
 Jews — He was t' eir temporal king. The Jew? 
 have not been so much deceived in their expec- 
 tations, as people have generally imagin»-d — ' 
 tliey expr.cled a temporal king — Mr. C. says, this 
 Wiis his character. An individual Jt'W who held 
 the same opinion of Christ vvith Mr. C. asked him 
 to obtain lh«^ division of an inheritance tie found, 
 ho\^eve^, he was mistaken; Christ's re\Ay vras, 
 'man who made me a judsei^' Luke 12. 14. 
 
BAPTISM. 35 
 
 We say that Christ was the alone king of the 
 church — 'He was set my king upon the holy hill 
 of Zion' Psalm 2. 6. In every age of the world 
 he held this ojfice without variation. 'Jesus 
 Christ, the same yesterday and to day and forever' 
 Heb. 13. 8. Moses was king in Jeshurun — yet 
 he was but a servant under Christ. Heb. 3. 5. 
 'and Moses verily was faithful in all his house as 
 a servant,' v. 6. But Christ as a son over his own 
 house.' Mr. C. will reply that it was a national 
 house over which Moses was a servant, and a New 
 testament house over which Christ was a son. 
 This cavil may be ended by a few observa- 
 tions. 
 
 1st. The place on which Paul founds, his as- 
 sertion respecting Christ, is evidently, Psal. 2, G, 
 7, which can only respect Christ's eternal appoint- 
 ment, as well as his eternal sonship. The cliurch 
 under the Old testament, is frequently named 
 from the hill on whir.h the house of God stood, 
 Zion. But Christ at the time David penned that 
 Psalm, was a son over that house. The apostle tells 
 us that all New testament saints belonged to the 
 same house over which Christ was a son — read 
 the verse. 'But Christ as a son over his own house, 
 whose house are we, if we hold fast the Confi- 
 dence: and the rejoicing of the hope, firm unto the 
 end.' 
 
 2ndly. The position proposed to he proved by 
 the apostle was, that Christ was superior to Moses. 
 But if he spoke of two separate kingdoms, and con- 
 trasted their officers, it was impossible to prove 
 the thing intended; and if he had gained the point, 
 it would prove this, that as Christ was the king 
 of the church, he was greater than Moses or any 
 other general that leads armies. The powers of 
 
36 B.Ai^TlSM- 
 
 the church and of the state are so verr different, 
 that no suchxoTitrast could be made. 
 
 ordljr. In whose house was Moses a strrant? 
 I: was not his own property, he was only a 'ser' 
 van;* — The house must even by Mr. C's acknow- 
 ledjmentjhave been Cirist's — I conclude there- 
 fore, that the house over which Moses was a ser- 
 vant.was the same ever which C hrist was a son. 
 j^ut Paul states that this house is the one to which 
 believers, under the New testan-ert, belonged 
 Heb. 3. 6. 
 
 The authority king David or any olrier Jewish 
 king exercised in the church, was distinct in its 
 nature and est rc'se from that authority they ex- 
 ercised in the Jewish state — thi« power in the 
 church was held from Christ as *set kir^ over 
 the holy hill of Zion' — In this sense Christ Is said 
 to be the Root and offspring of David- Mr. C's 
 theory, will in some manner, account lor his being 
 the offspring of David — bit in no sense account? 
 for his being the Root of David. 
 
 Mr. C. will however, end the matter by one fin- 
 ishing stroke — 'Thou siadest by faiih, is \he sole 
 ' cause of union to the good olive, and the onh 
 means of participation in its roots and fat- 
 • ness, assigned by the apostle: and at 'one stroke 
 ' cuts off the whole system which mv opponent in- 
 ' deavojs to prove from this chapter^* page 30, 31. 
 — I reply that 'thou standest by faith —was as 
 really the mode of the standing of 61^, as New tes- 
 tament saints. We are certain this was the mind 
 ofihe apostle Paul in Heb. 11 — where he men- 
 
 * To Mr C's plan of using this argument against 
 infant Baptism, or the church membership of in- 
 fants. I shall afterwards attend. 
 
BAPTISM. 37 
 
 iions a considerable nunaber of tbe Old testament 
 branches, remarkable for this verv faith of which 
 Mr. C. speaks. 
 
 The passage quoted by Mr C. proves the same 
 doctrine; Rom. 11. 20. 'Well; because of unbelief 
 they were broken off, and thou standest by faith, 
 be not high minded but fear' — Any just interpre- 
 ter would give this paraphrase, unless it would 
 be the death of some favorite system: Gentile con- 
 verts, be humble, you only stand by faith as*mem- 
 bers of the church — the Jews once stood as you 
 now do, but refusing credit to the everlasting 
 gospel, were broken off. But I would ask Mr. C. 
 if unbelief be not the contrary of faith; if faith be 
 the uniting principle, then unbelief must be that 
 which disunites. The church now stands united 
 to Christ by faith — query, cannot many of her 
 professed members be broken off by unbelief? 
 what was the end of the seven churches of Asia? 
 they, like us, once stood by faith — do they nov/ 
 so stand? no; these branches are now broken off, 
 because of unbelief. Indeed, commoti sense will 
 say, that the branches which are grafted in instead 
 of those broken off, stand m the same sense united 
 to the tree, those did which were broken off — in 
 their turn may be broken off in the same manner. 
 
 But the same doctrine is established by the a- 
 postle in the same chapter. Tbe return ot the 
 Jews, in the glory of the latter day, shall be their 
 return to the same relation they formerly occupie 
 ed, before they were broken off. They were cast 
 away — From what? — Their national standing, 
 says Mr. C. No — for this was in reality no loss — 
 they might have had more civil liberty and inde- 
 pendence as Roman citizens,than they had enjoy- 
 ed for many centuries. This could be no great 
 E 
 
38 BAPTISM. 
 
 evil. But the truth is, they were cast away from 
 their relation to the church, v. 19. 'For if the 
 casting away of them ba the reconciUng ot the 
 world, what shall the reconciling ot them be, 
 but life from the dead?' Their casting away, im- 
 plies their loss of their church state, and all their 
 consequent privileges: but the receiving of them, 
 their happy return to the same relation they for- 
 merly had, and to much greater privileges than 
 they ever enjoyed; therefore called 'their fulness' 
 V. 12. 
 
 The reader will do well to attend to the last 
 clause of v. 15 — 'life from the dead' — In the same 
 moral sense in which people die, they shall arise. 
 Mr. C's theoi^ is, they died as a nation; they will 
 arise a church: or systematically — they died as 
 a nation, they will arise as a nation. They were 
 cast away as a nation— their reconciling will be 
 the life of a nation from the dead — tliat is, we 
 will have anew nation, recorded on our maps, that 
 have been blotted out for more than eighteen 
 hundred years. Ministers or members of the 
 church, is this your meaning when you pray for 
 the return of the Jews ! !! 
 
 But the word ^recanciUng^ used in the passage 
 quoted, also proves the same position. When a 
 friend is offended with us, means are used to re- 
 concile him; when he is reconciled, he is only 
 brought back to his former standing. The Jews 
 were once, the friends of God — they were offended 
 at Christ — he is called 'a stone of stumbling and 
 a rock of offence' — 'the reconciling of them' will 
 be their restoration to their former state of friend- 
 ship. 
 
 Mr. C. calls our serious attention to three deci- 
 sive considerations, on this subject, page 27. *I 
 
BAPTISM. 59 
 
 * do seriously entreat all Pedo Baptists to consider 
 ' these three facts. They are plain and decisive. 
 ' The whole New testament is predicated upon 
 'them. The first of them viz. That the Jews 
 ' were cast away and rejected, as being the peo- 
 ' pie of God* on those peculiar accounts which 
 ' designated them 'his people,' made way for re- 
 ' conciling the world, become 'the riches of 
 ' the Gentiles,' and introduced a new era in the 
 ' world; the constitutionof a new state of things.' 
 
 We shall reply to the separate items of this 'se- 
 rious fact.' That they were cast away and reject- 
 ed as a nation, is true. That this is a fact as 
 they were the people of God, is also true. 
 But it is eqtially true that they shall again be col- 
 lected together as his people — This is the doctrine 
 of the chapter from which we reason. 2ndly, made 
 ' way for the reconciling of the world.' This is 
 true. Thev, as a church, were ii; covenant with 
 Christ; but this in a great measure, was confined 
 to their nation. In the Providence of God, their 
 nation must lose its character, & its members their 
 church standing, to make room tor the Gentile 
 world, Srdly. 'To introduce a new era in the world' 
 -I jjuppose Mr. C. means the commencement of the 
 christian era, 1833 years ago — no christian will 
 
 * What doe.* Mr. C. mean by calling them -the 
 people of God?' He will do well in his next hook^ 
 to distinguish between 'the people of God' and tiie 
 ciiurch — either they must have been his people, 
 as ottier nations were, or his people as separated 
 from others — i. e. eklesia, called out from other na- 
 tions. He Will then Sdti«fy Mr. Ralston 8fc. Mr, 
 W. on his assertion that the church of God and of 
 Christ is not the same. 
 
40 B.\PTI5M. 
 
 object. 4tblj. 'The constitution of a new state of 
 things" — IJ bj this, he means the cbaoge of the out- 
 ward dispensation of grace, an increase of privile- 
 ges he will siill do 
 
 His first fact has done nothing for his theorv — 
 the change ha= not affected the identity of the body, 
 or contradicted an> position we have been esJab- 
 lishing. 
 
 Let us hear his 2ad. decisive fact, pege 27, 28, 
 
 • That the remnant, according to the election of 
 ' grace,' cwilmuei not in the former state of the Jew- 
 ' ;sh rctson; but becorxje the people of GTod in a 
 ' spiritual and everlasting relation, is essentially 
 
 • distinct from their forn-er state; is the accom- 
 ' plishment of raanv promises and prophecies ia 
 'the Old testament, and filJy characterizes the 
 
 • christian church, 'the kingdom of Heaven,* in 
 ' comparison of the 'worldly sanctuary;'' the 'Car- 
 ' nal commandments' and the 'beggarly elements oi 
 ' the Jewish stale.' Let us examine this 'fact* in 
 its full force. Ist. 'That t'.c remnant, according 
 lO 'the election of grace," jcc. Those who did not 
 believe, continued in the same national standing'* 
 that this remnant did — the civil power of the Jews, 
 at that time, was very limiied: the sceptre 
 had departed from Judab, in a great measure, 
 when Herod became ther governor. But the rem- 
 nant, according totheeleclien of grace, no more 
 refused their civil subordination, than the o-.her 
 Jews did. Paul, one of this remnant, acknow- 
 lec^ged theirpower, long after he was attached to 
 the rem.jar.t. 'I wist nut brethren, that he was 
 the HigL! Priest: for it is written, thou sha^t not 
 sp'cak evil of the rultf of thy people.' acts 23. 5, 
 Ti,at it was nece=>arvin order t«> become one of 
 *h.s remnant, io throw^ off national allegiance, is a 
 
BAPTISM. 41 
 
 new doctrine. Thf> heathen, I grant, did ur^e it 
 — even the Je^vs pressed this upon Christ, that 
 he was not tho. friend of Cfesar. Mr. C. should 
 not have revived their assertions. The apostles 
 & their successors, have sufficiently answered these 
 objections. To lose 'national character,' bv re- 
 ceiving the character of 'Christian.' is never ne- 
 cessary. The friends of Christ may belong to both 
 kingdoms — and, as far as is consistent with the 
 moral law, yield obedience to both. 
 
 If, by 'loosing their national character,' Mr. C. 
 means that thej were willing to be incorporated 
 with other nations; this is true; because, so long as 
 the administration of the covenant of grace and the 
 kingdom of Christ was confined to that nation, as 
 a necessary precaution, to prevent corruption — 
 such incorporation was forbidden — this is a cir- 
 cumstantial difference, but nothing more. 
 
 The 2nd part of this fact is, that 'this remnant, 
 * in a spiritual and everlasting relation,' &c. That 
 every sinner, in the day of his conversion, whether 
 Jew or Gentile, forms anew relation, is true. If 
 this be the meaning of Mr. C. it is conceded. But if 
 he means that believers under the New testament, 
 hold any distinct relation to Christ, from that re- 
 lation which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all 
 Old testament saints had, it is denied, for reasons 
 already given. The remaining part of the fact 
 only regards the distinction of privileges; and, 
 therefore, affects not the being of the church. It 
 was, indeed, the blessing of this remnant and their 
 successors in the church, to be delivered from the 
 weak and beggarly elenrients of the Jewish dispei%- 
 sation — these were no longer necessary — Christ 
 their substance was come, & appeared to 'put away 
 £ 2 
 
42 BAPTISM. 
 
 sinbv the iarr'fi e A^ oirr. eif.' What is decisive 
 in this second fact for Mr. C? 
 
 'The third -snd 'ast of these three viz. that 
 'Jews and Gpntiles were, to i mnn, co'jcUided in 
 * unbelief in relation to chri«tnnitv, presents the 
 ' whoie world on the same fooling, Ir oresenrs 
 •Judaism andGentilism, as both dJ>tinc» from and 
 *e-sentially opposite to Christianity.' P. 28. All 
 this is materially true; and what is" thereby made 
 for his system? Christianity, I arrant knows no 
 national distinction — Jr-w, Gentile, Barbarip.n, 
 Scythian, bond or free, are alike. It was not the 
 will of the He.-id of the church formerly, to extend 
 it to other nations; but from any thinaj io the na- 
 ture of the gospel, it never knew national distinc- 
 tion: before the time of Abraham, it was not con- 
 fined to any particular people; and even after that 
 period, until the coming of Christ, without respect 
 of nations, some converts were admitted, which 
 were not only a pledge to the church at that time, 
 that the gospel would be extende)!, but also prov- 
 ed that the nature of the gospel, as then adminis- 
 tered, adraiited of subjects from other nations. 1 
 grant that Judaism, after the death of Christ, was, 
 in point of efficacv, no better than Gentilism; but 
 what was it before that period? this is the ques- 
 tion in dispute. Will Mr. C. pretend to say that 
 the religion of the Jews, befcfre that period, was no 
 better than Gentilism? If he did not intend to 
 prove this, I cannot understaDd what he intended 
 to prove by this last assertion. 
 
 Now Het all Pedo-Baptists,' according to Mr, 
 C's. request, 'seriously consider these three facts* 
 — and, when done, thev will believe as before. 
 
 But if Mr. W. succeeded in proving that the 
 Jews were, considered as a people, married to the 
 
BAPTISM. 43 
 
 Lord, he has made notliint;; for this relation was 
 actri;illy di-solvec^ by resrular divorce — and w-th 
 that divorce, fell the J< wish c'lurrh. Let us 
 hear Mr. C. 'As a nation, I have alreud) si ewn 
 ' the J«:vvs were mrtrri^d to the Lord, ar-u, ps a na- 
 ' tion, he divorced them. He ihen formed a re- 
 ' lation more close, and altogether spiritual, with 
 ' a remnant of the Jews aid a remnant of the 
 ' Gentiles-i-which, as christians, he espoused to 
 * himself. It is not true, that the bride is the same 
 ' now that she ever was, any more, than it is not 
 ' true, that the christian church i'S similar to the 
 'Jews. I mast refer him (viz. Mr. W.) to the 
 'consideration of Jer. 3, 8.' P, 64. 
 
 The marriage of Clirist to a nation, is a new 
 thought — and Mr. C. the invf-ntor. A reader ne- 
 ver terrified at any expression, however contrary 
 to scripture, may admit it; I cannot. The term 
 marriage, when used figuratively, is only used to 
 designate intimate relation. I believe that it can- 
 not be said, in any sound sense, that Christ is 
 married to a nation — or is it a fact that he ever 
 stood more intimately related to one nation than 
 to another, considered as a nation. It was, in- 
 deed, the alone privilege of the Jewish nation, 
 for a long period of time, to have tlie church with- 
 in its confines — It is all the privilege of BRITAIN 
 and AMERICA, to possess the church. Yet a 
 national character to the Jews, Britains and 
 Americas was, and is distinct from tiieir church 
 relation to Christ, their king and head. Christ 
 indeed stood related to many of the Jewish citi- 
 zens, not as citizens, b'lt as professing believers. 
 He stood externally related to the Jewish nation; 
 not as a nation, but a>-- a nat'on of professors of 
 the true religion. We have the positive assertion 
 
44 BAPTISM. 
 
 of Christ in opposition to the ^chen?e of Mr. C. 
 ^My kingdom is not of this world.' John. 18. SB. 
 Mr. C. will grant that a nation, considered as 
 such, is a kingdom of this world And if Christ 
 stood related to the Jews as a civil kingdom, consid- 
 ering them as the :-pouse and him-elf as the hus- 
 band, hnw could HE say, 'mj kingdom is not of 
 this world.' 
 
 The very passage to which Mr. C* refers his 
 opponent, Jer. 3. 8. he should have kepi a pro- 
 found secret, if he intended to establish his point. 
 The passage contains the death warrant of his 
 system respecting the church — The truth is, there 
 is not the least hint in the passage, of Mr, C's the- 
 ory, because the prophet mentions the tribes that 
 were cast away, as distinct from the tribe of Ju- 
 dah, with whom the church remained, and with 
 whom it was found when Christ came. Read 
 Jer. 3. 8. 'and I saw, when, for all the causes 
 whereby backsliding Israel, committed adultery, I 
 had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce, 
 yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not but 
 went and played the harlot also.' It is evident to 
 any reader, that the divorce respected 'backslid- 
 ing Israel' and not 'Judab.' Before the prophet 
 Jeremiah wrote, the other tribes were entirely se- 
 perated from the chiarch, never to be reunited, 
 until the fulness of the Gentile nations would 
 come. With respect to these, the word divorce 
 is used, and is a very strong declaration of their 
 doleful state, as separated and as broken olT from' 
 the church, the good Olive tree, and left to inter- 
 mingle with the heathen world, and learn their 
 ways. Mr. C. makes no mention of this fact ib 
 the text; but actually apj lies the term 'Divorce,' 
 to the whole church. But perhaps, he nevesr 
 
BAPTISM. 45 
 
 read the passage with care himself. The conduct 
 of Judah was no better than that of her sister, Is- 
 rael; she took no warning by all the Divine Judg- 
 ments Israel had received; yet God declares, that 
 there was no dissolution of the relation, between 
 him and Judah, (as Mr. C would have it) v. 14. 
 'Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord, for 
 I am married unto you.' Thus, reader, you have 
 found the premises of Mr. C's conclusion in his 
 book, but not in the BIBLE. 
 
 This doctrine is certainly true, that a believer 
 may commit the most aggravated sins — What act 
 of prophanity was greater than Peter's? what 
 adultery more aggravated than David's, or what 
 Idolatry worse than Aaron's? Yet the scripture 
 gives us no hint, that therefore, the relation be- 
 tween them and Christ was dessolved. The con- 
 duct of Judah, I grant was no better than the con- 
 duct of Israel; yet he refused to divorce her, but 
 entreats her kindly to return,' for he was married 
 to her.* 
 
 3rd. 'With a remnant of the Jews and a rem- 
 * nant of the Gentiles he has forn^ed a more close 
 and spiritual union.' I beseech Mr. C. to look at 
 this again. For what union is more close than 
 the union of tnnrriage? 'For this cause shall a 
 man leave his father and mother, and shall be 
 joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one 
 flesh. This is a great mystery but" I -ipf-ak con- 
 cerning Christ ind the church' Eph. 5. 31. 32. Of 
 
 *Mr. C's reasonir.g on this Divwxe, savors too 
 much of a wilful sophism; he must have read the 
 pas.-Age — it seems impossible he could havt mis- 
 take.'! its mea.Hig — he should not wilfully mislead 
 one ignorant reader. 
 
46 BAPTISM. 
 
 whom did Paul speak in this place? It could not 
 be of New testament saints only; because Je- 
 remiah had said, that the Old testament church 
 was married to the Lord; and Paul declares noth- 
 ing more. The marriage between Christ and the 
 church is so intimate, and of such a nature, that 
 it does not admit of separation. 'I will betroth 
 thee unto me forever.' Hosea 2. 19 — But no says 
 Mr. C. 'they may be divorced' — 'finally put away.' 
 
 5th. But this union of tne New testament 
 church to Christ , is not only more close, bu. is al- 
 so as distinct from the union of the Old testament 
 church — a 'spiritual union.' I would ask, what 
 was the union, if it was not spiritual? The pro- 
 mise of Christ, the spiritual seed, was given to 
 Abraham in uncircumcision, as the apostle 
 shews; to intimate that he stood the father of the 
 faithful, whether Jews or Gentiles. Does Mr. C. 
 desire the reader to believe this proposition, that 
 the Divine Being, was united to the Jews by a car- 
 nal relation? He seems to hold this doctrine, by 
 denying that the relation was spiritual. This shall 
 afterwards be discussed. 
 
 We shall only obfCjve on the passage quoted 
 from Mr. C. that Mr. W. never did say, or even 
 read of any one saying, that 'the christian church 
 IS similar to the Jews.' He said the Old and 
 New testament church were the same. If they be 
 not, Mr. C, has not given us any reason, sufficient 
 to make" us deny the assertion. He has, indeed, 
 with eager search, discovered a great change of 
 circumstances — a great ditfereoce in privilege, 
 between the two dispensations; and these are not 
 denied. But all his arguments are insufficient to 
 make us believe they are not the same. No per- 
 son can believe his system of relation, until he 
 
BAPTISM. 47 
 
 proves, that a woman, when married, being found 
 ignorant, weak, sickly, is not the same person 
 twenty years afterwards, when her husband has 
 instructed her, and she is now become strong and 
 healthy. 
 
 Mr. C. has mustered up his strong facts, to 
 which, even scripture metaphors must bow, P. 28. 
 stubborn facts — but after investigation, even com- 
 mon sense refuses to bow. He creates thousands 
 of neic beings, every second; by his system, 
 every change in circumstances creates new beings 
 
 but these new creatures are all the product 
 
 of Mr. C's brain, without any foundation, or even 
 materials upon which he could go to work — Yet 
 he has made one neio church, five new covenants,-— 
 one new Olive tree, which he calls national — then 
 all the new arguments, upon which he builds the 
 new system. Thus has he outstripped the pro- 
 phets, the apostle, all Divine revelation with all 
 his predecessors. 
 
 Before I leave this subject, I would invite the 
 reader to review Mr. C's system, in its true dress. 
 And, in order that any enquirer may judge for 
 himself, I shall present both sides of the propo- 
 sitions now discussed. 
 
 Mr. C. I grant that there were saints under the 
 Old testament. 
 
 Mr. W. Yes but they had no place of residence: 
 no house of God; no church: further than mob- 
 assemblies, civil meetings.* 
 
 g • Mr. C. seems to grant in his strictures publish- 
 ed against Mr. Ralston, that there vras a church 
 under the Old testament. But Mr. R. or Mr. W. 
 knew of but one church, and that the church of 
 Christ — but Mr. C. never granted that the Jews 
 
48 BAPTISM. 
 
 Mr. C. Believers, under the Old testament, held 
 comrnunion uith God — but had do communion 
 with ore another, because ihev did not exist in a 
 church state. 
 
 Mr. W. The church of Christ received its first 
 gospel address in the garden, in the cool of the day 
 — that by this Divine sermon and those which im- 
 mediately followed, a church was formed — that 
 Noah, Aaron, and Paul, were preachers of the 
 same church — existed in a church state — held 
 communion with Christ — and with the saints of 
 their age. 
 
 Mr. C. People under the Old testament, attend- 
 ed sermon, as a nation — as citizens they prayed, 
 they praised — their religion consisted in a collec- 
 tion of civil rites. The ceremonial law was a civ- 
 il law, all its purifications were only for the pur- 
 pose cf cleansing them as citizens — "When they 
 did not properly attend to these civil riles, in ta- ' 
 king a civil ordinance called the Passover, 'Heze- 
 kiah prayed for them and they were healed." 
 
 On their sabbath days 'they transacted all man- 
 ner of worldly business that did not require la- 
 bor, because they bad only a worldly, a natural 
 existence — and, of course, were great enemies 
 to moral societies. Their sanctuary was only call- 
 ed a worldly sanctuary, because in it they transac- 
 ted worldly business. 
 
 Mr. W. the ceremonial law was the gospel of 
 
 originally belonged to that church — yet his con- 
 cession to Mr. R. on that subject, evinces a change 
 of mind produced either from a conviction, that 
 be had taken false sround; or, what is more pro- 
 bable, he became afraid that the reader might mis? 
 take him for an infidel. 
 
BAPTISM. 49 
 
 Christ, given in a legal form, had Christ crucified 
 for its substance — mankind sinners for the per- 
 sons to whom it was addressed and eternal 
 
 salvation for an important object. That Christ 
 
 never had but one spouse This was the church , 
 
 the bride, the Lamb's wife, 'my dove, my undefiled 
 is but one.' This spouse was composed of Old 
 and New testament members — Who in all ages 
 of the world, associated themselves together in a 
 body, thus called the church. 
 
 Mr. C. That the nation of the Jews was not a 
 church I csn easily prove — That Christ had no 
 church at that time is equally evident — but what 
 they were, I cannot tell, or even yet have tried to 
 tell. 
 
 Mr. W. It is easier to pull down than to build up 
 — Deists have pulled down the New testament 
 church, as Mr. C. has done the old; but they or 
 Mr. C. rever attempied to establish any thing up- 
 on the ruins of the systems they have attempted lo 
 destroy. 
 
 Mr. C. maybe unwilling to admit the preceed- 
 ing language as his own — although the language 
 be not his, the sentiments are, and must appear so 
 to every candid reader. Mr. Ralston's misrepre- 
 sentations are such as every man would make that 
 would read it attentively, and such as Mr. C. in- 
 tended to make; hut, when stript of the dreiS, 
 and unfleeced of their wool, Mr. C, became ashaf : 
 medofhisown wolves. 
 
50 BAPTISM. 
 
 1 1 PROPOSITION. 
 
 That God never did enter into any covenant 
 with fallen man but the covenant of grace, which 
 is now, and ever was, the alone security and hope 
 of the believer. 
 
 This covenant is defined to be a contract made 
 from eternity, between God the father and God 
 the son; wherein God the son did, as the foederal 
 head and representative of all whom the Father 
 gave him, agree to satisfy ail the claims of the law, 
 and thereby fulfil the condition of the covenant of 
 works, and bring in an everlasting righteousness. 
 
 That such a covenant was made, is evident. 
 Psalm, 89, 3. "I have made a covenant with my 
 chosen." That it was an everlasting covenant, 
 is evident from Heb. IS, 20. Now, the God of 
 peace that brought again from the dead our Lord 
 Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through 
 the blood of the everlasting covenant." That 
 Christ was a public person in that covenant, ap- 
 pears from Heb. 7. 22. "By so much was Jesus 
 made a surety of a better testament.-' Fmally, 
 that Christ agreed in that eternal contract to ful- 
 fil the condition of the covenant of works, and 
 thereby satisfv all the claims of the law, is proved 
 from Psalm 40, 6, 7, 8. Sacrifice and oflFering 
 thou didst not desire: mine ears hast thou opened: 
 burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not re- 
 quired. Then said I, lo, I come: in the volume of 
 the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will 
 O my God." 
 
 But the denial of this doctrine constitutes a 
 great part of Mr. C's work— he has been more in- 
 
BAPTISM. ol 
 
 ventive in the formation of spurious covenant?, 
 than the Roman Catliolicks were in sacraments — 
 tlicy formed three spurious sacraments, but Mr. 
 C. has formed in his own brain, five new cov- 
 enants, which he adds to the two found in the 
 scriptures, making seven. It indeed lies upon 
 Mr. C. to exert all his genius to create cov- 
 enants; it is evident that circumcision was tl-.o 
 seal oi some covenant, this materially is not deni- 
 ed b"y Mr. C. although he is not willing to go so 
 far, as Paul's opinion on the same snbject. But 
 no person had ever asserted that circumcision 
 was a seal of the covenant of works. It will not 
 do for the system of Mr. C. to make it a seal of the 
 covenant of grace; and therefore, some other cov- 
 enant must be made, to which this seal can be ap- 
 phed — ho thinks he has succeed'^d. We shall en- 
 deavour to collect his observations upon the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 ' With regard to what he (Mr. W.) has snid con- 
 ' cerninglhe tvi'O covenarits being the same, 1 am 
 ' authorised, from the Old testsment and the i ew, 
 ' to affirm that they are not." "On what ground 
 ' does my opponent affirm that these covenants are 
 ' the same, that is, what he calls the covenant of 
 ' grace, or I, the new covenant, and the covenant 
 ' of circumcision? Do we not read that there 
 ' were ditferent covenants made with Abraham? 
 
 • one called by Stephen the proto-martyr the cov- 
 
 • enant of Circumcision and one called by Paul, 
 ' in his Epistle to the Galatians. "The cov- 
 ' enant conHrmed before of God in Christ, whicli 
 ' was 430 years before the giving of the law— - 
 'Why then call those covenants the same, the 
 ' one revealed to Abraham when 75 year old, de- 
 
 • parting from Haran, Gen. 12, 3. 430 years be 
 
52 BAPTISM. 
 
 * fore the giving of the law; arrd the other made 
 ' with Abraham when 99 or 100 years old Gen. 17 
 
 • called the covenant of circumcision.' Page 
 '.13, 14.' 
 
 As to the date of his two covenants^ I beg leave 
 to differ vfith Mr. C. for this reason, that the cov- 
 eAant mentioned in the 13th, of Genesis, has in- 
 deed a promise, but there is no particular men- 
 tion made of an j thing then instituted, as a con- 
 iirmation of that covenant; the simple specifica- 
 tion of the terms of a contract, may indeed be con- 
 firmed by the veracity of the contractors; but with- 
 out a^seal tlie contract may,besaid tobe legally con- 
 (irtned; but until the mslitution of circumcision we 
 liave no particular specification of a seal, or con- 
 firmation of a covenant. The calculation of Mr. 
 David Pare us, wliose cliaracter for accuracy will 
 be disputed by none except Mr. C. before whom 
 John Knox, justly stiled the Apostle of the refor- 
 mation — or even Paul the great apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles, fall with the least exertion of Mr. C's potent 
 arm.* 
 
 He commences his calculations not as Mr. C. 
 does from the 12th of Gen. but the 15th. From 
 this event to the birth of Isaac 15 years. From 
 the birth of Isaac to the birth of Jacob, 60 years, 
 Gen. 25, 2G from the birth of Jacob, to his going 
 down into Egypt 130 years, Gen 47, 9. From his 
 
 * When Mr. C. is passing strictures on Mr. R. 
 the father of the reformation, gets their equal 
 share of his 'wonder working' pen. In this re- 
 spect how keenly he unites with the Papists in 
 the ruin of these good men. It must he a pitiful 
 system before which even the reformation must 
 fall. Mr. C. Inolhi seautmi to know thyself. 
 
BAPTISM. 53 
 
 going clown into Egypt, to bis death 17 years. Gen. 
 4T, 28. From the death of Jacob to the death of 
 Joseph 53 years. Gen 50, 26. From the death of 
 Joseph to the birth of Moses 75 years. From the 
 birth of Moses to the going out of the children of 
 Israel* from Egypt 80 years. In all 430 years. 
 The time mentioned by the apostle Paul. The 
 accuracy of this calculation will appear upon par^i 
 ticular observation, and completely justifies the 
 opinion of dating the time from the prophecy in 
 Gen. Chap. 15. This covenant in that particular 
 revelation was confirmed by sacrifice; to wliich 
 we shall attend in its proper place. 
 
 But Mr. C. is 'authorized from the Old testament 
 and the new- to declare that the covenant made 
 before the birth of Isaac, and the covenant made 
 at the institution of circumcision, were distinct 
 covenants. In replying to Mr. C. I caie not whe- 
 ther he selects for his purpose, the covenant he 
 supposes made in the 12 chap, or the covenant 
 mentioned in the 15th. The only difference it 
 will make, is, that on his plan of forging out cov- 
 enanants, it will place another on his list, making 
 in all, eight. 
 
 Let us grant, that a covenant was made in the 
 12th chap, of Gen. What then does it contain? 
 1st a promise 'I will make of thee a great nation, 
 and thou shalt be a blessing, and I will bless them 
 that bless thee, and curse them that curseth tiiee, 
 and in thee sha'! all families of the earth be bless- 
 ed' v. 2. 3. and again v. 7, unto thy seed will I 
 give this land. These are the only specifications of 
 a covenant in 12th chapter. The five following 
 things are contained in these verses. 1st, That he 
 should be the father of a great nation. 2nd. That 
 his name should be very celebrated. 3rd. That 
 F % 
 
54 BAPTISM. 
 
 God would prefect his friend.^— and curse his ene- 
 raies. 4ih.- That a blessing through liim should 
 eitend toalifhe familes ofthe earth, oth. That 
 his seed should inherit the lard of Canaan. 
 
 Let us next examine Mr. C's .^elc and distinct 
 covenant, the covenant of circumcision. This is 
 mentioned Gen. Chap. 17. This contains Ist. a 
 -pn.misc that his family should be erreat. "I will 
 multiply thee exceedinnlv." 'I will make nations 
 cf thee" y. 2. 6. 2ndr"With this multiplied pos- 
 terify he would make an everlasting covenant. 
 \,8. 3rd. Circumcision is apointed as a sign, or 
 seal of this covenant. But Mr. C. asks 'why does 
 my opponent say that these too covenants are the 
 same:' I answer, because they contain materially 
 the same thing-. Not any blessing contained in 
 the former covenant, but is either expressed, or 
 implied in the latter. If wt were in persuitof a new 
 covenant, we should look for new promises, new 
 stipulations— new parties S,-c. — but not finding 
 these Mr. W. was compelled to pronounce the 
 covenant of the 12. 15. and 17. Chap, the same. 
 If Mr. C. had possessed a genius as productive of 
 circumstances and principles as he was of cove- 
 nants, he would at least have presented his read- 
 ers with a sutficient number of these that would 
 have inclined him to think that these were distinct 
 covenants. 
 
 ^Te shall however, attend to some of Mr. C^s 
 reasons, why we should consider the covenants of 
 the 12. and 15. Chap, as distinct; and find if it be 
 possible to consider the sentiment expressed by 
 Mr. C. correct. I would just premise that the se- 
 cond or third, or any number of the revelations of 
 a covenant will not constitute them separate 
 contracts. This alone cac be inferred, that there 
 
BAPTISM. 55 
 
 were distinct reasons, why such repetitions should 
 be made. These reasons were either the particular 
 circumstances of the person to vviiom the revela- 
 tion was made, or the giving of some additional 
 revelation, either of promise, command, or threat- 
 ing. Not to concede this premise, will, at least 
 add a thousand covenants to Mr. C's seven! it 
 will add hundreds of new commands to the com- 
 mon list; because we have the same precepts of- 
 ten repeated, according to Mr. C's plan, every re- 
 petition of the same command, will make it a dis- 
 tinct command. The truth is, the same covenant, 
 the same command, is in scripture often repeat- 
 ed — and every repetition was mad<» from distinct 
 reasons, and under different circumstanc* s. 
 Hence the reasons given by Mr. C. for distinct co- 
 venants have nothing to do with the being of the 
 covenant, they only respect the circumstances be- 
 longing to it. 
 
 'Do we not read, that there were different co- 
 * venants made with Abraham.^ one called by 
 'Stephen, the proto-Martyr, the covenant of cir- 
 ' cumcision, and one called by Paul in his epis- 
 ' tie, to the Galatians, the covenant confirmed of 
 'God in Christ four hundred and thirty years be- 
 'fore the giving of the law' P. 13.14. That 
 Stephen and Paul give diflferent names to the co- 
 venant is not denied, will this, however, prove 
 different covenants.'* If two writers refering to a 
 certain contract, cite separate items, and each 
 designate the contract, by such items, would Mr. 
 C's conclusion be just — that therefore there must 
 have been two contracts. The name given by 
 Paul, (if we may call it a name:) arose from a 
 peculiar circumstance, that it .was a contract be- 
 tween God and the Church, concluded and con- 
 
56 BAPTISM. 
 
 firmed by appending a seal four hundred and thir- 
 ty -e'srs before the revelation of the law from 
 Mt Sinai. But Stephen speaking of the same co- 
 venant, and quoting it for a different reason, en- 
 titles it a covenant of circumcision. The differ- 
 ent reasons, these inspired pen-men had, for refer- 
 ing to this covenant, of course give the different 
 names to the same translation. 
 
 Stephen was addressing the Jews; he intimated 
 to them their true character: that they were a 
 people peculiarly hardened. And in order to pre- 
 sent this to their understanding — he intimates a 
 doctrine, they did not deny, that they were peo- 
 ple in covenant with God, that they were yet un- 
 der the obligations of this covenant, this they con- 
 fessed by their acknowledgement of the rite of 
 circumcision, because that feoderal compact be- 
 tween God and Abraham was the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision. This is the evident reason why he 
 refers to the 17, chapter of Genesis.* 
 
 But the apostle Paul drawing his argument from 
 the date of the covenant names it accordingly. 
 Let it be granted, that these inspired men had re- 
 spect to two seperate dates of the same covenant, 
 what plea does this afford Mr. C? Will he think 
 to prove from this, that they must be distinct. Yes 
 
 *It is evident Stephen was no baptist, Mr. C. 
 says this covenant to which Stephen refers only 
 secured the land of Canaan, but the cause for 
 which Stephen was pleading, neither knew par- 
 ticular spots of the world, or yet particular na- 
 tions. To have quoted the covenant of circum- 
 cision would, according to the Baptist view, have 
 established nothing for the obligation of the 
 church. 
 
BAPTISM. 57 
 
 says Mr. C. for this plain reason. 'The one re- 
 
 • v'ealed to Abraham when seventy five years old, 
 ' departing from Haran Gen. 12, 3. four hundred 
 'and thirty years before the giving of the law; the 
 ' other made with Abraham, when ninety or an 
 'hundred years old Gen. 17. Why I say call 
 
 * these two, the Abrahamic covenaniV P. 14. Ans. 
 Because the contract was made with Abraham 
 first, when he was seventy five years old, and 
 again repeated with some things additional when 
 ninety nine years old. I call both the same cove- 
 nant because most people deny that the simple 
 repititionof a contract under different circumstan- 
 ces and for different reasons, necessarily implies 
 a new contract — with this, common sense agrees 
 1st. when Abraham was first called out of Ur of 
 the Chaldees and constituted the father of the 
 faithful, he received the first revelation of the co- 
 venant of Grace Chap. 1.3. 2nd. When God re- 
 vealed to him the mournful captivity to which his 
 posterity should be reduced, he repeats the same 
 covenant, for the further confirmation of his faith 
 — HE then gives an additional confirmation of the 
 same covenant, by typically presenting to his faith 
 the security and light of the church in the day of 
 adversity, that while they passed through the 
 burning fiery furnace — they should be favored 
 with the light and comforts of the gospel. Chap. 15. 
 3rd. When the blessings of this same covenant 
 were for many ages to be continued to his posteri- 
 ty of whom Christ was to be born, and who were 
 also now organized as a church — he now reveals 
 for the third time the same covenant and for the 
 first, appeared as a sign, or seal, the rite of circum- 
 cision. 
 
 But Mr. C. would have the reader to believe 
 
58 BAPTISM. 
 
 that it was impossible that these could be the 
 same, because of the lapse of time between the re- 
 velations made to Abraham. That the reader 
 may judge of the strength of his arguments — we 
 recapitulate the substance of our observations. 
 The .first revelation of the covenant of grace was 
 made to Abraham, when seventy tivejears old, 
 about ten years after when the faith of Abraham 
 needed a peculiar confirmation the same cove- 
 nant was again revealed, with the necessary ad- 
 ditional confirmations. Lastly when this was in 
 a great measure to be confined to his natural pos- 
 terity, and it became necessary to add a seal, he 
 again revealed the same covenant and added cir- 
 cumcision. Of these covenants I may either 
 speak in the singular or plural numbtr: If I 
 speak of the substance, without refering to any 
 circumstance, I mention it in the former sense; 
 but if I refer to the different revelations made, 
 then with the apostle I name it in the plural — cove- 
 nants. 
 
 To 'argue from them as one, and the same, js a 
 'blunder too glaring in this enlightened age.' 
 'Whatever the apostle calls tliem; he prete. ;es;4hc 
 'same number to whom says he, pertain the cove- 
 'nants of promise, again, to Abraham and his seed 
 'were the promises made. On these two cove- 
 'nants which are of such ancient date, were the 
 *two dispensations foundt'd; the Jewish and the 
 ' Christian.' P. 20. Such round assertions deserve 
 clear argument, or else the reader will be dispos- 
 ed to say; we have nothing but assertion, and in- 
 deed such a conclusion appears evident. When 
 Mr. C. does not even attempt either to form the 
 distinct nature or substance of covenants, from 
 which to draw his new-fashioned conclusion. 
 
BAPTISM. 59 
 
 We grant, that the covenant of grace has many 
 promises, even every gospel promise contained in 
 theB'i)le. When tlie apostle spoke of these pro- 
 mises he mentioned them in the j)Iural number, 
 or when he dissignated the covenant by the dif- 
 ferent revelations — or the numerous promises it 
 contained, he uses the plural number — but who 
 will hence infer, that there was a plurality of cove- 
 nants. 
 
 That the Jews derived their blessings from the 
 covenant of circumcision is also true; but when 
 we attend to tlie particular specification? revealed 
 to \braham in that covenant; even the slightest 
 attention vyill render it evident, that other nations 
 were equally included. Gen. 17. 5. 'Neither 
 shall thy name any more be called Abram but thy 
 name shall be Abraham; for a father of many na- 
 tions, have I made thee,' v. 15. IG. 'And God 
 said unto Abraham, as for Sarai thy wife, ihou 
 shalt not call her nanie Sarai, but Sarah shall be 
 her name. And I will bless her, and give thee a 
 son also of her, yea, I. will bless her, and she shall 
 be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be 
 of h^ ' It is obvious that in this covenant of cir- 
 cumcision, Abraham was constituted the father of 
 the faithful; the 'nations born in a day' should, 
 from the items of this contract be constvtuted his 
 seed, and of course, Christians in all ages of the 
 world, will be founded upon this covenant. 
 
 Although we grant that the New testament is 
 founded upon the covenant mentioned in the 12th. 
 Chap, yet we deny that this dispensation is exclu- 
 sively founded upon that revelation of it. Were 
 we so prolific of covenants as Mr. C. we would 
 however, deny that the New testament churchy 
 was founded upon the revelation, mentioned in 
 
60 BAPTISM. 
 
 the 12th. Chap, and assert that it was upon the 
 covenant of circumcision, we are founded From 
 the passages just quoted, it is evident that in the 
 covenant of circumcision, such names were gi- 
 ven to the covenanters, as rendered it evident, 
 they were the church in a foederal sense, why 
 ■was Abram called Abraham? because he was to 
 be the father of nations, or Sarai, Sarah? because 
 she was to be the mother of nations. If the rea- 
 der enquire upon what covenant believing nations 
 are founded. I answer upon that covenant in whicii 
 Abraham was constituted their father — which fact 
 took place in the covenant of circumcision. 
 Gen. 17. 
 
 Another circumstance rendering the same doc- 
 trine more obviotis, is that in the same covenant, 
 Isaac was promised. This son was the person by 
 whom Abraham became related to the heathen 
 nations, who would become converts to the reli- 
 gion of Jesus. These are the children of Abraham 
 in the same spiritual sense, Isaac was. Ttie 
 apostle Paul, who certainly agrees with the view 
 I have given — lays down the same assertion, and 
 for the proof of it, quotes the covenant of circum- 
 cision Rom. 9, 7. 'Neither because they are 
 the seed of Abraham are they all children, 
 but in Isaac shall thy seed be called.' 
 The apostle quotes Gen. 17, 19, a part of the 
 covenant of circumcisions, it remains evident that 
 upon this covenant the apostle founded that rela- 
 tion which all believing nations have since claimed 
 to Abraham. Now let Mr. C. settle this point with 
 the apostle Paul. 
 
 I shall mention another reason why the opinion 
 of Mr. C. respecting ihi«» covenant must be ab- 
 surd. I mean the term by which it is expressed 
 
13 APTISM. ' ei 
 
 in Gen. 17, everlasting covenant than wiuch no 
 stronger term can be used to express Ihc cov- 
 enant of grace. But lest this scripture appellation 
 of Mr. C's. Jewish covenant might carry too much 
 conviction, he easily passes over the difficulty, by 
 declaring that the wordeverlas^ng'is used in a limit- 
 ted sense in scripture; I answer that the term ever- 
 lasting, means duration without end — this is its 
 literal and only meaning, and is never otiierwise 
 used except in figure. Mr. C. calls this play upon 
 the word everlasting, page, 52, 'The term cver^ 
 ' lasting is often used as a relative term in the 
 • scripture, and in the very chapter in^which the 
 'covenant of circumcision, is called an everlasting 
 ' covenant, in their flesh, we have the term so 
 ' used V. 8. 'and I will give the land of Canaan for 
 ' an everlasting possession.'' In this he presents 
 his reader with two reasons why the term everlast- 
 ing cannot mean forever. The 1st is thatit.was to 
 be an everlasting covenant in their flesh — and 
 therefore could not outlive their flesh. The 2nd 
 is that the land of Canaan was given for an ever- 
 lasting possession which could not continue any 
 longer than the time of the Jew5 inhabiting that 
 land. 
 
 Let it be observed as a fact, that Mr. C. and the 
 Universalists, convert the meaning of the word 
 everlasting,to signify a limited time, just as it serves 
 their respective purposes. The Universalian says, 
 that the term, everlasting, means eternity when ap- 
 plied to the future happiness of saintg, but when 
 applied to future punishment, it is taken in a limit- 
 ed sense; to the feelings of the human mind, the 
 one is admissible, but the other too painful to be 
 admitted. So Mr. C. will admit this term in its full 
 sense, if applied to the New testament church ; for 
 G 
 
62 BAPTISM. 
 
 fits system is not thereby injured:- but if it be ap- 
 plied to the privileges of the saints under the Old 
 testament, and especially to a covenant to which 
 circumcision is appended; then it can only mean a 
 few years. 
 
 That the term everlasting is used in a limited 
 «ense I have granted, but have also observed that 
 it is only so used when in figure: for example, hills 
 are called everlasting Gen. 49, 26. Yet Mr. C. will 
 grant that it would be very absurd, to draw literal 
 conclusion", that depend upon tern>,s iigurativcly 
 used. Upon the principles established by Mr. C, 
 in his reasoning upon the term everlasting, I estab- 
 lish this theory, that the word river only means 
 drops of water, occasionally falling, because the 
 Psalmist David declares that, 'rivers of waters run 
 down from his eyes.' If we endeavour to est£l:- 
 lish any position, from the use of the word everlast- 
 ing in scripture, its figurative application is imme- 
 diately presented by an Universalian or by Mr. C 
 After all their efforts they succeed in establishing 
 this assertion only — that the word everlastings when 
 figuratively used is taken in a limited sense. But 
 let me ask any Baptist of common sense, what is 
 the meaning of the word everlasting? he replies — 
 forever, eternal, duration without end. I am afraid, 
 therefore, when Mr. C. endeavours to hide him- 
 self behind this figure, that some farmer will chase 
 him from behind it, and expose his retreat to the 
 world. The place to which Mr. C. refers, 
 respecting the Jexeisk covenant, is a simple 
 statement, and therefore the word everlasting must 
 have its simple meaning. To give an honest ex- 
 planation of such passages of scripture, every 
 ^fVOTd must have its proper and natural significa- 
 
BAPTISM. 68 
 
 tion. It is thcrelbre Mr. C. and not Mr. W. that 
 plays upon the word everlasting. 
 
 I'liat the land of Canaan svas given to them for 
 a token of an everlasting possession, should be ad- 
 mitted, it tould only be in this sense, they were 
 to possess it forever. So Paul reasons upon the 
 promises of this land, originally made to the Jews, 
 in Heb. 4. He shews that it was given to them 
 for a rest, but not for the only rest. v. 8. 'For if 
 Jesus (Joshua) had given them rest, then would 
 he not afterwards have spoken of another day.' It 
 was with the rest of Canaan as it is with the sab- 
 bath, a figure of an eternal rest. Such indeed are 
 ail temporal blessings to God's people, they are a 
 token, an earnest of spiritual favors, to be eter- 
 nally enjoyed with God in the heavens. In this 
 sense Israel received the earthly Canaan for an 
 everlasting possession: the order was first an 
 earthly, then an heavenly Canaan, the first a figure, 
 the second a reality; righteously to enjoy the for- 
 mer was to possess the latter in figure. 
 
 We shall now call the attention of the reader to 
 Mr. C"s. observations on Gen. 17. 13, 17. 'He 
 that is born in thy house, and he that is bought 
 with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and 
 my covenant shall be in your flesh, for an ever- 
 lasting covenant.' Hear his comment. 'But so 
 ' long as they continued in that covenant, were 
 ' they to enjoy that land: nor could they have a 
 ' covenant in their flesh which would last longer 
 • than their flesh.' page 52. 
 
 The most obvious meaning of this passage is 1st 
 that the covenant which God made with Abraham 
 had a sign or a seal, that this sign was marked in 
 the flesh; by which it might be discovered that he 
 and his seed were a people in covenant with God, 
 
6i MPTISM. 
 
 2nd. That the blessings of this covenant, ii»f 
 sign of wliich was marked in the flesh of Abraham 
 and in the flesh of his i>eed, were to be everlasting. 
 The matter of which covenant was expressed v. 7. 
 'To be a God unto thee and to thy seed aftci 
 thee.' 
 
 3rd. That the conclusion drawn by Mr. C. must 
 be false, is indeed self evident, because a covenant 
 or contract may last long after the seal, or the 
 evidences of it are done: e. g. The grandfather 
 of Mr. C. bought and aftervvards occupied a farm, 
 tlie contract has not lost its evidences and seals; 
 yet his grandson Mr. C. occupies tlie same iniicr- 
 itance and that by the same contract: and upon 
 the same principle, liis posterity may occupy it for 
 a thousand year?!. So the Israelite while he lived, 
 carried with him the seal or token of this covenant, 
 and being found in Christ when he died, he went 
 to heaven to r<i:ip its everlasting fi'uits. Thus l:e 
 went to an everhisting rest to enjoy the blessings 
 of the covenant of grace which were sealed in lii^ 
 flesh, while he was in this world.* 
 
 We have now succeeded in either adding one 
 more covenant to Mr. C's seven, or reducing their 
 
 *Mr C's reveling mode of argument often runs 
 liim against common sense — so eager is he to 
 prove that the term everlasting only mean's some 
 short time, for fear of its true meaning being ap- 
 plied to the covenant of circumcision, that he at-' 
 tempts to establish this position, that the obliga- 
 tions and privileges of all contracts continue only as 
 long as the mark or seal on the paper continue. 
 This covenant could continue no longer than the 
 fle^h. Upon his principle there is not a man 'm 
 England hokU any lands by just litle; for although 
 
BAPTISM, 65 
 
 number to six. The reduction is the most prob- 
 able. So far as the stipulations are revealed to us, 
 we find no reason to depart from the common 
 faith of tlie church upon this point: and indeed we 
 think it extraordinary any one should. In Gen. 
 12. we have the first revelation of the promise, 
 We have the same renewed and confirmed by sa- 
 crifice in the 15 chap, and this sacrifice to be per- 
 formed under such circumstances, and with such 
 rites, as to intimate to Abraham the sorrows of his 
 offspring; yet, however great their troubles were 
 lobe, this covenant should exist in its full force and 
 and be their security; therefore a 'smoaking fur- 
 nace and burning lahap' passed between the cue 
 pieces of the sacrifice. We have still the same 
 promise, but more fully revealed in the 17 chapter. 
 But here the covenant was not to be confirmed by 
 sacrifice; as in the 15 chap, or merely its promises 
 committed to his memory, but a lasting memorial 
 of it Q^n graven in his flesh, in the rite of circum- 
 cision. 
 
 In my turn, 1 would now ask Mr. C. why not call 
 these covenants the same. One Lord proposing it, 
 one body, with whom the covenant was made, the 
 
 the titles may be preserved on record, yet this is. 
 not the signature of the contractors, it is only a 
 proof that such covenants did exist; the rite of cir- 
 cumcision may be lost, and therefore this seal of 
 the covenant of grace is no more. Will Mr. C. 
 say that therefore the moral obligations and privi- 
 leges of that transaction are also done while yet a 
 faithful record of the covenant and seal is found 
 in the word of God, and the moral obligations of 
 the contract remaining, and the spiritual privilege* 
 of it etill dispensed.'' 
 
 a a 
 
'66 BAPTISM. 
 
 same blessings always promised, evea blessings 
 temporal and spiritual. Why, Mr. C. not 
 call these covenants the Abrahamic covenant, 
 v.'hen, in the first making, as well as in the renew- 
 al of this covenant he sustained his foederal or re- 
 presentative character, he made and renewed it 
 as the 'Father ofthe faithlul ?' 
 
 But will Mr. C. still insist that 4 or 5 covenants 
 were made with Abraham, as many with Isaac and 
 with Jacob? Then I invite the reader to compare 
 '„he view he has given us of these covenants, with 
 (he representation God himself has given us, in 
 L'sal. 103, 8, 9, 10. *He hath remembered his 
 covenant forever, the word he commanded to a 
 :ho!!sand generations: which covenant he made 
 with Abraham and his oath unto Isaac, and con- 
 iii'med the same unto Jacob, for a law, and unto 
 Israel for an everlastirsg covenant.' This cove- 
 nant even by Mr. C's concession, was the cov- 
 enant of circumcision. It promised the earthly 
 Canaan, V. 11. This possession in the revelation 
 of that covenant was secured upon the same pre- 
 cise principles that tlie same covenant in its pre- 
 sent administration gives us OUT bread and makes 
 our water sure — and this given to us for the same 
 reason it was given to them, mentioned in the same 
 Psalm, 10 enable us to discharge our duty, v. 45. 
 'That they might observe his statutes and keep 
 his laws.' 
 
 Mr. C. attacks the Pedo-Baptists with an host of 
 arguments, founded, as he supposes, upon the 8th. 
 of Heb. and musters up almost every verse in the 
 chapter to his aid. P. 38, 39 ,40. Before we 
 present you with a reply to his observations we 
 would premise: that there is an artful way of 
 running over scripture, either in order to form a 
 
By^PTISM. 67 
 
 party from among those who never read it with 
 interest, or concern, and who indeed prefer any 
 carnal light to Divine revelation; or else t« delude 
 the ignorant and well intending part of mankind. 
 Thus the fbllowers of Immanuel Swedenbur^er, 
 prefer his wild deliriun;, to any doctrines however 
 fairly laid upon scripture; they prefer the dream 
 of a fanatic to the solid declarations of God's 
 word. 
 
 It is in tliis manner Mr. C. plays upon a few 
 deluded people. When he finds if necessary he 
 suffers his inventive mind to create scripture as 
 we have shown in the General observations on his 
 work. If the literal expressions of scripture seem 
 to answer his purpose, he urges it — and heaps an- 
 athemas upon the man who deserts it. When 
 you succeed in binding him fast with express letter 
 — he instantly musters a pile of Lexicons as in 
 P. 151. By these he succeeds in proving that the 
 words used in scripture cannot mean what every 
 English reader woukl suppose. Thus Proteus- 
 like, you catch him in one shape, he escapes in 
 another; and all to sufjport his novel theory. 
 Were it not, that it is impossible to tell how far 
 a person may be deluded, I could not think that 
 even Mr. C. believed the comment he has given 
 us on the 8Pth. of Heb, 
 
 Dr. Gill, an eminent Baptist, has given us a ve- 
 ry large comment upon the scriptures. On almost 
 every verse he gives us a great variety of senti- 
 ment, and presents his readers with different 
 opinions — Mr. C's systena was not inveuted before 
 the time of Dr. Gill, and with all hi-? variety he 
 never names the opinion of Mr. C. We shall pre- 
 sent you with a short extract from the Dr. upoa 
 the Chapter from which we dispute, that you 
 
m BAPTISM. 
 
 may compare the sentiments of the learned Bap- 
 tist with his successor Mr. C. 'The words are 
 
 * cited from Jer. 31. 32. in which God promises a 
 ' new covenant, so called not because new made; 
 ' for with respect to its original constitution, it 
 'was made from eternity; Christ the mediater of 
 'it, and with whom it was made, was set up from 
 'everlasting, and promises and blessings of grace 
 ' were put into his hands before the world began: 
 
 * nor is it merely revealed, for it was made known 
 ' to Adam, and in some measure to all the Old tes- 
 ' lament saints, though it is more clearly revealed 
 ' than it teas; but it is so called in distinction 
 ' from the administration of it, which is waxen 
 
 * old and vanished away.' Dr. Gill or Mr. Boothe, 
 Baptists of the old school, would have been offend- 
 ed with the views of our modern disputant, and 
 DO doubts would have saved Pedo-baptists the 
 trouble of replying — we shall however give you 
 his opinion. 
 
 In order to present fairly to the reader the 
 view of Mr. C. on this chapter, in order to give 
 a reply — we shall give you a summary view of the 
 reasons why these covenants cannot be the same. 
 
 1st. Because it is called in that chapter a better 
 covenant, established upon better promises, v. 6. 7. 
 The first was faulty — the second faultless. 
 
 2nd. Because the covenant promised in Jer. 3L 
 is called a new-covenant and the covenant which 
 he would make with the New testament saints, 
 would not be according to the covenant he made 
 with their fathers, v. 8. 9, 
 
 3rd. From the items of the covenant itself v. 
 10, 11, 12. which covenants differ in four respects 
 1st. The law of the first was written on stones. 
 The eecond upon the heart. 2nd. In the first he 
 
BAPTISM. 69 
 
 nas their God in a national sense; but in the se- 
 cond in a spirilural and eternal sense. 3rd. It 
 was necessary to teach the subjects of the old, to 
 know the Lord, but the subjects of the new are all 
 taught of God. 4th. Noremissionof sins was pro- 
 mised to the subjects of the old as such; but to the 
 subjects of the new as such is tlie forgiveness of 
 sins promised. 
 
 4th. Because the first covenant waxed old and 
 vanished away. 
 
 W& shall now attend to these objections, in the 
 order of the summary given. The New testament 
 is called a better covenant for three reasons. 1st. 
 The change of priesthood — 2nd. It is established 
 upon better promises. — 3rd. It is faultless. To 
 the first of these I reply, that the New testament is 
 better administered than" the Old, because Christ 
 himself is the high priest, and his own body the 
 sacrifice. But this covenant under llie former 
 administration, was executed by persons who 
 were only typical of this high priest: these were 
 falible, changeable, and mortal men. Christ the an- 
 tiiypical Y'Srson in the 'fullness of time appeared.*' 
 'lie entered once into the holy place, having ob- 
 tained eternal redemption for us.' The word us- 
 ed by the apostle is dia //le /ce justly translated a 
 will or a testament. 'Because' says Mr. C. of its 
 •being the usual name for the will, disposition, or 
 ' arrangement, which is rendered valid by his 
 'death.' This definition is just; I would therefore 
 ask Mr. C. if the charge of the administrators of 
 a testament will change the tPi7/ itself? I answer, 
 no — if those administrators refuse to serve, that 
 have been appointed, or if they die in the midst of 
 execution; other administrators are appointed; 
 but not another will made, as Mr. C. would have 
 
IfO BAPTISM. 
 
 it. The extent of the apostle's reasoning in the 
 chapter cited, only proves that the change of 
 priesthood, made by the coming of Christ, secures 
 a belter administration to the New testament, 
 than our fellow-heirs had under tlie former dispen- 
 sation. It is not possible that any reader acquaint- 
 ed with the common transactions of life, or the 
 administration of wills, can credit Mr. C's expla- 
 nation of Paul's words. 
 
 2nd. Reason why the covenants cannot be the 
 same. The neav is established upon better pro- 
 mises than the old. Although we shoiild admit 
 all Mr. G. says upon this reason, in its fullest ex- 
 tent, what would it establish for his theory? no- 
 thing but that which is conceded. That the heirs 
 to whom this testament \\r.s first administered, fre- 
 quently received their promises through types, is 
 conceded; these favors were oft given to them 
 wrapt in thick vails; through which their faith 
 had to penetrate, in order to reach the promise, 
 These types, this vail, is removed, and the heirs 
 have now more ready access to the same icill: Mr. 
 C's inference, 'therefore the covenants connot be 
 the same' — is without a premise. Again, reader, 
 admire Mr C's ingenuity. Because in process of 
 time and change of circumstances, heirs have 
 more convenient access to the benefits bequeathed 
 them by their common father, and of consequence 
 more enjoyment in the possession of these bless- 
 ings than those had. who were the first heirs — he 
 takes it for a natural consequence that therefore 
 the will cannot be the same. Who can subscribe 
 liis creed? 
 
 3rd. Reason. The first covenant was faulty — 
 the second faultless. I reply, that Mr. C. will 
 not suppose that there were any immoralities 
 
BAPTISM. 71 
 
 in the first covenant. The divine being was a 
 party; fault (comparative defect) indeed was 
 found; with the administration, it was dark, clou- 
 dy, veiled, and also the administrators of that dis- 
 pensation were found guilty in not believing the 
 promises of that covenant, and refusing to obey its 
 law. Both these are conceded. 
 
 Fault was found either with the covenant itself, 
 or with the administration. It could not be with 
 the former, without blasphemy, it cannot be al- 
 iedged that fault can be found with any covenant 
 of which God is a party, its law was divine and for 
 that time was as positive in its injunctions, as 'thou 
 shalt not kill.' The ceremonial law which was 
 the law of that dispensation, an existing command 
 founded upon the Divine will, possesses all the ob- 
 ligation of a command, founded upon the Divine 
 nature, althoi.gh the former of these may be re- 
 pealed or changed by the deity, yet while enjoin- 
 ed, they possess the force and perfection of the mo- 
 re? law. 
 
 It could not be the substance with which the 
 fault was found, because tiiese were blessings 
 drawn from the divine bounty, by those to whom 
 God, in that covenant had promised, that 'he would 
 be their God and the God of their seed.' It fol- 
 lows that the fault was found only with the dis- 
 pensation, which I have shewn did not affect the 
 being of the covenant, the only thing in dis- 
 pute.* 
 
 *For the satisfaction of Mr. C's Disciples we 
 
 shall give them a summary of his three reasons 
 
 why the Old and New-testament cannot be the 
 
 same covenant. 
 
 B and C were tbe.sons of A. When A their father 
 
72 BAPTISM. 
 
 Objection 2nd. Comprehends two things. 1st. 
 The first covenant was old, the second new. 2nd. 
 The new covenant was not to be according 
 to the old. 
 
 To the first of these I reply that the present dis- 
 pensation is called a new covenant for one of two 
 reasons — the first of these must be, that the cove- 
 nant or will, must be entirely new, this however, 
 is impossible; the promises of that covenant which 
 were made unto the fathers, its first heirs, were 
 confirmed by the death of the testator of the new- 
 testament. Rom. 15. 8. Now I say that Jesus 
 Christ was a minister of the circumcision, for the 
 truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto 
 the fathers.' I would now ask Mr C. If one testa- 
 tor can by his death confirm two distinct wills? 
 he must answer. No; however numerous the items 
 
 died he left them equal shares of a very large es- 
 tate. B was the oldest and come first into the 
 possession of the estate. There were, however, 
 i.hree difficulties thatB had to encounter. Isr, He was 
 inexperienced, there were many things he could not 
 understand. 2iid. The administrators through 
 whom B had to look for his estate, were also ig- 
 norant, and, in many instances, not faithful. 3rd. 
 In the early times in which B come into the posses- 
 sion of feis estate, none were capable of making 
 }]im utiderstand the will — B was often perplexed, 
 and had but little comfort. But when his young- 
 er brother become of age, the will was understood; 
 the first administrators dead, and a full regulation 
 of wills fixed in law — Now because of these cir- 
 cumstancial differences, who will say that Band 
 C were not brothers, or the will one? Does Mr. 
 C. believe himself that they were not? 
 
BAPnSM. 73 
 
 of one will may be, the testament is but one, every 
 item is confiirped by the death of the tc>tator, as 
 truly as if each were a separate ^cill. Numerous 
 promises, indeed, belonged to the coveno-nt of 
 grace in either of its administrations: the fathers of 
 the Jews to whom the apostle wrote, were heirs 
 of that covenant; the promises made to them, were 
 inferior with respect to evidence to those made 
 since — yet they were confirmed by the death of 
 Christ the testator, and, by fair consequence, they 
 were the promises of otzr covenant, confirmed to 
 them and us by the 'once offering up of himself.' 
 
 But 'the new covenant was not to be according 
 to the old'. This is Mr. C/s 2nd. reason. I ask 
 why it was not to be accordinjr to it? Was it in the 
 enjoyment of God by faith ? No: for while the evi- 
 dence of their faith was inferior to ours; yet the 
 being of this grace was secured to the subjects of 
 that dispensaiion, in the very revelation of the cov- 
 enant. 'I will establish my covenant between me 
 and thee, and ihy seed after thee, in their genera- 
 tions for an everlasting covenant, to be aGod unto 
 thee and thy seed after thee.' In what respect 
 then did ihey differ? Answer only in the adminis- 
 tration, which is granted. 
 
 We now come to Mr. C's third reason, why these 
 covenants cannot be the same, viz. That the items 
 of the covenants were not the same. 1st. 'The 
 law of the first covenant was written on stone' — the 
 law "of the second on the heart". This is an un- 
 expected concession, that the law written on stone 
 was the same which was written on our hearts un- 
 der thie New testament. As the only dispute is 
 jespecting the law, I care not where he finds it 
 written, on posts, parchment, stones, or flesh. Is 
 the law written on stone the same that is written on 
 H 
 
•^4 BAPTISM. 
 
 the heart? thpn my position stands unimpaired. I 
 think the tveakest reader will be unwilling to es- 
 tablish this proposition, that the new and old cov- 
 enants were not one, because they had the same 
 law. Mr. C. has joined a wrong link into^ this 
 part of his chain. 
 
 The truth is that the same law which was first 
 written on the heart of Adam, was afterwards writ- 
 ten by its divine author on tables of stone; and is 
 now written by the same law-giver on the hearts 
 of his people. But if we attach any meaning to 
 Mr C's observations on this part of his subject, it 
 is, that this law was, under the Old testament, only 
 vrrittenon stone, for he intends by this assertion to 
 establish an essiential difference between the two 
 covenants. Query, was not this law written on 
 the hearts of Old testament saints? Mr. C. thinks 
 not; he supposes it was only written on stone at 
 that time, but now it is written on the heart. Let 
 us ask an inspired Old testament saint. Psal. 40, 
 8. "Yea thy law is written in my heart." No, 
 says Mr. C. it was at that tinie written on stones, 
 lying in the ark — another query: AVhere was the 
 law of Old testament saints, after the Chaldean, 
 burnt the house of God and the ark? The truth 
 is, under the former dispensation it was written on 
 tables of stone, and also on the hearts of the saints 
 of that dispensation. Under the New testament it 
 is written on paper, and also on the hearts of all be- 
 lievers. Mr. C. are you not wearied of this item?* 
 
 *It is something curious, to read Mr. C's view 
 expressed in this first, item. Page. 40. "In the 
 ' first, the laws were written on tables of stone, and 
 ' as Moses broke the stones, so the people broke 
 * the laws. la the 2nd. or new, they are written 
 
BAPTISM. IB 
 
 2nd. Item. '•HE was their God in a national 
 and temporal sense. But in the 2nd. covenant 
 HE was their God in a spiritual and eternal 
 sense.' 
 
 The first assertion of this item, if he means God 
 essentially considered, He was the God of the 
 Jews in a national & temporal sense, it is conceded. 
 But in this very far advanced state of the new tes- 
 tament church, he is the God of saints in a national 
 and temporal sense — this never effects the cove- 
 nant of Grace or eitlier dispensation of it. But 
 this is not the matter at issue. The question is — 
 was Jesus ever the saviour of any nation, as such? 
 — or even God as father, the Father of any nation 
 as such? I think no Baptist will answer in tlie af- 
 firmative. Was he not the saviour of all those 
 under that dispensation that believed? Whether 
 then, or yet, is there any *other name given un- 
 der heaven or among men, whereby wo can be 
 saved, but the name of Jesus?' His true hypo- 
 thesis is, God stood revealed only as a sovereign 
 
 ' on the hearts of all the subjects, consequently 
 ' cannot be broken." i. e. A law written on 
 stones may be broken, as easily as Moses broke the 
 stones, but a law written on the heart cannot be 
 broken. I suppose Mr. C. must mean by breaking 
 alaw, transgressing its precepts — heathen have not 
 this law, written on paper, nor on stones, they 
 have it only on their hearts, Rom. 2, 15, 'which 
 shew the work of the law written in their hearts;' 
 they cannot therefore break the law, or in_a word, 
 it is impossible now to sin, because in a greater or 
 less degree, every person has now the law written 
 in their hearts! This is liberty for those who can 
 believe it. 
 
■TG BAPTISM. 
 
 to saints, under the Old testament; while indeed 
 he is the father of saints, since the death of Christ. 
 Those Hopkinsians who deny that an atonement 
 was essentially necessary to salvation — Socinians 
 that an expiatory sacrifice v/as rendered to the law 
 and justice of God, might, with some appearance of 
 consistency, maintain Mr. C's theory. Ytt I think 
 Ro Baptist will. 
 
 Let us take another look at this new theory. 
 Gad once saved men as civil citizens — but now he 
 saves them as adopted children; i. e. he saved the 
 Jews as he now would save the savages, without 
 sending them the Gospel; because these stand re- 
 lated to God in as strong a national sense as the 
 Jews did. I am not doing the opinion of Mr. C. 
 any injustice, because he gives this item as a dis- 
 tinguishing charateristic between the Jewish be- 
 lievers and us. 
 
 The second part of this item, that we are now 
 God's people in a spiritural and eternal sense, is 
 not denied*: but if this assertion made any thing 
 for Mr. C. he must have meant, that believers un- 
 der the Old testament, were not his, in a spiritual 
 and eternal sense. Was this the idea, the spirit 
 of God, by the apostle Paul, intended to convey in 
 his Epistle to the Heb. in giving us that list ot 
 Old testament worthies? But Mr. C. does believe 
 that some saints, did exist under the Old testa- 
 ment; were these not the children of God in a spi- 
 ritual and eternal sense. Were they united toge- 
 ther as a body? if they were so united-r-they were 
 a church — even the conclusion in somp sense, he 
 concedes, yet when the reader endeavours to fol- 
 low his sentiments — these saints come out a na- 
 tional, carnal, temporal church, or a people -called 
 out'' of the world — as one nation is called out oi 
 
BAPTISM. 77 
 
 another, and existing separately, acquires a dis- 
 tinct national character. The people had a law, 
 it was written on tables of stone, but not on their 
 hearts. They were saints, but only in a national 
 and temporal sense! 
 
 3rd. Item. 'The subjects of the old covenant re- 
 quired to be taught to know the Lord, but the sub- 
 jects of the new, are all taught of God.' 
 
 This item is expressed in that form that is 
 found decisive: strip it of its thin dress and you 
 will see its true character — then, reader, judge for 
 yourself. Under the Old testament, parents had to 
 send their children to school, to learn them to read, 
 priests had to explain the law, parents had to 
 teach their children its statutes, sitting down, ris- 
 ing up, by the way, &c. as lawful means to learn 
 thrm to know the Lord. But under the present dis- 
 pensation, this is unnecessary, the Divine Being, 
 according to Mr. C. has forbid all education- this 
 doctrine will be very agreeable to those parents 
 who never teach their children to read. This 
 must be the meaning of Mr. C. or why does he 
 give the means of acquiring knowledge under the 
 two dispensations, as a reason why the covenants 
 cannot be one. 
 
 The passage of scripture to which Mr. C. re- 
 fers, *They shall all be taught of God,' must be 
 understood as meaning one of three things; either 
 that new testament saints are miraculously filled 
 with knowledge, without the use of means — That 
 they are savingly taught by the spirit of God, in 
 the sanctification of their kftowlege^ — or that the 
 removal of shadows from the dispensation of 
 Grace, rendered the means of knowlege easy, and 
 Gospel instruction plain. The first of them was 
 true on the day of Pentecost, and for some time 
 H 2 
 
•^8 BAPTISM. 
 
 after. The second will apply to saints under 
 both dispensations. And the third will only prove 
 the superiority of the new covenant, which is con- 
 ceded. But will either of these prove a distinct 
 covenant? No — it only estiiblishes this assertion, 
 that the heirs of the second dispensation of this 
 covenant, have an opportunity of more clearly un- 
 derslandint^ their tcstamont, than their fellow 
 heirs had who lived under the former. The spi- 
 rit of God taught then, as it teaches yet, but the 
 means of grace, lie more clearly before the hu- 
 man understanding now, than they did at that time. 
 Mr. C. fails by this item, in proving distinct co- 
 venants. 
 
 4th. Item. 'No remission ofsins promised to Old 
 •testament saints, as such; but to the subjects of 
 New testament saints, as such, forgiveness is pro- 
 mised.' P. 40. , 
 
 What idea Mr. C. intends to convey by the 
 clause as such; is difficult to tell. I may not do 
 him justice when I attach that meaning to his 
 words, which every reader must do. I consider that 
 the clause cannot have any sound meaning; if for- 
 sriveness was not promised to them as members of 
 the former dispensation, it could not be promised 
 to them in any sense, for they lived under no oth- 
 er dispensation. If he means that forgiveness was 
 not promised to them as civil citizens, then the 
 clause was useless^ because no person then, or yet 
 obtains the pardon of sin in any other sense, than , 
 as the children of God, in union with Christ. 
 The third and only meaning can be, that Old tes- 
 tament saints did not obtain the pardon of sin in 
 any sense. 
 
 Nathan told David, 'the Lord hath put away thy 
 sin;' not as a New testament member, for this he 
 
BAPTISM. 79 
 
 was not, but as one in covenant with God. There 
 never vvai'? but one way of obtainiag fori^fiveness of 
 sins, i. e. through the blood of an all-atoning sa- 
 crifice. The coven;»fit which Mr. C. c;dls their 
 'National covenant.' P. 167, promised mercy: Exo- 
 du? 20. 6- 'She win 2: mercy unto thousands of tiiem 
 that love me, and keep my commandments.' It is 
 the opinion of Mr. C. that this Sinai covenant 
 contained nothing more or less than that which 
 was written on the two tables of stone. P. 166* 
 Be it so, and my quotation is a part of that which 
 belongs to this national covenant. Then I would 
 ask, how can God shew mercy without pardoning 
 sin? But this declaration, is made to the subjects 
 
 *'When we speak of the Sinai covenant, we 
 * cannot scripturally include one word more in it, 
 ' than what was written on the two tables. See- 
 ' ingboth Moses and Paul have so restricted it.' 
 
 It was not my intention to notice every absur- 
 dity in Mr. C's book, for many of them are too 
 plain to do much harm, but he is so positive in 
 this place, that an unsuspicious reader might take 
 it for granted, that he was right — lest this might 
 be so, I would inform the reader, that neither Mo- 
 ses nor Paul so restricted it. I suppose Mr. C. who 
 is but a late writer, is the first that so restricted it. 
 It is conceded that the ten conmandments con- 
 tained the substance of the law of that covenant, 
 but we say it contained no more, and the scrip- 
 ture asserts no further. It was called the ark of 
 the covenant because it contained a summary of that 
 law, which believers are, by covenant, bound to 
 obey. But that the whole of the covenant was 
 written upon the tables, has no higher authority 
 than Mr C. 
 
80 BAPTISM. 
 
 of the covenant, as such, therefore the subjects of 
 that covenant^ as such, did receive the pardon of 
 their sins. Look again at Mr. C's assersion 'to 
 the subjects of that covenant, as such, the forgive- 
 ness of sin was not promised;' with this compare 
 a declaration made to the subjects of that dispen- 
 sation, as such, at the very time of delivering the 
 judicial and ceremonial law. Exodus 34, 6, 7. 
 'The LORD, the lord god, merciful and gracious, 
 long suffering and abundant in goodness and 
 truth. Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving in- 
 iquity, and transgression* and sin.' Reader, ob- 
 serve, this is an item of Mr. C's — national cove- 
 nant — these were the people to whom the pardon 
 of sin was not promised. 
 
 4th Reason. 'The first covenant waxed old and 
 vanished away ' page 40 41. In the pages cited, 
 he calls the former covenant 7nusty, moth eaten. S/-c. 
 When Mr. C. used such expressions at the time of 
 the public debate, I was indeed astonished, that 
 a person who desired the world to take him for a 
 minister, would be guilty of such a profane ex- 
 pression; but I now think him more inexcusable, 
 when in the cool moments of composition, he still 
 uses them. Is it not, reader, a pity to Uiear one 
 who makes some kind of a professesion of Chris- 
 tianity, however far it is from the truth, use such 
 degrading expressions of any covenant, of which 
 the eternal God was a pa.rty. Reader blot those 
 expressions out of your memory. 
 
 For the ju-iiification of this reason he calls your 
 attention to Heb. 8, 13. 'In that he saith a new 
 covenant, he made the first old, now that which 
 decayeth, and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away.* 
 The question is, to what does the apostle refer in 
 this verse.'' Either he must mean that the covenaat, 
 
BAPTISM. 81 
 
 in its very being waxed old, and was ready to 
 vanish away, or else he speaks of the dispensa- 
 tion of it; it cannot be the former, and therefore 
 it must be the latter. It cannot be the former; be- 
 cause: 
 
 1st. The covenant conveyed and secured 
 blessings, spiritural and eternal — God had pro- 
 mised to be the God of Abraham, and the God of 
 his seed, these were to continue before him for- 
 ever. It was called, as we have shewn, an ever- 
 lasting covenant; by this covenant, Abraham, Isaac 
 and Jacob are now in heaven. This is, and shall 
 remain, their residence, Matt. 22, 32. Were the 
 doctrine of Mr C. true, then indeed closed all the 
 blessings, and all the privileges of any contract 
 God ever made with the Jews, as his people. It 
 IS remarkable, however, that Peter revives one of 
 Mr. C's musty, moth-eaten promises, on the day of 
 Pentecost, when the blaze of the New testament 
 shot forth, on which day thousands were added to 
 the family of Abraham. They were Christ's, and 
 therefore Abraham's seed. 
 
 2nd. Clirist was the substance of all their 
 shadows. Heb. 10.1. But as Christ, the substance, 
 the blessed SUN, began to rise, the shadows began 
 to disappear, and to 'vanish away.' This had a re- 
 ference to the outward rituals of the church alone, 
 they were all the subjects of sense. The churbh, 
 even then, and long before that time, anxiously 
 looked fur the time when these shadows should 
 'vanish away,' while, for that time, they were to 
 them a medium, through which they held C(jmmu- 
 nion with God. Their resolution is expressed 
 Song. 4. 6, 'Until the day break & the shadows flee 
 away, I will get me to the mountain of Myrrh, 
 and to the hill of frankincense.' 
 
83 BAPTISM. 
 
 3rd. There were two things that rendered the 
 covenant unchangeable, the blessings it contained, 
 and the parties contracting : to the former I have 
 spoken at length. On the last of these, I would ob- 
 serve,that this covenant was first made between the 
 Father and the Son. Christ in that eternal contract 
 was a foederal head. Therefore this covenant 
 was between the Father and, through Christ, with 
 the church; the Father is unchangeable — 'I am 
 the Lord, I change not.' The son is unchange- 
 able 'Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to day, 
 and forever' The church, politically considered, 
 is also one. *My dove my undefiled is but one.' 
 This party shall continue forever. Psal. 102. 28. 
 The children of thy servants shall continue,' the 
 church shall 'ever be with the Lord.' 
 
 There are covenant vows which secure to her 
 the eternal possession of blessings, and of this Oid 
 testament covenant, God has promised that he 
 will ever be mindful Psal. 11, 5. Then I infer 
 that a covenant, the parties and the promises of 
 which will exist forever, is a covenant that can- 
 not wax old, and cannot vanish away. 
 
 We grant that true religion was about departing 
 from the Jews when Christ came; the sceptre was 
 droping from the hand of Judah, when HE lifted 
 it up, the traditions of men are supplanting 
 Divine revelation, these are truths; but they 
 cannot be learned from the passage to which Mr. • 
 C. refers. 
 
 It follows by native inference that the dispensa- 
 tion of grace, wh'ch comprehends the external 
 rites peculiar to that dispensation, were the only 
 parts of that covenant that 'waxed old' 'vanished 
 away.* 
 
BAPTISM. 63 
 
 Mr. C. for once, having found an argument that 
 he supposes may be seen, invites Pedo-BapUsts up 
 to the sight. 'Oh! Tliat every Pedo-Baptist would 
 ' remember it: it should forever silence my oppo- 
 • nent on these topics, it reads thus. In that he 
 ' sayeth a new covenant he hath made the first old. 
 ' — Now THAT which is old is ready to vanish 
 away.' Page 40 — Now, what has Pedo-Baptists 
 discovered in the text? That beyond all doubt it 
 proves that the ceremonies and all things peculiar 
 to the outward dispensation of the old covenant, 
 ' waxed old and were ready to vanish away' an 
 important discovery! yet known to all you l?edo- 
 Baplists from your childhood, from the time your 
 parents taught you that question: 'How many 
 covenants are there?' Our argument founded up- 
 on the 8th of the Heb. remains untouched. 
 While Mr. C. is quite exhausted, fighting his 
 shadow, yet he has this satisfaction, that he has 
 played upon the inattentive reader, from t!ie only 
 circumstance that the word covenants is mentioned; 
 which he would have you to believe respected 
 the being, not the external parts of that covenant. 
 The reader will perceive that the only difference 
 Mr. C. has yet succeeded in establishing, is, 
 that there were different dispensations to the same 
 covenant. 
 
 In page 70 Mr. C. proposes Mr. W. Three intri- 
 cate and pertinent questions, that without doubt 
 must bring a decision 'in his favor, on the subject 
 of the covenants. 
 
 1st, 'Are they the same, in respect of the 
 ' nature and extent of the privileges secured to 
 ' the respective subjects, under each of these cov- 
 ' enants.' 
 
 0nd. 'Ape they the same in respect of the inte- 
 
84 BAPTISM. 
 
 * resting, or entitling condition; tkat is, is the 
 ' ground of interest and of claim, the same 1n 
 both?' 
 
 3rd. 'Is the condition of the continued enjoy- 
 ' ment of the covenanted blessings, the same in 
 ' both covenants?' 
 
 To the first of these I reply, essentially con- 
 sidered, they arc, but as it respects their external 
 privileges they are not. Fur the illustration of 
 which, I observe, 
 
 1st. That the faith of the subjects of each cove- 
 nant was the same. Christ was the alone and 
 proper object of faith, under both dispensations. 
 'For other foondation can no man lay, than that is 
 laid, which is Jesus Clirist.' 1. Cor. 3, 11. There 
 never was any other superstructure of mercy, than 
 tlie church, and it was built on this foundation — 
 for this faith many of the Old test-iment saints 
 were famous. If Christ be refused by Mr. C. to 
 be the object of their faith, and ground of their 
 atonement; what will he choose? their sacrifices 
 will not do, they were an object of sense, not of faith; 
 they will not do for a ground of atonement; David 
 in Psal. ol. would have given them for this 
 purpose, but found thej^ would not do. v. 16. 
 'For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give 
 it. Thou delightest not in burnt offering.' It 
 was in consideration of this, that Christ said to 
 the subjects of the former dispensation: 'Lo I 
 come' Psal. 40. Their prophets all taught them' 
 to look beyond their sacrifices. Acts.. 3, 18/ - But 
 these things which God before had shewed by 
 the mouth of all his prophets, that Chrisfshould 
 suffer, he hath so fulfilled.' 
 
 Their faith and hope united in him, this was the 
 language of Old testament saints. 'But he was 
 
BAPnSM. 85 
 
 wounded for our transgressions,' he was bruised 
 for our iniquities: The chastisennent of our peace 
 uas upon him, and with his stripes we are healed' 
 Isaiah 53. 5. 
 
 3rd. In both these covenants there is a secu- 
 rity given for spiritual and temporal blessings, 
 that the first contained spiritual blessings, I think 
 is proven. The relation subsisting between God 
 and them secured the continued possession of 
 these blessings— this relation, the basis of all 
 their blessings, was promised in the very covenant 
 now in dispute, viz. the covenant of circumci- 
 sion. I will 'be a God unto thee, and to thy seed 
 i'fter ihce.' This relation God uas to sustain, for 
 the special purpose of eecuring them the blessings 
 contained in (hat covenant. That the same dis- 
 pensation secured temporal blessings, is not denied. 
 
 That the new covenant secures both these bless- 
 ings, will also appear. That it secures spiritual 
 , blessings is not denied. Tiiat it secures a right 
 to temporal blessings, Mr. C. docs not deny; he 
 only sports a little upon the subject, page 78, and 
 this in order to call the attention of the reader from 
 the subject, lest they unhappily see the breach in 
 the link of his chain.* 
 
 * It is remarkable that Mr, C. for the satisfac- 
 tion of his own mind, although he disregarded the 
 requests of the intelligent reader, did not attempt 
 to tell us in what manner believers were under 
 the New testament, made partakers of temporal 
 good things; had he attempted this, I grant, it 
 might have discovered to his mind that uniformity 
 which in this respect, existed between the two 
 covenants — No — he must have one all carnal, the 
 other ail spiritual. This best suits feis purpose. 
 
86 BAPTISM. 
 
 In addition to the observations made on our first 
 proposition on promises: "Bread shall be given 
 and your water made sure ;' 'Blessed are the meek 
 for they shall inherit the earth' &c. Intimate that 
 <jrod as Father, has graciously condescended to 
 his people, to secure them a right to temporal 
 blessings. He not only bestows them without a 
 curse, but with a covenant security: these bless- 
 ings in every sense are theirs. The covenant of 
 grace makes all its subjects free, the heirs of this 
 Divine testator are free in time and in eternity, 
 'whom the son makes free are fiee indeed.' They 
 are not only delivered from the covenant of works 
 apd all its curses, but from the world and all ser- 
 vile obligations to it. They are therefore the on- 
 ly persons who inherit the earth. 
 
 2nd. There is no difference with respect to cov- 
 enant title which a believer has to the farm on 
 which he lives, and the right which a believer had 
 to his possessions in the land of Caanao, Jinder the 
 former dispensation. They are both inheritois ot 
 the earth, as Abraham's seed. 'If ye be Christ's 
 then are ye Abraham's seed.' The Divine pro- 
 mise is the title the Jews had to the land of 
 Caanan, our title is the same. 
 
 Mr. C. page 79, attempts to give us the differ- 
 ence of the two titles; the claim of the Old testa- 
 ment subject was founded on this: 'If ye be Abra- 
 ham's seed, through Sarah, then are you heirs ac- 
 cording to the promise.' But our claim is: 'If ye. 
 be Christ's, then are ye Abrahams seed.' This 
 distinction may be easily discovered by one of 
 Mr. C's disciples, I cannot see it. Because all the 
 rights, immunities and privileges we possess in 
 virtue of b&ing foederally represented by Abra- 
 ham, iii any covenant were all by Isaac. So says 
 
BAPTISM. »1 
 
 ihe apostle Gal. 4. 28. 'Now we, breUiren, as Isaac 
 n-as, are the children of promise.' In any future 
 age after the death of Abraham, such Midiaiiites 
 Ishmaeliles oic, his natural descendents, as be- 
 lieved, they received the blessings of Abra- 
 ham, not from any natural relation to him, but 
 by Isaac, the child of promise. Unfortunately for 
 Mr. C.'s system, it is in the covenant of Circum- 
 cisioT>, where we have the first special promise of 
 the birth of Isaac, the sod of promise. 
 
 But the title of the heathen world to the church, 
 is, by the apostle Paul, declared not only to be by 
 Isaac, promised in the covenant of circumcision 
 but also conveyed to the heathen in the same way 
 it was to him. Rom. 9. 7,8. 'Neither because 
 they are the seed of Abraham are tliey all chil- 
 dren: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is, 
 tliey who are the children of the flesh, these are 
 not the children of God: but the children of the 
 promise are counted for the seed,'. In the cov- 
 II ant made 25 years before this mentioned in the 
 17 chap of Gen. I grant a seed was promised, but 
 from any thing said in the 12th chap, it was im- 
 possible fer Abraham to have learned which of 
 his sons was to be his heir) but the covenant of 
 circumcision gnentioned the son — his child by Sa- 
 rah, the child of promise, by whom Jews and Gen- 
 tiles obtained the possession of Abraham. 
 
 The seed of Abraham by Isaac, were the branches 
 among whom the Gentile converts were grafted 
 in, and both these enjoyed blessings by Abraham 
 in the same way, I know not, if any of the natural 
 or temporal blessings, possessed by Abraham, con- 
 sidered as an individual man, descended to his 
 third generation, it was because Isaac was his son 
 of promise, that he received more blessings for him- 
 
38 BAPTISM. 
 
 self and his seed, than Ishmael did, and because 
 he was the son of promise, that we, as the seed of 
 Abraham, receive blessings by him. 
 Again hear his question, 'are thej the same'in re- 
 ' lation to the nature and extent of the privileges 
 ' secured to the respective subjects under each of 
 ' these covenants?' From what has been said, the 
 ansiver is easy. They received their privileges 
 through the same external medium, from the same 
 autlior by means virtually the same, from the same 
 covenant, and as children of the same family. Mr. 
 C. at his leisure can tell the difference and upon 
 due thought he will find it nothing more, than 
 that, which I have already shewn — the pecitliarities 
 of the dispensation. 
 
 Quest. 2nd.'Ar<! they the same in respect of the 
 interesting or entitling condition?' ^c. 
 
 If by the interesting or entiling condition Mv. 
 C means that which in law gives us the claim to 
 ij)e prr.iieges of the covenant, I answer, it is the 
 same in both covenants, fiiith in the obedience of 
 our Lord, is the interesting claim; the obedience 
 of this mediator, the alone fulfilment of the condi- 
 tion for either Jew or Gentile. The spirit of God 
 by the apostle Paul has erected too strong a wall 
 to inclose this doctrine, to be thrown down by 
 Mr. C. Rom. 4. 16. 'Therefore it is by faith that 
 it might he by grace; to the end, the promise might 
 be sure to all the seed; not that only which is of 
 the law, but that also which is of the faith of Abra- 
 ham, who is the father of us all.' Will Mr. C. 
 make works the entitling condition of either new- 
 er Old testament saints. We will however attend 
 to this in its proper place. 
 
 Q. 3rd. 'Is the condition of the continued en- 
 ' joyment of the covenanted blessings, the same in 
 
BAPTISM. 89 
 
 ' in both covenants?' To this I answer, yes; be- 
 cause the fulfilment of the condition of this cov- 
 enant, under any of the dispensations, secures the 
 continuation of the blessings to the covenanted 
 persons; God's oath secures it to the church in all 
 ages. Psal. 89, 35 36. 'Once have I sworn by my 
 holiness, that I will not lie unto David, his seed 
 shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun be- 
 fore me.' 
 
 3rd The change of dispensations that took 
 place nearly eighteen hundred years ago, did not 
 vary the deeds or other Zand fx/Zes with believers, in 
 the land of Canaan. The rights of property were 
 the same, when Christ left the world, that they 
 were before it. This assertian is true, whether we 
 speak of the claims of believersin relation to God, 
 or man. Mr. C. would endeavour to persuade the 
 reader, that such individual believers as Christ 
 found on earth, received, by his coming, new 
 titles to temporal property. These believers 
 lived under both dispensations: when they lived 
 under the former dispensation, all the rights they 
 possessed to temporal property, were conditional, 
 but no sooner did the dispensation change,, than 
 they found, that this condition for the continued 
 possession of the blessings was also changed, of 
 courfe, all the titles founded upon this change, had 
 to be varied accordingly. I am certain that the pe- 
 rilous state of Jewish titles, as taught by Mr. C. ne- 
 ver once occured to any lawyer in all Judea.* 
 
 * The reader will Jook attentively at Mr. C's 
 query. 'Is the condition of the continued' &c. Is 
 it just reasoning to contrast the temporal blessings 
 of Old testament believers with the spiritual bless- 
 ings of saints now.'' To reason fairly we must 
 I 2 
 
. 90 BAPTISM. 
 
 3rd. The store house of free grace, was opened 
 immediately after the fall, the public proclama- 
 tion \vas to all to conie and possess the blessings 
 contained in it. The grant was unconditional, a 
 right lo the continued possession of the good 
 things of this world, so long as was necessary, was 
 found among the pther treasures, an^ equaljy se- 
 cured to believers. This was equally secured 
 to Jew or Gentile converts without mentioning 
 time,or refering to national distinction; Christ de- 
 clares, 'Blessed are the meek for they shall in- 
 herit the earth.' 
 
 Were you to credit Mr. C. you would believe 
 that the situation of people under the Old testa- 
 inent dispensation; differed but little from the 
 staleof man under the covenant of works, Adam 
 in a state of innocency, had a right to eternal life, 
 but there was a condition that lay between him, 
 and the continued possession of the blessings of 
 that covenant. That his situation was precarious 
 was proved by the event hisfall^hut, according to 
 
 compare their temporal blessings with ours, as al- 
 so their spiritural blessings, with those under the 
 present dispensation. Continued possession of tem- 
 poral blessings, I grant, had some conditions in 
 every age of the world, life was uncertain, and this 
 from a variety of causes, besides the want of food, 
 ButJ titles to these several blessings, distinct in 
 their nature, were in any age of the world the 
 same. The Jews had no nriore covenants or any 
 more security for temperal blessing than we have, 
 an American believer, has the 'continued posses- 
 sion' ofhisfarm upon the same condition that a Jew 
 had, or at least Mr. C. has not shewed the differ- 
 ence. 
 
BAPTISM. 91 
 
 Mr. C. this was the precise situation of those who 
 were U( der the covenant of circumcision. Page 
 ' 79. 'The first depended upon an if, it was condi- 
 ' onal; they w^re to enjoy it so long as they were 
 ' wiilini? and obedient, consequently by their dis- 
 ob« d ence thev were excluded.' 
 
 The word ?/, was no more expressive of a con- 
 dition in the covenant, God made with the Jews, 
 than it is under the present dispensation. The 
 reader will compare the language used respect- 
 ing the blessings of the new covenant, with those 
 quoted by Mr. C from the covenant of circumci- 
 sion. Heb. 3. 6. 'Bat Christ, as a son over his own 
 house, whose house are we,i/'we hold fast, the 
 confidence and the rejoicing of the hope, tirm un- 
 to the end.' John 31. 'Then said Jesus to those 
 Jews who believed on him,i/"ye continue in ray 
 word, then are ye my disciples indeed.'* The 
 word if, has in these passages, as much the force 
 of a condition, as in any declaration- made to Abra- 
 ham or any of his children. 
 
 To be willing and obedient, is a summary duty 
 enjoined in the present administration of grace, 
 as really, and with all the authority it ever possess- 
 ed, and I might add, that it is as really conditional 
 as ever it was, since the fall. Mr C. mistakes the 
 point, when he supposes that the 'new covenant,' 
 has relaxed our obligation to duty. But the truth 
 is, that the Divine Being never did require any 
 conditional duty since the fall of man, even faith, 
 
 * Mr. C. with the assistance of Thomas Aquinas 
 must in his next treatise shew the difference 
 between the use of the word if in these passages 
 and the use of it, in the covenant made with the 
 Jews. 
 
92 BAPTISM. 
 
 which is a moral duty, is not conditionally requir- 
 ed. It has the sanction of a Divine command. — 
 'This is the command of God that yn believe on 
 his Son. — 'The true consequence of believing is 
 also stated.' 'He that believes nhall be saved.' 
 Yet it is called the 'gift of God" — and is therefore 
 a promised blessing; and would therefore be the 
 condition of itself. *Ifye be willing and obedient, 
 ye shall eat the good of the land,' states the conse- 
 quence of obedience — 'it is eating the good of the 
 land,' but obedience is no more the condition of 
 their continued possession of that land, than it is 
 of our continued possession of the blessings of 
 ternal life, as is evident from the passages just 
 quoted. But in Page 79. — 'Mr. W. will be assham- 
 ed of his answer.' I shall now leave it with the 
 reader to judge, who has the best right to be as- 
 shamed.* 
 
 Mr. C. says 'that the first covenant was enjoin- 
 ed in such a way, as it might be forfeited.' This 
 indeed makes the covenant of circumcision, to all 
 intents and purposes, a covenant of works. In 
 the first covenant God made with man upon the 
 condition of obedience, he promised eternal life — 
 had he given this obedience, he would have been 
 entitled to eternal life. But this is the language 
 
 *It is something remarkable that the system ot 
 grace the Baptists have adopted, is so contradicto- 
 ry in its very nature & being. By legal obedience. ' 
 saints under the Old testament were saved — they 
 are however, now saved by grace. Although Mr. 
 C. has invented, in most things, a system entirely 
 new — never heard of by the Prophets, or yet any 
 of his brethren, in this, however, he has followed 
 the Baptist writers generally. 
 
BAPTISM. 93 
 
 of Mr. C. respecting the covenant of circumci- 
 sion. This covenant of which Mr. C. is the in- 
 ventor vva'^, in its very feeing and organization, a co- 
 venant of works, and like it, had its eternal forfei- 
 ture. Thus after the covenant of works was 
 made, and broken, another covenant was made 
 upon a similar condition, without surety or indeed 
 any security for the continued possessmi o( its bless- 
 ings bht our corrupt will; Query, How was the 
 state of the Jewish believers rendered any better 
 by it? 2nd. Query, As every one of the Jews 
 were unwilling and disobedient — they were sin- 
 ful beings, why were they, not instantly chased 
 from the land of Canaan, as our first Parents were 
 from the 'Garden of Eden.' 
 
 It appears now that the Divine Being, according 
 to Mr. C. made two covenants with Abraham as 
 a public person; the first covenant, a covenant of 
 grace, the second a covenant of works. The first 
 secured all blessings, freely, the second con- 
 ditionally, with disobedience ihey might enjoy the 
 blessings of the former, but obedience was requi- 
 ed as the entitling condition of the latter. By the 
 first, Abraham and his posterity were made free, 
 by the second they w^ere bound. The simple 
 statement of Mr. C's Doctrines in this place is 
 their refutation. We shall now proceed to an- 
 swer his remaining queries. P. "/G. 85. 
 Query 4th. 'If both these covenants are the same, 
 in what respect is the new said to be better 
 than the old?' 
 
 Answer. In the dispensation alone, for reasons 
 already given. 
 
 Query 5th. 'Are the duties enjoined upon the 
 covenanters the same in both?'* 
 
 *What does Mr. C. mean by the 'duties enjoin- 
 
94 BAPTISM. 
 
 Ans. Yes — with the difterence of circumstance 
 alone. To which I have also attended. 
 
 Query, 6tl). 'Are the penalties threatened, the 
 same in both/' 
 
 I answer there are no penalties appended 
 to either covenants. He was exxeedingly sur- 
 prised when Mr. W. gave this answer; and this 
 astonishment he expresses with much I'ervor P. 
 S6. — and, here he intimates the consequence as it 
 respects Mr. W's doom, before the bar of that 
 church to which he belongs, but in this part of 
 the discussion I rather think Mr. C. should save 
 his fears and tremble before the bar of his own 
 conscience. Because he is the first man of 
 whom I have ever read, or heard, that declared 
 that the covenant of grace, either as administered 
 under the Old or NeM- testament, possessed any 
 penalty, f every branch of the true church holds 
 
 ed being the same in both.' The duties enjoined, 
 upon any two individuals are not the sarae, much 
 less can they be expected to be the same, under 
 two different dispensations. Mr. C. was not 
 bound to the same precise duties in single life 
 that he is now — he was not then bound to love 
 his wife and teach his children. Query , Is he 
 now under the sarae law he was then? th's pos- 
 sesses all the force of quer} 5th. 
 
 t I have supposed perhaps Mr. C, meaQt noth- 
 ing more by the word penalty, tlian diasiiscment: 
 this might in some measure appear cof^sistent with 
 his observations, upon what he calls the penal- 
 ties of the New covenant; but it will not do when 
 fried by his observations upon the Old covenant. 
 This novel and erroneous expression must either 
 rise from ignorance or corrupted understanding, 
 
BAPTISM. 95 
 
 that Christ bore the penalty of the covenant of 
 ivorks, and tfus he agreed to do in the covenant of 
 grace. Why then should his people in any age of 
 the world, be subject to a penalty? The papists 
 arc the alone body on earth, called by the christi- 
 an name, that on this point agree with Mr. C. 
 They suppose that full satisfaction was not made 
 to the law and justice of God by Christ Jesus — 
 that therefore another place of punishment is ne- 
 cessary, to complete the penalty of the law. Pro- 
 testants have always endeavoured to refute them, 
 by establishing the fullness of Christ's satisfaction, 
 and thereby proving that the doctrine of a p«r- 
 gotary, was not only absurd, but unnecessary. 
 The Baptists have enlisted against Mr, C. on this 
 point- — Mr. C. would do well to road a work writ- 
 ten by an eminent Baptist, Mr. Bjotlie, entitled 
 Glad tidings. He will then be as much surprised 
 at Mr. B. as at Mr. W. But if Mr. C. has no ac- 
 cess to tliis work I shall submit the matter to an 
 inspired writer Gal. 3, 13. 'Chrisfhath redeem- 
 ed as from the curse of the law, being made a 
 c'jrse for us.' For Mr. C's sake I wish he had^ 
 read this passage before he had said so mijch a- 
 gainst Mr W. 
 
 He says the penalties annexed to 'the old co- 
 venant were numerous and severe.' P. 8G. I 
 grant indeed that the penalty of the covenant of 
 works, contains curses, numerous and severe; 
 and that, during every revelation of the Gospel; 
 
 It can hardly rise from the former, because his li- 
 brary when carried to the stage in pomp, present- 
 ed nearly a cart load of books, and as an indispu- 
 table proof of the good sense of those books he 
 told the audience thy crossed the sea. 
 
96 BAPTISM. 
 
 these curses were revealed as the just declarations 
 of the Almighty, against tlie unbelieving and dis- 
 oibedient, against those who refused to become 
 subjects to the law as a rule of life, and by faith 
 receive the promises of the gospel. If a city of 
 refuge was provided for New, or Old testament 
 sinners and they refused to fly to it; it was but 
 just, tliey should feel the potent arm of the aveng- 
 er of blood. When Mr. C. is trying to preach, 
 does he never inform his hearers, that 'he that 
 believeth not shall be damned?' He considers 
 himself a New testament member; will he find a 
 penalty more severe under the Old testament? 
 Does he never inform his hearers, that without 
 the blessing of God, they are cursed in Iheir bas- 
 ket and in their store? Moses intimates no more 
 under the former dispensation. If Mr. C. asks a 
 blessing to the food he eats, docs he not pray to 
 be delivered from the curses mentioned by Moses 
 and olher inspired writers? 
 
 But here lies the great defect, by which Mr. C. 
 thinks to escape. He takes care to give us no 
 meaning of the word penalty, had he done this the 
 reader would have found him out. The distinc- 
 tion between a penalty of a law and fatherly chas- 
 tisement is obvious. They are distinct, both in 
 their administration and nature. The former is 
 inflicted by a Judge, the latter by a Father. Pen- 
 alty vindicates the justice and authority of a law 
 — chastisement subdues corruption, the first con- 
 demns, the other sanctifies. The matter of sen- 
 sible, or temporal punishment may be the same in 
 both cases; but very different in their nature and 
 end. Even the Gallows that to many is a mourn- 
 ful and disgraceful passage, to a still more dread- 
 ful place, may be, to some, a dark passage to a 
 
BAPTISM. 97 
 
 blessed palace; the sufferings even of death, may 
 be the same in both cases, yet the oiic is penalty, 
 the other chastisement. The law demand?, by its 
 penalty, ihe death of a wicked man, but it/locs not 
 even demand natural death from a believer; he 
 dies by the merciiul rod of a father, but not by any 
 demarid of Justice. It is to them a new covenant 
 blessing. 'All is yours, whether Paul or Appollos, 
 or Cephas, or life, or death.' 
 
 Mr. C. in order to establish h^s self created 
 system, entertains you with an extraordinary com- 
 ment on Gen. 17. 14. 'And the uncircumcisee^ 
 man child, whose flesh of his foreskin, is not cir- 
 cumcised, that soul shall 6c cut off from his peo- 
 ple, he hath broken my covenant.' 'The cvtting off 
 says Mr.;C. 'from his people, was the penalty first, 
 proposed.' P. 87. Seldom has tliere been on in- 
 dividual raised in the church, too ignorant to 
 know that the expression '■cutting q^' when used 
 in scripture, means nothing more than separa- 
 tion from the church, by censure: to introduce 
 prooff for the establishment of this, would be to 
 impose on common sense. Even the Baptists 
 have often inflicted Mr. C's penalty to its fullest 
 extent. It is the end of all penalties, to inflict the 
 punishment for crimes required by the law, and 
 no further to consult the benefit of the culprit than 
 is consistent with the dignity of the law, requiring 
 such penalty. But the intention of all disciplina- 
 ry punishment, is ultimately the salvation of the 
 subject. 1. Cor, 5. 5. *To deliver such an ore un- 
 to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the 
 spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.' 
 
 But each of these covenants have penalties, ac- 
 cording to Mr. C. 'The ultimate of all the pen- 
 ' alties of the old covenant was, the final and eter- 
 K 
 
m BAPTISM. 
 
 * nal rejection of refractory subjects, from being 
 
 * the people of God, in any sense. But the ulti- 
 ' mate of all the penalties of the new covenant, is, 
 ' to make the subjects of it partakers of his holi- 
 ' ness, and to exempt them from the condemnation 
 ' of the world.' Page 88. The penalties of the first 
 covenant, condemned forever, but the penalties of 
 the new covenant, saved its subjects eternally. 4 
 new kind of penalties, for the invention of\yhich, 
 Mr. C. deserves the honor. In all the Bible, we 
 have no such account of penalties, belonging to 
 either of Mr. C's covenants. Let us hear the ti- 
 tles and description of Mr. C's penalties by an in- 
 spired writer — does he call them penal ies or even 
 hint that they were such? Heb. 13. 8. 'But if ye be 
 without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, 
 then are ye bastards and not sons.' 
 
 Reader, again turn back, and review Mr. C's 
 doctrine, respecting these two covenants, with 
 their penalties, conditions, Sec. Saints, under the 
 Uld testament — Mr. C's old, 'musty covenant' 
 were, by its laws, subject to the pains of eternal 
 death, final rejection, &c. It was indeed discour- 
 aging to the saints of that time; why did any 
 of them forsake their father's house — suffer per- 
 secution, wander in deserts, and after all, by the 
 laws and true spirit of that covenant, might be 
 eternally rejected? If his doctrine be true, there 
 was still a much greater difference between the 
 two covenants, than has ever occured to any of Mr. 
 C's predecessors. It was nothing less than this, 
 that saints, under, the first dispensation of grace, 
 were not only in a conditional state, and this con* 
 dition was perfect obedience, but from any pro- 
 mise of this covenant, or any relation they held to 
 God, might finally fall from a state of grace. Que- 
 
BAPTISM. 99 
 
 rj: Does Mr. C* believe his own system? 
 
 ' Query 7. Was not Abraham, by covenant, the 
 'father of a two-fold seed, a natural and a 
 ' spiritual?' 
 
 Ans. No. He was the father of a natural seed, 
 by nature, as any other man is the father of a pos- 
 terity — and he Nyas the father of a spiritual seed, 
 by covenant. 'It was not the children of the flesh, 
 but the children of the promise, that were reckon- 
 ed for the seed.' 
 
 ' Query 8th. Did not Abraham's spiritual seed, 
 ' consist first of Christ, and all that in him, inherit 
 ♦ the faith of the father of the faithful, whether 
 ' Jews or Gentiles, and of them only?' 
 
 Ans. Yes; for by covenant he had no other seed. 
 
 ' Query 9th. Did not the covenant of circum- 
 ' cision exclusively belong to the natural seed of 
 ' Abraham, as such, and to them Qnly, as specified 
 'in Gen. 17?' 
 
 Ans. No: and with me agrees the apostle Paul. 
 Rom. 4. 12. 'And the father of circumcision to 
 them who are not of the circumcision only, but 
 who also walk in the steps of that faith of our fa- 
 ther Abraliam, which he had, being yet uncircum-. 
 cised.' This last query proves his stock was ex- 
 hausted, because tijis is the very matter in dispute. 
 By Mr. C's definition of this covenant, Abraham's 
 natural sons, circumcised by him, seven out of eight, 
 were excluded — six sons by KetuE^ih, and one by 
 Hagar, and all their posterity forever.* 
 
 *Orithe first day of public dispute, Mr. C. plead 
 with the activity and ingenuity of uu attornt-y, to 
 be delivered from these covenants, but having 
 spent a studious night, he appeared to be quite 
 recovered, and with these questions, written in his 
 
100 BAPTISM. 
 
 Having now endeavoured to establish the pro- 
 position, and having attended to Mr. C's leading 
 objections to the doctrine of the proposition, we 
 shall now look a little at his appendix, on the same 
 subject. 
 
 FIRST COVENANT. 
 
 The Covenant of tcorks, 
 
 Is, I grant, a true covenant; and of course, does 
 not belong to any of this spurious list. But tven on 
 this old covenant, Mr. C. must exercise his inven- 
 tive mind; ^ while nearly 6000 years have elapsed, 
 since this covenant was entered into, Mr, C's im- 
 provement has never occured to any. ^Upon the 
 'whole premises wc must observe, that in this whole 
 * transaction, Adam was entirely passive. He 
 'stipulated nothinsj.' page 158. I do not say, in re- 
 ply, that Adam did stipulate any thing. It is not 
 necessary, in order that a true covenant may exist, 
 that both parties should stipulate: but if one party 
 propose and another accept, it ig a true contract. 
 But was Adam passive? I answer No: because to 
 
 hand, vociferated and bantered prodigiously, what 
 he was now ready to do with Mr. W. on these 
 covenants. Yet alas! nothing was made, and in a 
 few hours the old covenant was again a place of 
 torture for Mr. C. He got angry at it, and called it 
 the 'old musty covenant.' But when he comes to 
 write, he is still better prepared, but still does as 
 little for the subject. After the debate, he invent- 
 ed four new covenants, for fear of being confined 
 to two; his reply will probably contain a few more> 
 
BAPTISM. 101 
 
 acciBpt implies action. But Adam did accept 
 the terms of that covenant, while indeed 
 it is not expressly mentioned, it is not only fairly, 
 but even in the very being of the covenant, inn- 
 plied. The nature of Adam was perfectly con- 
 formed to the Divine will: that, therefore, which 
 was the will of God to demand, was the will of 
 Adam to obey, and the promises made by God, he 
 chose to receive. Moral conformity to the Divine 
 will, and a disposition to submit to his Sovereignty 
 in all things — were created with him. It follows 
 that Adam did not withhold his consent, but was 
 active in giving it to God. But Mr. C. will, as 
 usual, be ready to cry out, where is your war- 
 rant. I answer he concedes thejustice of my plan 
 of infering, in the same covenant, 'the token or 
 seal of this transaction was the tree of life.' Here 
 I agree with him, but where has he found any ex- 
 press vi-airant for bis doctrine? where is life pro- 
 mised in the covenat of works.'' or where is the tree 
 of life called a token or seal of this covenant.'* why 
 these are implied. This I grant; but I have evi- 
 dence equally strong, for Adam's actively conpent- 
 ingto the terms of this covenant. Gen. 1.26. 'And 
 God said, let us make man in our own image af- 
 ter our likeness.' Mr. C. on this passage must 
 admit one of two opinions; either that of Immanu- 
 el S'.vedenburger, which declares this to bo a cor- 
 poreal likeness, or say that it was a moral likeness. 
 Again, Heb. 7,29. "-This only have I found that 
 God made man upright. When God gave the com- 
 mand, 'Thou shalt not eat of the tree of know- 
 ledge of good and evil, was Adam in possession of 
 this holy nature, passive, mute? No: this would 
 have been disobedience, a detestable indifference. 
 The very language of his nature was, I will not eat 
 K 2 
 
102 BAPTISM. 
 
 of it. 1 wouldonly observe tliat out of Mr. C's seven 
 covenants, we have not one fully possessing the 
 character of a covi^nant, atid indeed, this was not 
 in fxnvfcnse a covenant, if Adam was passive. 
 
 Cefore I proceed to view his remaining six cov- 
 enants, I would premise a few things. 
 
 In every covenant made with man in which God 
 promises mercy, grace, or any other blessing, such 
 promises must, in some form, be the revelation of 
 the covenant of grace, and inevery instance where 
 the formal assent of the church is mentioned, it 
 is to tliem a covenant of duty; as it is an acknow- 
 jnent of the covenant of grace. It is an agreement 
 to receive tlie promises of this covenant, to pro- 
 fess its truth and obey its law. 
 
 A frequent revelation of this covenant became 
 necessary from the peculiar circumstances, in 
 which the church was placed ;sometimes this was re- 
 vealed by way of promise. It was thus revealed 
 (0 Abraham, in the 12th chap, of Geneses,when he 
 was first called out of Ur of the Chaldees. Some- 
 times it is made known by the revelation of its 
 precepts; this was the manner of its revelation on 
 Mt. Sinai. But every separate revelatii)n of this 
 covenant, \yas but partial. It is impossible to 
 take any just view of it, but by uniting all these* 
 revelations together, we shall then see its truth, its 
 promises, its law; in a word, the scriptures of 
 truth, is this toill or covenant, sealed by the death 
 of Christ the testator. But when this comprehen- 
 Bive view is taken still it is very partial. I believe 
 that the babe, who enters into eternal life, sees 
 more of this covenant, than all saints on earth, our 
 blessings in this world, are seen at best but 
 through a glass darkly. 
 
 The first revelation of this oovenant was made 
 
BAPTISM. 103 
 
 to our first parents in the garden of Eden, in a 
 short Gospel Sermon, by a blessed preacher of 
 righteousness. Here Mr. C. should have cojjinienc- 
 ed his second covenant. In this sermon we have 
 a revelation ofan agreement of our foederal hend, to 
 fulfill the condition of that covenant, and to bring 
 in an everlasting righteousness, by his suffering 
 unto death. Gen. 3. 15. 'I will put enmity be- 
 tween thee and the woman, and between thy seed 
 and her seed; it shall bruise thy hecid, and thou 
 shall bruise his heel' But in process of time, 
 when ministers, began to oppose the moral law, 
 which was written upon the heart of man, and to 
 encourage loose professors in the violation of the 
 sabbath, a doctrine taught by the Devil, and very 
 agreeable to the human heart; they soon obtained 
 followers, the whole human race was destroj^ed by 
 a flood, with the exception of Noah and his fami- 
 ly. For the encouragement of the new world, 
 jt became necessary to make a second revelation 
 of this covenant; this is Mr. C's. 
 
 SECOND COVENANT, p. 159. 
 
 'It was all promises and no commands.' P. 
 160. It is true, that there were no particular 
 commands sppcified; yet it is true that all the 
 commands that God had ever revealed to man, 
 were fairly implied and revealed in that covenant. 
 It is essential to the nature of God to require duty 
 from every person with whom he makes a cove- 
 nant. It is evident from Mr. C'^ statement of this 
 covenant, that he supposes this doctrine is con- 
 tained in that revelation, (let it be spoken with 
 
104 BAPTISM. 
 
 more reverence tljan Mr. C. teaches it,) that 
 as moral evil produced the flood, the Divine being 
 now made a covenant, in which the whole world 
 to the end of time, mis^ht do as they pleased. To 
 make ns certain that this is his view, he states that 
 this 'covenant could not be broken.' It was a co- 
 venant without a law, 'where no law is, there is 
 no transgression,' Fallen man, could not be a 
 party in this covenant, or yet could perfect men 
 be a party in it, sin is the breach of a law, holi- 
 ness is conformity to it; but wl.ere no law is, nei- 
 ther of these can exist. Reader, look furtiier at 
 Mr. C's view of this covenant; a covenant giving 
 great temporal mercies, but in the receipt of these, 
 no obedience is required. Enjoy all its blessings 
 and do as you please, is his definition of this cove- 
 nant. 
 
 He says that the rainbow was merely a memo- 
 rial of this covenant. P. 16, Perhaps Mr. C. in 
 this assertion, understands himself. Yet 1 thmk it 
 is difficult for any other person to understand this 
 expression. If, by the rainbow being only a me- 
 morial of this covenant, he means, that it is only 
 to keep it in memory — then it is another of his netc 
 inventions. I never knew it to be denied by any, 
 that ever heard of that covenant; that the rainbow 
 was a token that God would never again destroy 
 the world by another fl,ood; at least this is tiie Di- 
 vine mind on this subject, io opposition to Mr. C. 
 Gen. 9. 13, 14, 15. 'I do set my bow in the cloud, 
 and it shall be for a token of a covenant, between 
 me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when 
 I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall 
 be seen in the cloud: and I will remember my 
 covenant, which is between me and you; and eve- 
 ry living creature of all flesh, and the waters shall 
 
BAPTISM. 105 
 
 no more become a flood, to destroy all flesh.' It 
 follows, that the rainbow is a token that God will 
 never destroy the world by another deluge; we 
 therefore propose some amendments on Mr. C's 
 view of this covenant. 
 
 1st. That it was a gracious act of God the Fa- 
 ther 'Originating in him, and ordained by him 
 alone.' 
 
 2nd. It respected the church of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and gives intimation to the wicked, that 
 one great reason of their preservation is, 'for the 
 Elect's sake,' while it secures the continued exis- 
 tence of the animal creation for the use of man. 
 
 3rd. 'It was absolute and unconditional,' and 
 yet might be broken, 
 
 4th. 'It was all promises,' and commands, 'the 
 blessings promised were temporal' and spiritual, 
 'and commensurate w»th time' and eternity. 
 
 5th. 'The token of it was the rainbow,' whicli 
 was not only a security, that the world should ne- 
 ver again be destroyed by another flood; but also 
 an emblematical declaration, that Christ the glo- 
 rious rainbow of that covenant, of which this was 
 but a revelation in part, Avould never suffer the 
 overflowing vengeance of God, lo destroy any 
 true members of this covenant. 
 
 THIRD COVENANT. 
 
 We have already observed many things on this 
 covenant. I think the true calculation is given in 
 another place. His citations from scripture to 
 prove thi« a distinct covenant, equally apply to 
 his fifth covenant. Aware of this, he resorts to his 
 
106 BAPTISM. 
 
 usual plan of composing such scripture as will 
 answer his purpose; he cites Luke, 1. 72. 'To 
 perform the mercy promised unto our Fathers, 
 and to remember his holy covenant.' He found it 
 would not do, to have the passage so stated, be- 
 cause the fact would then have appeared, that Ze- 
 charias was acknowledging the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision; called by Mr. C. a national covenant. 
 He therefore strikes out the words unto the fathers 
 and inserts the words By the Father — such a plan 
 is indeed novel, in the christian world — and 
 would, in any other writer, be intolerable, but with 
 Mr. C. it is not unusual.* 
 
 FOURTH COVENANT, 
 
 Called the covenant of circumcisim. 
 
 Because circumcision, was now enjoined, as a 
 seal of the covenant of grace; on this covenant we 
 have already spoken at length. Mr. C. gives you 
 his new system on tins covenant. P. 165. I shall 
 present the reader with some amendments to his 
 view of this covenant. 
 
 *When I read this passage in Mr. C. I instantly 
 turned to the errata — but found no correction; I 
 then doubted not, but we should have it corrected 
 in his second edition — but was again dispppoint- 
 ed:his followers, took it for scripture. Hi-.d he 
 even attempted to prove, that the original words 
 admitted of the corrections, then it might have 
 passed along with some of his dipping amend- 
 menls; but no — we must take it for scripture, just 
 because Mr. C, says so. 
 
BAPTISM. 107 
 
 1st. 'It was confined' to Christ's family 'alone' 
 consisting of Jews and Gentiles. Circumcision 
 was now revealed, as the seal of this covenant. 
 
 2nd. Spiritual 'connection with Abraham, was 
 the ground of claim or interest in it,'which con- 
 nection is obtained by union to Christ. 'If ye be 
 Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed.' 
 
 3rd. That God the Son 'would stand in a par- 
 ticular relation to this family, reign over them as 
 king, protect them by his providence,' and bless 
 them by his glorious gospel and its ordinan- 
 ces. 
 
 4th 'It was unconditional. The enjoyment of 
 all these blessings, depended upon,' the obedience 
 of Christ alone, and although they should break 
 this covenant by their sins, he would 'visit their 
 faults with rods, their sins with chastisement; but 
 his loving kindnes he would not take from them.' 
 
 5th. It was a covenant, the visible sign, or seal 
 of which was in their flesh, as a sign of an ever- 
 lasting covenant. 
 
 FIFTH COVEKAJSTJ 
 
 The covenant made icith all Israel at Sinai. 
 
 The particular character of the revelation of the 
 covenant of Grace was; 
 
 1st. That it was the accomplishment of the pro- 
 mise 'of the covenant of circumcision,' mentioned 
 in the 17 chap, of Gen. and also of the covenant 
 confirmed before of God in Christ by sacrifice, 
 mentioned in the 15th of Genesis and also of the 
 first revelation made of this same covenant, Gene- 
 sis 12, when .Abraham was first called outofUr. 
 
108 BAPTISM. 
 
 of the Chaldees. It was the visible accomplish- 
 ment of a promise, made in eacl) of these cov- 
 enants. But most of all, the literal accomplish- 
 ment of a prophecy, made by God to Abraham, of 
 the sorrows of his seed, and their deliverance. 'A.>d 
 that nation, whom they shall serve w^ill I judge, and 
 afterwards shjill they come out with great sub- 
 stance' Gen. 15. 14. 
 
 2nd. Like every other revelation of this cov- 
 enant, it was unconditional. This was evident 
 from the manner in which it was prefaced. Ex. 20. 
 2: 'I am t!ie Lord thy God, who have brought 
 thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of 
 bondage.' The people all publicly consenting 
 to this covenant, made it very evidently a covenant 
 of duty. Ex. 19. 8. 'AH that the Lord hath spoken 
 will we do."* 
 
 3rd. This covenant, only in part, was written 
 upon two tables ofstone, called by the apostle Paul, 
 Heb. 9. 4. 'The tables of the covenant; in which 
 covenant we may safely include all the revelations 
 made at Sinai, which comprehended the revela- 
 tion of the judicial, cereu:!onial, and moral laws, 
 
 "^Every time of the particular revelation of this 
 covenant to the church, it became a covenant of 
 duty. — The church could never engage in a co- 
 venant of duty, without a revelation of the cove- 
 nant of Grace — because this is the proper founda- 
 tion of a covenant of duty, ^he covenant of 
 grace contains the privilege/and duty of the 
 church; a covenant of duty, is the engagement of 
 the church, to receive these by faith, to make a 
 public profession of the same, and to have a life, 
 correspondent to the obligations: this is all Sece- 
 ders mean by covenanting. 
 
BAPTISM. 109 
 
 vogether with all the promises there mentioned. 
 
 4th, The laws of this covenant were nunrie- 
 rous, and perhaps it was the fullest revelation, ever 
 made of the covenant of grace, at any one time to 
 the church. Christ's office as a priest, was syste- 
 maticaJly shewn in the Aaronic priesthood, and his 
 kingly government, in the revelations of the par- 
 ticular laws by which the church was to be gov- 
 erned. 
 
 5Lh. The Sinai revelation of this covenant, con- 
 tained both promises and commands, and these 
 promises, like those formerly made, contained 
 blessings, both temporal and spiritual, unconditi- 
 onally given.* 
 
 6th. This covenant was read, as were all the 
 formerrev*lations of it, in the audience of all the 
 Jewish church. To prove that this was the cov- 
 venant of grace, the promises of which in due 
 time, would be confirmed by the death of Christ, 
 the testator, immediately afier the revelation of it, 
 sacrifice was offered, and after taking the blood 
 of the sacrifice, this book containing the covenant 
 was sprinkled, to intimate the bloody confirmation 
 it should receive, the people was also sprinkled, 
 to intimate that the same death, would be the at- 
 tonement of their sins. This decleration was 
 made. 'This is the blood of the covenant, which 
 God hath enjoined unto you.' Heb. 9. 20, com- 
 pared with Ex. 24. 8. 
 
 SIXTH COVENANT. 
 
 This covenant was a part of that revelation 
 
 *lt was against that part of this covenant, 
 which was written on tables of stone, that Mr. C. 
 a few years ago wrote a phamphlet. 
 
no BAPTISM. 
 
 made at. Mount Sinai, in which the eternal priest- 
 hood, of our Lord Jesus Christ was typically con- 
 fined to Aaron and his sons in succession, until the 
 comingof the antitype. This priesthood differed 
 from the Melehisedec priesthood, in that it was con- 
 fined solely to the family of A-eron. The continu- 
 ation of this priesthood, depending upon the living 
 successors of Aaron's sons, rendered it not only 
 a changeable, but uncertain priesthood; in these 
 respects it was far inferior to the prioslhood. of 
 Melehisedec, for his priesthood, not depending ei- 
 their upon the standing of his predecessors oi 
 successors, was an urxhangeable pi'iesthood. 
 
 Owing, liowever to the bravery, and particular 
 fidelity of Phineas, one of the sons of Aaron. Tliis 
 covenant was revealed in the strongest terms. 
 Number. 25.12, 13. 'Wherefore say, behold, I 
 give unto him my covenant of peace, and he shall 
 have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant 
 of an everlasting priesthood.' 
 
 We shall mention a few things in a great mea- 
 sure, peculiar to this part oi the revelation of the 
 covenant of grace. 
 
 1st. That it was a soverign act of the Almighty, 
 to appoint Christ fo tiie office of Priest, or Aaron 
 to be a Priest typically to represent him. 
 
 2nd. The divine appointment, confering the 
 priesthood upon Aaron, is called the covenant of 
 peace, because the sacrifices he was ordained to 
 offer, represented the great High Priest, shedding 
 his blood to obtain eternal peace. 
 
 3rd. This revelation of the covenant of grace, 
 was like every other revelation of it, 'uncondition- 
 al,' as it respected any thing to be performed by 
 typical persons. 
 
 4th. The promises of this covenant were, by 
 
BAPTISM. ill 
 
 God's word, confirmed to Aaron ^nd his son?, 
 that Ihey should hold this typical priesthood, and 
 coiifirnied to the church, that they should have an 
 everlasting priesthood. 
 
 5th. It was called an everlasting priesthood, 
 because it was to remain eternally with the 
 church. 1st. Typically: 2nd. Rnaliy in Christ 
 himself, who is called in Psal. 110, 'A priest forever' 
 and because, 'HE ever liveth to make intercessi- 
 on.' 
 
 Gth. In this official character of the priesthood, 
 the laws regulating the particular duties of the 
 office, were not seperate from, but essentially con- 
 nected with the office of this typical priesthood. 
 
 7ih. In the laws regulating the ordination, and 
 duties of the High priest, we have an awful warn- 
 ing of the danger, of any person taking this office 
 unto himself, such as independants — self called 
 ministers &c. 'No man taketh this office unto 
 hin^self. except he that is called, as was Aaron.' 
 
 SFVENTH COVENANT. 
 
 ^.Of'Royaltxj of David.'' 
 
 Of this covenant we have a full account in the 
 Isl. and 2nd. books of Samuel. The book of Psal. 
 &c. The peculiarities of this revelatiofi of the 
 covenai»t of grace are: 
 
 1st: That it was a sovereign act of God to ap- 
 point Ciirist his 'king in the holy hill ofZion' or 
 David a king to typify him. 
 
 2nd. The temporal throne and sceptre were 
 promised to David, as a representation of the 
 throne and sceptre which eternally belonged to 
 Christ. 
 
1 12 BAPTISM. 
 
 3rd. This covenant might be broken by Bavid, 
 or any of his typical successors, but could not by 
 tlie great antitype. 
 
 4th. It was all pron^ises and conamands. Its 
 blessings were temporal and spiritual, there was 
 promised a throne, a sceptre, a kingdom, all of 
 which were to be typical, until the coming of the 
 root, and offspring of David. 
 
 5th. There was no particular necessity for any 
 separate seal to this revelation of the covenant of 
 grace, seeing that circuJiQcision, and t!ie passover, 
 were the seals of all ihe itenrs contained in this 
 covenant. 
 
 6ih. This continues eternally. The sceptre was 
 held by typical king-', until the coming of Christ: 
 when he lifted the Aiiling sceptic of David, ne- 
 ver to return it to any typical -king, but hold i' 
 liimself and reign ibrcver.* 
 
 We have now travelled through Mr. C's cov- 
 enants, and had he taken a little more leisure, 
 and read his Bible with more attention, he might 
 have greatly increased the size of his book with 
 covenants. His seven are but a brief specimen of 
 his power of invention, hundreds might have 
 been added upon the same principle, nay thou- 
 sands; at least a distinct covefiant for every peri- 
 od in the scriptures, because he evidently suppo- 
 
 * It is evident to the reader, that we have at- 
 tempted to make some amendments on Mr. Co - 
 coveijants, and we think have succeeded in re- 
 ducing their number to two. We confined our- 
 selves to his plan. We give him the honor of 
 inventing at least 5 out of the 7. JVIr. C. will par- 
 don me, for prefering the scripture view of the 
 subject to his. 
 
BAPTISM. 113 
 
 ses that every distinct, revelation, was a distinct 
 covenant, how far he has succeeded I shall let 
 readers judge for themselves. . 
 
 It is also evident that he possesses equal ingenui- 
 ty for creating conditions, that he does covenants, 
 he makes every ij\ that he finds in the scriptures, 
 a condition, but not having as great a supply of ^/'s 
 on hand, as he had of covenants, some of these had 
 to come out unconditional. 
 
 From this proposition, as now established, we 
 shall draw a few conclusions, we think now 
 proved. 
 
 FIRST INFERENCE. 
 
 That variations in the external circumstances 
 of a covenant never affect its being, as a contract, 
 and that the only difference between the old and 
 Nevv testament covenants, was, in the dispensation; 
 and therefore there was but one covenant, under 
 both dispensations. 
 
 SECOND COVENANT. 
 
 That the relation between Abraham and the 
 church, \\;as only Spiritual, that in this sense a- 
 lone, a seed was promised to him, and tliat with 
 him, God made but one covenant, although he fre- 
 quently renewed the same. 
 
 THIRD INFERENCE, 
 
 That the church is one, in all ages of the woild, 
 the covenant one, and the Lord one. Any righte- 
 ous engagement of the church, is binding upon 
 herself in any future period; the circumstances, or 
 L 3 
 
114 BAPTISM 
 
 any of the rtulies being the s\n\p, and that we 
 mean no more wheii ;ve say, liiat the covenant of 
 our spiritual ancestors is binding upon posterity. 
 
 FOURTH INFERENCE. 
 
 That this covenant is not entailed by natural 
 relation. That a savage under this dispensation 
 embracing the christian rehgion by faith, is, as 
 true a cliiid of Abraham, as Isaac wasjand on the 
 contrary a natural son of Abraham, v^^as no more 
 one of his children by covenant, if in a state of 
 nature, than a savage who is yet in tiiat state.* 
 
 ill. PROPOSITION. 
 
 That circumcision was a sacramental seal of 
 the covenant of grace, as administered under the 
 Old testament, and, to the heirs of that dispensa- 
 
 *By those who oppose the binding obligations 
 of covenants upon posterity, it is sometimes ask- 
 ed; how do we know that we are the natural 
 posterity of those who covenanted? The ques- 
 tion is answered above. — That it matters not whe- 
 ther we are the natural posterity, or not. A child 
 adopted into a family, is as subject to the laws 
 and as really entitled to the privileges of the fa- 
 .mily, as if he had been born in it. Heathens, are 
 Abraham's family, the covenant secured them tO' 
 him for a seed, although no natural relation ex- 
 isted. We are therefore bound to all th« moral du- 
 ties of the Abrahamic covenant, and by faith en- 
 titled . to all its privileges. This note is not de- 
 signed for Mr. C. Of this duty he does not appear 
 to understand the least principle. 
 
BAPTISM. 115 
 
 t(on,if was a seal of all the Gospel promises, made 
 to them by their Lord; and was therefore itself a 
 gospel ordinance. 
 
 I define circumcision' to be, a sacramenlal seal 
 of the covenant of grace, as administered under 
 the Old testament dispensation; wherein, by cut- 
 ting off the foreskin, from, Ihe male infant, or 
 male adult; they were introduced into the 
 church of Christ; and their beuig cut off from the 
 law, as a covenant of works, and from the rela- 
 tion to the first Adam as their foederal head; and ^ 
 all the effects of that relation through Christ, was 
 thereby, sij^nedj sealed and signified. 
 
 We shall now endeavour to establish our pro- 
 position by proving its different parts. — 
 
 1st. It was a seal of the covenant of Grace. 
 That the covenant to which it was appended was 
 the covenant of grace, we think is already shewn 
 at length, but more is necessary oh this point of 
 the subject; we observe, first; That the apostle 
 so explains it, Rora. 4. 11. 'And he received the 
 sign of circumcision; a seal of the righteousness 
 of the faith which Ac /?a(i, yet being. uncircumcis- 
 ed; that he might be the father of all them that 
 believe, though they be not circumcised; that 
 righteousness might be imputed to them also.' 
 
 2nd It is granted, that it was a seal of that co- 
 venant; God made with Abraham, mentioned in 
 the 17. chaptet of Genesis; called the covenant 
 of circumcision; but the blessings there designat- 
 ed we have proved to belong to the covenant of 
 Grace alone; therefore circumGision was a seal of 
 the covenantof Grace. 
 
 3rd. The covenant of grace is the testament^ of 
 which Christ Jesus is the testator, and the church 
 the alone heir, then if by circumcision they were 
 
116 BAPTISM. 
 
 initiated into this body, and thereby constituted 
 the visible heirs of this covenant, it follows that 
 circumcision was a seal of the covenant of Grace, 
 but the former is true, Gen. 17. 'And the uncir- 
 cumcJsed man child whose, whose flesh of his fore- 
 fikin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off 
 from his people.' In this passage, the following 
 doctrine is fairly included, that if the omision cf 
 this rite was a public declaration, that there was 
 no relation subsisting between them and the 
 church, then the receiving of it was a public pro- 
 fession of the union. The truth of this doctrine 
 was felt by Moses in his return frDm the wilder- 
 ness, to join his fellow professors, then in bond- 
 age in Egypt. Ex. 4. 24, 25, 'And it come to pass 
 by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and 
 sought to kill him. Then Zepporah took a sharp 
 stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast- 
 it at his feet, and said, surely a bloody husband 
 "ert thou to me.'* 
 
 The conclusion is true that circumcision .is a 
 seal -of the covenant of Grace. 
 
 *This is an awful v/arning to Parents who 
 through carelessness or othewise. neglect the de- 
 dication of their children to God, in baptism — It 
 fared with Moses as it sometimes does with good 
 people, in bad company, they forget and even be- 
 come neglectful of their duty, whith nearly cost 
 him. his life. His wife who had been some kind 
 of Baptist, was enraged at this dedication of her 
 child, like Mr. C. — She saw no necessity for it, 
 like him, she could not see how it would make 
 her sou any better, she merely done it \.o save her 
 husband's life. Had she lived at this time, she 
 would have had many to have agreed with her. 
 
BAPTISM. 117 
 
 Circumcision ceased in the manner of its ad- 
 ministration, with that dispensation, because all 
 the ordinances of Old testament, wore the same 
 character: uniformity and consistency, is the cha- 
 racter of all Divine ordinances — they must all be 
 adopted to the dispensation under which they are 
 administered. The change of dispensation will, 
 therefore require a change of all the ordinances. 
 This observation is equally true, both as it re- 
 spects those rites, which were to be entirely abol- 
 ished, and those which only underwent an exter- 
 nal- change. Sacrifices which had no other, than 
 a typical existence, of course, ceased to be when 
 the Great antitype was offered, but the office of the 
 ministry, which in general had a miraculous ap- 
 j)ointment, under the New testament, exists by re- 
 gular ordination. 
 
 It was ever necessary, that' the covenant of 
 (jJrace should have a seal; under the former ad- 
 ministration of it, a seal suited lo that time, was 
 instituted: the same necessity of it continues, the 
 seal js accordingly varied to suit the present dis- 
 pensation of Grace. 
 
 That it was a Gospel ordinance, will appear by 
 observing, 
 
 1st. That regeneration was one of the leading 
 privileges emblematicHJly set furth in this rite. 
 Deut. 10. 16. 'Circumcise therefore the foreskin, 
 of.your heart, and. be no mtire stiff-necked. Also 
 chap. 30. 6. 'Aiid the Lord thy God will circum- 
 cise thine heart, and the henrt of thy seed, to love 
 the Lord thy God with all thine iieart, and with all 
 thy souK that thou mnyest live.' So also the New 
 testament writers undtrUood it. col. 2. 11. 'In 
 whom also, ye are circumcised, with the circum- 
 cision made without' bands, in putting off the bo- 
 
118 BAPTISM. 
 
 dy of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of 
 
 2nd. That this seal was confined to a holy seed. 
 For while it was the privilege' of his servants and 
 also of all his children to receive the administra- 
 tion of this rite, yet with none of these was it to be 
 continued as a divine ordinance, but with Isaac. 
 The reason why the other members of his family 
 were entitled to this privilege, was because they 
 were raised according to, the laws of the covenant 
 of Grace, possessed its privilege?, and thereby be- 
 came entitled to its seal; this is ampiy taugh*; 
 when God speaks of Abraham. Gen, 18. 19. 'For 
 I know him that he will command his children 
 and hi? household after him, and they shall keep 
 the way of Ihe Lord, to do justice and judgment; 
 that the Lord may bring upon Abraham, that 
 which he hath spok^en.'* 
 
 *It appears that the Arabs the posterity of Abra- 
 ham, by Ishmael, yet circumcise, with all the 
 punctuality of the Jews, with this difference, that 
 indeed of the eighth day, they perform it, on the 
 eighth year. This unhappily for the Baptist, cuts 
 off' their position that circumcision was a national 
 distinction, because it does not distinguish them 
 from the Jews. Mr. Riley our fellow citizen, ob- 
 serves that the Arabs in the deserts circumcise to 
 prevent disease. But however sccurat^e he is in 
 most of his observations, he is mistaken in this;- 
 because Doctor Parks found fhem observmg the 
 same rite <in Aff'rica, among f^etlled nations, who 
 did not attend to it, it is also found that the Arabs 
 circumcise in Asia and in Europe, where they 
 live among christian nations, who pay no attention 
 (o circumqifion. 
 
BAPTISM. 119 
 
 I infer that it wa'S to be confined to his posterity 
 by Isaac in particular, not only from the fact as it 
 afterwards appeared, but also from the covenant 
 being confirmed with his seed by Isaac at the 
 time circumcision was instituting. Gen. 17, 19, 
 'and God said SaraJi thy wife shall bear thee a 
 son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and 
 I will establish my covenant with him, for an ever- 
 lasting covenant and with his seed after him. 
 Why was this secured to Isaac? It was because 
 he was a son; not of the 'flesh; but of promise.' 
 They who are the childien. of the flesh, these are 
 not the children of God but the children of the 
 promise are counted for the seed.' Baptists grant 
 that the covenant of circumcision did secure a 
 seed; let them now submit to the divine dilinitiofi 
 of that seed just quoted, and there can remain no 
 dispute. They were to be a spiritual seed— the 
 children of God.' 
 
 3rd. The very covenant of which circumcision 
 is the acknowledged seal, secured the continua- 
 tion and spread of the everlasting gospel, Gen. 19 
 7, 'and I will establish my covenant between thee 
 and me, and thy seed after thee, in their genera- 
 tions, for an eveiiasting covenant, to be a God 
 unto thee, ai^ thy seed after thee.' We find A 
 similar declaration made from Mt. Sinai. 'I am the 
 Lord your God.' So in the New testament we 
 have it recorded of Thomas, that he expressed his 
 faith|appropriating this precise promise with others 
 ofthe same import. "My Lord and my God." I 
 would now ask the weakest believer, or even one 
 of Mr. C's. followers would ihey desire a more 
 comfortable gospel promise, than this mentioned 
 in Gen. 17. I will be a God unto thee and thy 
 seed after thee! The attempts of men weaken or 
 
120 BAPTISM. 
 
 destroy Gospel promises should bj all good people, 
 be opposed, because they '-ire llie only support of a 
 believer during the tinr'C he is a strafger and a 
 pilgrim on this earth. Psnl. 119. 45 50. 'Remem- 
 ber the word unto thy servf.nij\ipon which thou hast 
 caused me to hope. This is my comfort in my 
 affliction: for tiiy word hath quickened me.' 
 Faith can only act upon promises accoiding to 
 their true interest. But if the promise made to 
 Abraham respected on/y an earthly Canaan, then 
 no saint dare apply it to spiritual purposes but the 
 scripture affords as ffbundant examples of be- 
 lievers, having so applied it, it follows that the 
 true interest of that promise was gospej blessings, 
 presented to believers to the end of the world, and 
 by them eternally enjoyed. 
 
 But I say also, that it secured the spread of the 
 gospel amongst the nations of the earth, read v. 6: 
 'and I will make these exceeding fruitful, and I 
 will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out 
 of thee.' By which, we cannot suppose, is to be 
 iinderstood, the royal children of Edom, Arabian 
 kings, or the nations they governed, because Mr. 
 C. tells us that this covenant, secured the land of 
 Canaan for n perpetual possession. Page 165. 
 Yet let the reader observe that Abraham's posteri- 
 ty by Jacob his grand son, was the only nation of 
 Abraham's natural posterity, that inhabited the 
 land of Canaan. Now although this might be the 
 •accomplishment of the promise as it respected' 
 kings, it cannot be so as it respected nations, the 
 nation was but one. Mr. C's definition compells 
 him to acknowledge that this promise made ii\the 
 covenant of circimcision, could have no full ac- 
 complishment, until the nations of the earth were, 
 by the spread of the gospel, born to Abraham; un- 
 
BAPTISM. 131 
 
 til Kings should become the nursing fathers, and 
 Queen's the nursing mothers of the church.'* 
 
 For my part I cannot see it to be a blessing, or 
 yet can I see the necessity of a seal to a contract, 
 which only secures a large, rude, and wicked pos- 
 terity to any man. It is the possession of the gos- 
 pel and its blessings, that truly exalteth a nation. 
 It is no comfort to parents, surely, to have a nu- 
 merous family; but to be a parent of a large and 
 religious family is indeed a blessing — In this re- 
 spect Abraham felt as other religious parents 
 would. Was the doctrine of Mr. C. true, the cov- 
 enant of circumcision could have aflbrded no 
 comfort to a man so Godly as Abraham. 
 
 4th. I ask, why make a distinct covenant with 
 Abraham, in order to put him in possession of a 
 numerous family, and temporal blessings only? 
 His family, should you take all his natural seed, 
 were as much less than the family of Noah, as the 
 part is less than the whole; yet the covenant God 
 made with Noah, granted by Mr. C. and all the 
 Baptists, secured to Abraham and his seed, all the 
 temporal blessings of the covenant of circumcision. 
 Was it impossible for Abraham or his seed, to 
 plead any promise of that covenant? if not, by 
 
 * If Mr. C. should attempt to make this pitiful 
 excuse, from this just conclusion, that although 
 this promise was mentioned in the covenant of 
 circumcision, it did not belong to it; I would re- 
 ply that all the items of a covenant, are always 
 niade out, before it is subscribed and sealed. In 
 like manner, after the promises of this covenant 
 are mentioned by God, he appends the seal of cir- 
 cumcision, which, in every instance of contracts, 
 is the security of the whole bontJ. 
 M 
 
122 BAPTISM. 
 
 what were they excluded? or why make a separate 
 covenant for that purpose? 
 
 5th. That this was a gospel ordinance appears 
 from the acknowledged requisition of Mr. C. *If 
 ye be willing and obedient.' Although the rea- 
 son, which made Mr. C. make this the entitling 
 condition of the covenant of circumcision, more 
 than to any ether covenant, no one can tell; yet we 
 shall shew that this concession forces him to yield 
 the point. Christians will generally unite with 
 me in declaring, that there is no obedience since . 
 the fall of man, without obeying this command: 
 'This is the command of God that ye believe on 
 his son;' or will God ever actept obedience^ per- 
 formed by an unbeliever as such." 
 
 From the sentiments of Baptists respecting the 
 Old testament dispensation, they may not concede 
 this. Then let us, in order to try this obedience, 
 use tiie language of the covenant of circumcision. 
 'I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed ;' or the 
 preface to the ten commandments. 'I am the Lord 
 your God.' It will be conceded, that every act of 
 obedience required by that covenant, demanded 
 the acknowledgment of this first principle; all the 
 obedience required, was to be performed to God. 
 as their God. But the unbeliever could never 
 render this kind of obedience, by any act, al- 
 though the matter of the act is good, yet he re- 
 jects God. Can any one, therefore, believe Mr. C. 
 who supposes that obedience may be required in 
 any covenant of which God is one party, and fallen 
 man the other, which obedience demands eternal 
 destruction from the presence of God; for such is 
 the character of the best works of the natural'man. 
 But where is faith, the true principle of this obe- 
 dience to be obtained? In no other place, than 
 
BAPTISM. 123 
 
 m the gospel of peace. But Mr, C. concedes that 
 the covenant of circumcision required sucli obe- 
 dierrce as God would accept. Therefore, the cov- 
 enant of circumcision, vvhile its laws required obe- 
 dience, its promises presented ^proper qualifica- 
 tions for rendering that obedience acceptable; but 
 of these, circumcisions was the seal, therefore it 
 was the seal of the promises of the everlasting gos- 
 pel. 
 
 That circumcision was instituted by Christ to be 
 a seal of the covenant of Grace, is the last thing 
 in the proposition to be proved. 
 
 Without refering my readers tea vast pile of 
 old Dictionaries, upon the meaning of the word 
 seal^ we shall just take the common acceptance 
 of this word as used in scripture and in the com- 
 mon transactions of life, and define it ta be a 
 sign affixed to a bond, contract, or covenant, as a eon" 
 Jirmation of the things contained in the instrument. 
 Whatever this mark may be in civil life, each na- 
 tion has the liberty of determining. In like manner, 
 whatever mark or sign the head of the church may 
 appoint, his subjects have a right to submit, whe- 
 ther it be a mark on the finger or any other mem- 
 ber of the body,* or the application of water 
 
 *Mr. C. makes some very profane jests on this 
 subject, which I think too rude to transcribe; any 
 human institution, however wrong, will receive 
 modest treatment from a polite writer; but how 
 carefully should we speak, of an ordinance ap- 
 pointed by Christ Jesus king and head of the 
 church: although, as Mr. C. supposes, the ordi- 
 nance was civil and only secured temporal bless- 
 ings, yet it is Divine, and merits all the reverence 
 of any other ordinance, 
 
124 BAPTISM. 
 
 eating of bread or drinking of wine, no nnatter, HE 
 has liberty of choosing', we are bound to submit. 
 
 The dispute now is, was circumcision a sign or 
 seal of the covenant of grace? I reply thati am 
 certain it was, because the covenant to which it 
 was appended, did contain spiritual blessings, the 
 piioperty of that covenant alone, and which I 
 think I have proven at length, we shall only add 
 one scripjure passage upon the subject. Paul 
 speaking of Abraham declares Rom. 4. 11: 'He 
 received the sign of circumcison, a seal of the 
 righteousness of the faith, which he had, being yet 
 uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imput- 
 ed to them also.' This passage as it stands, plainly 
 decides the controversy; because, 
 
 Ist. It was a seal of tlie righteousness of faitii 
 to Abraham. Is this righteousness, a tempoial 
 blessing, a fruit that grows in the land of Canaan? 
 Will Mr. C. answer in the affirmative? Is there 
 any other righteousness than the righteousness ^of 
 Christ, presented as the ground of acceptance witfi 
 God? No Calvanist will reply in the affirmative. 
 But the apostle in order to prevent any niciiphysi- 
 cal misconstruction, designates the righteousness 
 of which he speaks; it was that which the faith of 
 Abraham received, and whicli alone could have 
 been presented to him in the everlasting gospel. 
 But this righteousness is the sum of all the bless- 
 ings in the covenant of grace; no other blessing 
 of that covenant could have been mentioned, that 
 would have included as much. But of this right- 
 eousness the apostle declares circumcision was 
 the seal. 
 
 2nd. That no ground of dpubt, might be left, 
 he intimates that the righteousness of which he 
 speaks, upon which the faith of Abraham rested, 
 
BAPTISM. 125 
 
 was the same that is now presented to believing 
 heathens, read the passage again and you will 
 find, that the righteousness sealed to Abraham was 
 the same righteousness which is imputed to those 
 who are uncircumcised. It follows by the most 
 natui-al consequence, that. circumcision was a seal 
 of tliat righteousness which is now presented to us 
 in the everlasting gospel, as the ground of our 
 just i if] cation and acceptance with God. 
 
 8rd. Look at the historical facts to which the 
 apostle evidently alludes. Abraham had firist re- 
 ceived the promise, as Mr. C. grants, mentioned in 
 .Gen. 12, afterwards he had the same confirmed 
 by sacrifice chap. 15. But in the 17th. chap, he 
 received a more full revelation of the blessings of 
 the same covenant. All this revelation was made 
 prior to the affixing of any permanant seal. A- 
 mong other revelations made before this institu- 
 tion, this was one, that God would multiply his 
 seed. The apostle therefore argues, that the hea- 
 thens, who, vvi(-h the Jews, are his seed, were in- 
 cluded in that covenant; now of all these promises 
 circi'mcision was given as a seal. I arji persuad- 
 ed that such is the evidence of this passage that 
 no honest^iind can prevent the conviction, that 
 circumcision was a seal of the covenant of 
 grace, ..^ 
 
 This view of the passage startles Mr. C. and. 
 afraid of its mortal consequences upon his sys- 
 tem; he thinks it best to deny the very being of 
 seals under any dispensation, even baptism, and 
 the Lord's supper. — P. 175. This is .indeed, a 
 univepsal disposal of the doctrine to which in a 
 little we shall attend. But first of all, be attacks 
 the sentiments of the apostle. Rom. 4 11. P. 17, 
 18. *I know of no passage, more evidently a- 
 M 2 
 
126 BAPTISM. 
 
 'gainst my opponent; for it goes to show, that cir- 
 'cumcision was to Abraham, what it never was, 
 'nor could be to any of his posterity. Will 
 ' ray opponent say, that circumcision was to Ish- 
 ' rnael, to Isaac, or to any of the infmt otfspring of 
 'Abraham, what it was to him? Was it a sign 
 ' and seal to Isaac, or Ishmael of a righteousness 
 ' which they previously po<^se;ed.' Now reader, 
 you will observe sonne neu) doctrine, — Itis, that the 
 same ordinance, precisely the same, must have 
 different meanings, when applied to different per- 
 sons. A st^a! affi^e'd to the same contract, by the 
 same Lord, proposing the same end; yet it has adif-. 
 t'ercnt meaning, when applied to different sabjetts. 
 Mr. C. — you will again look your dictionaries for 
 the w:>rd seal. 
 
 What did circumcision seal to Abraham, dis- 
 tinct from that which it sealed to other subjects!* 
 Mr.C. replies, 'had Ishmael or Isaac a righteous- 
 ness which they previously possessed.' I answer, 
 
 1st. In order righteously to administer a seal of 
 the covenant of Grace, it is not necessary that the 
 person to whom it is administered, be in a known 
 «tate of grace; otherwise Judas, or Simon Magus 
 could not have been warrantably baptised. 
 
 3nd. There is a difference between making a 
 righteous profession, and possessing the righteous- 
 ness professed. The administration of the sacra- 
 ment of circumcision to Ishraael or Isaac, was a ' 
 legal ground, why they should be accounted holy, 
 or righteous; but this did not make them person- 
 ally so. .In virtue of the promise made to Abra- 
 ham, they were accounted a holy seed. 'I will be- 
 ihy God, and the God of thy seed:' But circumci- 
 sion was a seal of that visible relation; as really to 
 the seed of Abraham, as to himself, for without 
 
BAPTISM. 127 
 
 any change of expression, or variation'of senti- 
 ment, .he is said to be both the God of Abraham 
 and'of his seed. I know of no blessing promised 
 1o Abraham, which was not also promised to his 
 seed. In all tho^^e ble.^sings promised to Abra- 
 ham in Gen. 17. Abraham and his seed, stood on 
 the same covenant footing, and therefore the same 
 seal was equally applied to both. 
 
 Either Ishtnael or Isaac, were as fit subjects of 
 the righteousness possessed by Abraham as he 
 was himself. Any infant by the special grace of 
 God, may be regenerated and Justified, and there- 
 by, may be made a partaker of that righteousness, 
 which believers, by faith, claim. Mr. C. must 
 either agree to this, or believe that all infants are 
 condemned, for without this righteousness, neither 
 infant, nor adult.JBhall ever see heaven. 
 
 Neither activity nor consent is essentially ne- 
 cessary to the imputation of Christ's righteous- 
 ness: because regeneration and justification are 
 the acts of another; the subject is passive; on 
 which more afterwards. What I have said is suf- 
 ficient to establish the assertion, that the righte- 
 ousness of which the apostle spoke was the sariie to 
 both Abraham and his seed. I do not say, all the 
 generations of his seed: but all his seed by pro- 
 mise, Ishmael, Fsaac, his sons, and all his servants 
 were to him promised blessings, were to be raised 
 under his particular inspection, and were there- 
 fore, fit subjects of this sacramental seal. But in 
 'Isaac shall thy seed be called,' and therefore 
 such of his posterity alone, as were included iu 
 the covenant of circumcision were in their gene- 
 rations the fit subjects of this rite. Hence it was 
 thjit the Edomites and Ishmaelites, stood in no 
 
128 BAPTISM. 
 
 other covenant relation to Abraham, than the Ca- 
 naanites orMoabUes. 
 
 The revehttion. of this circumstance, that Abra- 
 ham possessiid tliis ritjliteousness before he was 
 circumcised, which Mr. C. takes as the ground of 
 his assertion, offord no justification to his opinion. 
 Would Mr. C. say, that all the Israelites born in 
 the wilderness, during the forty years of their tra- 
 vel, were unbelievers? I think none will say so. 
 But I observe that every one of them conyerted 
 during their journey, Abraham-like, possessed this 
 righteousness before circuiTvcision; it was not un- 
 til they come intg the land of Canaan, any of 
 them were circumcistd, that were born in the 
 wilderness. Joshua 5. 5. .'Now all the people that 
 come out were circumcised, but all the people that 
 were born in the wilderness by the way as they 
 come forth, them they had not circujDcised.' 
 Yet Mr. C. asserts that circumcision was to Abra- 
 ham, what it never was to- any of his posterity. 
 But all his posterity, who were justitied before 
 they were circumcised, had the blessing? of that 
 covenant scaled to them, precisely as Abraham 
 had; but the states of persons are the same, and 
 the righteousneijs the same, whether it be subse- 
 quent or antecedent to circumcision. A person 
 who by faith was a partaker of this righteousness, 
 before he was circuincised, enjoyed it in the same 
 sense, he did, who was not made partaker ofit- 
 until he was circumcised. This circumstance 
 with respect to the time of being justified, is the 
 alone ground of Mr. C's assertion: yet I think 
 the intelligent reader will say, that it matters not 
 ■when Justification takes place; that the righteous- 
 ness to 'Abraham and his seed was the same, al- 
 though the one was justified antecedent to cir- 
 
BAPTISxM. 129 
 
 cumcision, and the other subsequent to it. 
 
 But Mr. Wo reasoning on this subject (says Mr. 
 C.) 'is a sophism of the first magnitude; because 
 ' it is dra^ving a general conclusion from a parti- 
 cular prieraise.' I reply, that my conclusion is no 
 more general than my premise; because Abraham 
 engaged to the duties of this covenant, as the 
 church, or as the fathcF of the faithful. There- 
 fore that which may be predicated of Abraham 
 sustaining this character, may also be predicated 
 of all his represented seed. 
 
 Indeed, if the premise of my argument had been 
 particular, it would have cut off, the chief source 
 of all the comfort of the church ever since; for 
 if the promise, or blessings or the covenant, had 
 been particularly to Abraham, as Mr. C. suppo- 
 ses; then none of his spiritual seed, could ever 
 have appropriated these promises or claimed 
 these blessings; no individual could vvarrantabiy 
 claim a promise, never addressed to him. Rea- 
 der, view the difference between the faith of A- 
 braham's seed, and Mr. C's opinion. Ex. 32. 13. 
 'Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom 
 thou swearest by thine own self, and saidst unto 
 them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of hea- 
 ven, and all this land, I have spoken of, will I 
 give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for- 
 ever.' But if Abraham, exclusively had been 
 made a possessor of any of the blessings of that 
 covenant, how was it possible for the Jews four 
 hundred and thirty years after that time, to claim 
 the blessings made to him. But common sense 
 will say, that every part of a testament, covenant, 
 or contract to which a seal is affixed, that all their 
 items are equally sealed. But the apostle in the 
 4th. of Rom. only mentions one of these items, viz. 
 
130 BAPTISM. 
 
 the righteousness which Abraham had by faith, 
 which was sealed to him in his circumcision; this 
 was, therefore, with the other blessings of that co- 
 venant sealed to him, and by the reasoning before, 
 was also sealed to his posterity. Moses in the pas- 
 sage cited selects one item of the contract: — 
 Paul cites another; each of their subjects required 
 separate parts of the same covenant. It is only 
 necessary that the apostle should speak ot the 
 time when Abraham was made partaker of righ- 
 teousness But it was necessary for Moses, to 
 call up another part of the same covenant, and to 
 claim its accomplishment to all the congregation 
 of Israel, for whom he plead. Now I ask, by what 
 authority, does Mr. C. declare that one item of 
 this covenant was private, which the apostle tells 
 us was sealed to Abraham by circumcision? 
 when Moses who selects another stipulation of 
 the same covenant, declares it to be public, and 
 equally to belong to the whole comp{<ny of the 
 Jews. Now reader, whether of these two will 
 you believe, Moses the inspired penman, or Mr, 
 C* 
 
 *Mr. C. in order to make a little sport, and 
 call the attention of the reader, from Mr. Ws 
 mode of argument, page 19, creates a syllogism, 
 in which he gives an example of Mr. W's mode 
 of argument, from a particular premise, to a gen- 
 eral conclusion; but he might have saved the rea- 
 der some trouble, either by refering to some of 
 his best arguments, for examples of false reason- 
 ing, or else in opposition to the apostle Paul, prov- 
 ed that Abraham was not the Father of the faith- 
 ful, for without this last he cannot prove that Mr. 
 Ws. premise was particular. 
 
BAPTISM. 131 
 
 It is indeed surprising to witness the efforts 
 made by the Baptists, to destroy the true scripture 
 intent of the rite of circumcision. Mr. C's pre- 
 decessors, attempted to make it only a national 
 distinction. Pedo-Baptists have succeeded in 
 chasing them from this refuge. Mr. C. took no 
 shelter under the covert of this argument. It 
 appears indeed ridiculous to the christian, or even 
 rational world, to hold that up for a rational dis- 
 tinction, which did not distinguish: It was 
 found that circumcision did not distinguish be- 
 tween the Ishmalites and Israelites. 
 
 Mr. C. in order to hold up some substitute, and 
 fill up the chasm made by the loss of this potent 
 argument, invents a new one; or at least an old 
 argument new modelled; that is, circumcision was 
 indeed a seal of the covenant of circumcision, but 
 that covenant only secured temporal blessings, 
 such as a large family to Abraham, and a place 
 for their habitation, the land of Canaan. &c. Let 
 us try for a moment his arguments, and see their 
 conclusions. 
 
 FIRST ARGUMENT. 
 
 Circumcision sealed the land of Canaan to all 
 the specified subjects of the covenant of circum- 
 cision: 
 
 But the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad, and 
 the half tribe of Manasseh were the 'specified 
 subjects of the covenant of circumcision; 
 
 Therefore, the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad 
 and the half tribe of Manasseh, obtained a pos- 
 session in the land of Canaan. 
 
 The conclusion of this syllogism is false — for 
 ' these tribes never got any possession in the land 
 
132 BAPirSiM. 
 
 of Canaan; they possessed the kingdoms of Og 
 and Sihoii on this side Jorda-n. Mr. C's conclusion 
 is false, because tie ^^cripture is true. What turn 
 will he take next? Why! they got the land they 
 desired — true, but tlie force of the argument de- 
 pends upon their getting the land of Cannan. 
 Esau or his children, the Edomites, got the land 
 they desired viz. Mount Seir. They too, were 
 the children of Abraham, and had also the seal of 
 * this covenant in Mr. C's. sen?e. Let uf therefore 
 cori'ect the argument, and make it correspond 
 with truth. 
 
 Circumcision sealed temporal blessings to all the 
 specified subjects of the covenant of circum- 
 cision: 
 
 But (he tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad, and 
 the half tribe of Manasseh, were the specified sub- 
 jects of the covenant of circumcision. 
 
 Therefore, the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad. 
 and the half tribe of Manasseh, had an earthly pos- 
 session secured to them, with other temporal 
 blessings. 
 
 The defect in the first syllogism is, that the first 
 ■term is false — the conclusion fairly founded on it 
 is contrary- to fact; but the last argument, in all 
 its terms, corresponds with fact. 
 
 'If ye be willing and obedient,' is Mr. C's con- 
 dition of this covenant. Perhaps he will say that 
 these tribes were not willing orobedient. In do- 
 ing this, he will again have to create some scrip- 
 ture, to prove that they were more disobedient and 
 unwilling than any of those tribes that did inherit 
 the land of Canaan. 
 
BAPTISM. 138 
 
 SECOND ARGUMENT. 
 
 Circumcision, as the seal of t!ie covenant of 
 circumcision, only secured temporal blessings to 
 its'sprcified subjects. 
 
 But circumcision as a seal of the covenant of 
 bircumcision, secured the righteousness of Christ 
 to Abraham, a specified subject of that covenant, 
 Rom. 4. 11.* 
 
 Therefore, the righteousness of Christ, is only a 
 temporal blessing. 
 
 Although it be unjust to reason from a particu- 
 lar premise to a general conclusion, yet every Lo- 
 gician will say that it is fair to reason from a ge- 
 neral premise, to a particular conclusion. If I 
 make a general assertion, therefore, respecting the 
 covenant of circumcision, that must be true, of ev- 
 ry particular contained in that covenant. 
 
 The assertion of the premise, is often made by 
 Mr. C. 'It contained nothing but temporal bless- 
 ings.' How can he rid himself of the conclusion? 
 because every person knovvs it to be false. Now 
 reader, view his method of escape; circumcision 
 sealed to Abraham, what it did to no other speci- 
 fied subject. Then let us amend the syllogism to 
 
 * I wonder Mr. C. did not propose some a- 
 mendmer.t on the translation of this verse, or a- 
 mend it, as he did the verse in Luke 1. It certain- 
 ly stands much in his road, his most convenient 
 method, will be, to borrow the plan of managing 
 scripture from the Anti-trinitarians, on 1 .John, 5, 
 7, and a few other passages, and urge the fact that, 
 jibe Pedo-JBaptists have put that passage in Rom, 
 N 
 
134 BAPTISM. 
 
 suit Mr. C's exception, and see if it can answer his 
 purpose. 
 
 If the blessings sealed in the covenant of circum- 
 cision were only temporal in their nature, then 
 circumcision could not seal the righteousness of 
 Christ to any of its specified subjects. But the 
 former is true, and therefore the latter. 
 
 This argument would exactly serve his pur- 
 pose, but it has this defect, that it has no scripture 
 to support it; but an abundance of passages to 
 contradict it; particularly that cited from Rom. 
 4. 11. 
 
 Let us therefore, once more correct it, by the 
 word of God, and i-t will aaswcr the purpose of 
 every honest man. 
 
 The covenant of circumcision secured bless- 
 ings, temporal and spiritual, to ail its specified 
 subjects. 
 
 But all believers represented by Abraham, were 
 the specified subjects of that covenant. 
 
 Therefore all believers resprcsented by Abra- 
 ham, have blessing, temporal and spiritual, secured 
 to them, by the covenant of circumcision. Each 
 of the terms of this syllogism corresponds with 
 scripture and with the fact. 
 
 The first term is true, Gen. 17. 7: 'and I will 
 establish my covenant between me and thee' Slc. 
 Rom. 4. 11. 'And he received the sign of circum- 
 cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, • 
 which he had, yet, being uncircumcised.' 
 
 The second term is true Gen. 17. 6: 'and I will 
 make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make na- 
 tions of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.' 
 Rom. 4. 11. 'That he might be the father of all 
 them that believe, though they be not circumci- 
 sed. Rom. 9. 8. 'They who are the children of 
 
BAPTISM. 135 
 
 the flesl), these are not the children of God; but 
 the children of the promise, are counted for the 
 seed.' The conclusion will not be denitd. 
 
 Upon the whole I observe, that it is impossible 
 to foresee the point, to which the votary of absurdi- 
 ty, will travel. Mr. C. will no doubt find some 
 method of cure, although I cannot tell \vha:t it will 
 be: and, no doubt, it will satisfy his deluded follow- 
 ers, yet I think it improbable, he will satisfy himself. 
 
 IV. PROPOSITION. 
 
 That Baptism camQ in the room of circumcision. 
 
 It is evident from the observations made on the 
 preceding proposition, that circumcision was a 
 seal of the covenant of grace, as the same was 
 dispensed under the Old testament dispensation. It 
 was the first seal to be administered, to the subject 
 of that dispensatioD.as a security, for their obtaining 
 the blessings contained in the covenant of grace. 
 That there were many to whom the seal was war- 
 rantably applied, who never were made partakers 
 of its blessings, is granted. So there are many 
 who subscribe with the hand, and affix their seal 
 to obligations, who never discharge the duties re^ 
 quired m the bond. All will therefore grant, that 
 insincerity, or hypocrisy in receiving, or improv- 
 ing the ordinances of the gospel, never destroys 
 their feeing, or varies their nature. Suffice it, to say, 
 tlial all, to whom thete seals are sanctified, pos- 
 sess a full security, to the blessings contained 
 in the covenant of grace. 
 
 We shall now proceed, to prove the doctrine conr 
 fained in the proposition. 
 
136 BAPTISM 
 
 ■ If circumcision was a sacramental seal of ad- 
 mission, into the visible church, then Baptism 
 came in the room of circumcision: but the for- 
 mer we have already proven: the latter follows, 
 by natural inference. Baptists, aware of the con- 
 clusion, have taken care, never to grant the first 
 assertion. They will admit that circumcision 
 was any thing, but a seal of the covenant of grace. 
 Mr. C. who exoells all his predecessors, has 
 with a newly invented tellescope, discovered five 
 new covenants^ out of which he has discovered 
 thai only one of them belonged to the covenant 
 of grace ; the rest were scarcely its satelites. Cir- 
 Gumcision was a seal of one of the smaller cov- 
 enants, but, according to him, vras not a seal of 
 the covenant of grace. 
 
 When we say, that Baptism came in the room of 
 circumcision, we mean no more, than that baptism 
 occupied the same place in the order of its adminis* 
 tralion, and the bkssings it sealed, that circumci- 
 sion did; and as circumcision was first in order, 
 so is baptism. That it is sinful for an unbaptised 
 person to partake of the Lords supper, is granted; 
 baptism must precede. But with respect to the sa- 
 cranicnt of the passover, the observation is equally 
 true. Ex. 12. 48. 'And.when a stranger shall so- 
 journ with thee, and will keep the passover unto 
 the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and 
 then let him come near and keep it; and he shall 
 be as one that is born in the land: for no uncir- 
 Gumcised person shall eat thereof.' 
 
 But the spiritual import of the ordinances, es- 
 tablishes the truth of my proposition. Persons tO' 
 be publickiy acknowledged Christ's disciples, 
 must be cleansed by ^the 'washing of regeneration, 
 and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.' Tit. 3. 5. 
 
BAPTISM. 137 
 
 • 
 
 Which is emblematically set forth in the rite of 
 b.iptism. In like manner regeneration, or circum- 
 cision of the heart, was required of all those, who 
 were under the former dispensation, constituted 
 members. Ezek. 44. 9. 'Thussaith the Lord God, 
 no stranger, uncirctinicised in heart, nor uncir- 
 cumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, 
 ©f any slranger that is among the children of Is- 
 rael.' 
 
 As we approach nigher to the point of dispute, 
 for fear of the consequences arising from princi- 
 ples established, Mr. C. while he reasons no bet- 
 ter, declaims more heavily. By serious reasoning, 
 by prophane sport, and by consequences without 
 premises, he attempts to bear otf the prize to the 
 Baptists. There are seven points of difference, 
 between these ordinances, that render our propo- 
 sitions entirely absurd — yet reader, let us seri- 
 ously examine these, and you will find they shall 
 at last appear like his six new covenants, only one, 
 we have these detailed at length, pages 12, 13. 
 
 'Babtism differs from circumcision, first in the 
 ' sex of its subjects, men and women were bap- 
 * tised, males only were circumcised.' After the 
 full reply made to this objection by Mr. Edwards 
 and other Pedo-Baptist writers, we thought the 
 objection would rise no more. We shall how- 
 ever give it all the force to which it is entitled. I 
 would then observe: 
 
 .1st. The dispute in this place, is not the number, 
 or quality of the subjects of this ordinance. But 
 we now dispute respecting the nature of the ordi- 
 nances, as seals of a covenaQt. 5ut it is self evi- 
 dent, that the difference, or agreement could never 
 be learned from the number of the subjects to 
 which either was applied. 
 
 N 2 
 
138 BAPTISM. 
 
 « 
 
 2nd. The whole force of the objection consists 
 in the limitation allowed by the head of the church, 
 in the number of the specified subjects of circum- 
 cision. But if HE chose at any future period, to ex- 
 tend that limitation, will any person hence infer^ 
 *hat the very nature of the ordinance is thereby 
 changed.'' 
 
 3rd. If, in any period of the church,^women were 
 excluded, by the divine command, from affixing one 
 of the seals to the covenant of grace, and after- 
 wards, by the same Lord, this privilege was ex- 
 tended to them, who is prepared to say with Mr. 
 C. that, therefore, the seals were not ihe same in 
 iheir nature and intent? 
 
 4th. It produces no change, either in a bond, or 
 its seals, if in addition to its few original signers, 
 some, more should afterwards ehoose te come un- 
 der its obligations, and enjoy its privileges by 
 subscribing their names, and affixing their seals.* 
 
 *lt appears from a note in Mr. C's. book P. 24, 
 25. that he had become something entangled with 
 ihis observation of Mr. W. and that in an inter- 
 val of the debate, he had taken legal council on 
 the argument. Whether he had obtamed the coun- 
 cil by the payment of a fee, or obtained it grat- 
 is, he does not say. Yet I would inform the law- 
 yer and Wys client Mr. O. that they are both 
 wrong. 'He (viz. the lawyer) observed, that Mr.. 
 'Ws. argument from a bond was predicated upon 
 
 * a gross mistake of the true nature of a bond.' 
 He adds, 'If there were a thousand names, or only 
 
 * one, added to a bond, it wrould avail those names 
 
 * nothing, unless there were some specifications,^ 
 ' in the bond concerning them.' The latter asser- 
 tion of the lawyer may be admitted, but it proved 
 
BAPTISM, 1S9 
 
 Women were never excluded, in conspquence of 
 the difference of sex, from enjoying the benefits 
 of thi? covpnanl; they were only excluded from af- 
 fixinga visibiti seal, they are now admitted; not by 
 changing the seal, but by extending the privi- 
 lege. 
 
 I think these rea3ons conclusive. Had Mr. C. 
 been serious, he woold not have diverted the 
 mind of the reader, by calling his attention to the 
 different privileges of the subjects of the cove- 
 nant of grace, in order thereby either to prove 
 that there were different covenants or seals. The 
 dispensation, under which, it is our privilege to 
 live, knows no difference between Jew, or Greek; 
 
 nothing absurd in Mr. Ws assertion. It will ap- 
 pear from the following examples. England and 
 America made a nr.tional covenant sixty years ago; 
 to this covenant there is an addition of millions, on 
 each side, by birth, emigration &c. query is there 
 any alteration in the bond? Though every indi- 
 vidual is bound in the same sense, they would be, 
 if their names were subscribed, and their seals af- 
 fixed. Again: A father made a will: eight 
 months after he died, his wife was delivered of an- 
 other heir to the estate, query, would not this 
 ehild, be bound by the obligation of the father's 
 will, or covenant, and entitled to the privileges 
 of it? 
 
 So precisely is it with the bond of which I 
 spoke, the number of i^ heirs, vary in every sep- 
 parate age. Yet the covenant itself continues 
 the same, and its seals the same. The reader 
 who may neither be preacher nor lawyer, may 
 come to a knowledge of Mr. W's. assertion with- 
 out the cost or trouble of Mr. C, 
 
140 BAPTISM. 
 
 bond, or free; mple, or ffinale. In a]] these re- 
 spects the former dispensation did distirguish, 
 the ppecia] exercise '^f grr.ce, under that dispen- 
 sation, was corfired claefly to the Jews. Should 
 I now reason from this fact, as Mr. C. does, he 
 would refuse my conclusion, for the same reason I 
 refuse his. Reader, look, at the force of his argu- 
 ment; just by changing the subjects, I shall, upon 
 his plan, prove that saving grace in the hearts of 
 believers, is now riiffe ent, from that saving grace 
 which existed in the hearts of believers, under the 
 Old testament. 
 
 If saving grace, under the Old testament, 
 was chiefly confined to the Jewish nation, 
 
 Tlien saving grace is not of the same nature, un- 
 der the present dispensation, it was, under the for- 
 mer. 
 
 But the former is true ; and therefore the latter. 
 
 Mr. CamphelVs Argument. 
 
 If circumcision under the Old testament was 
 confined to the male posterity of Abraham, 
 
 Then Baptism, the present seal of the covenant 
 of grace, is notol the same nature of circumcision, 
 a seal under the former dispensation. 
 
 But the former is true, and therefore the latter. 
 
 Every reason Mr. C. can offer, to prove the 
 truth of the last syllogism, will bear with equal, 
 force upon, the separate terms of the first — but the 
 first is known by every person to be false, and as 
 the second is established in the same manner, it 
 must of necessity be also false. 
 
 The truth of my observations, is unanswerably 
 confirmed by the apostle, in the passage last cited. 
 Formerly, the privilege of a Jew, above a Greek, 
 
BAPTISM. 141 
 
 was much greater; now, in Christ, they are equal. 
 In the same manuer, the privilege of a free man 
 excelled that of a bondman: now they are the 
 same. So that dispensation of grace distinguished 
 between male and female, this is no more. But 
 the addition of Greek converts to the church, 
 Christ found on earth, varied not the nature of that 
 grace that subdued both. In like manner, the ad- 
 dition of women, by the administration of bap- 
 tism, the first seal of the covenant of grace, did 
 not vary the nature of that seal. 
 
 'Secondly, it differs from circumcision in the . 
 * age of its subjects. Baptism has no age speci- 
 ' fied for any of its subjects,' P. 12. I now agree 
 with Mr. C. that, baptism has no age specified for 
 any of its subjects.' From the birth to the grave, 
 this ordinance may be administered. It is equal- 
 ly true that the male children of the Jews were 
 ordered by the divine law, to be circumciseti on 
 the eighth day. Yet the reasoning of Mr. C. from 
 this fact, is a sophism of the same nature, with the 
 pi'eceding difference, to which we have replied, 
 because: 
 
 1st. The difference stated, depends not on the 
 nature, either of circumcision or baptism, but only 
 on the time of admini'^tration, the difference con- 
 sists therefore in something without the ordinance, 
 a mere circumstance attending it. 
 
 2rid. To circumcise on the eighth day, was not 
 essential to the being of the ordinance, because we 
 find that there was no circumcision during the 
 travel of Israel in tie wilderness — Joshua, 5. 3, 4, 
 5, 6, 7. The divine law never did attach that im- 
 portance to the eighth day, Mr. C's. argument 
 does. The law did yoi^itively require the perfor- 
 mance of the rite of circumcision; but it did not 
 
142 BAPTISM. 
 
 as positively require the performance of it on the 
 eighth day, as Mr. C. supposes. God declared 
 that he would cut off the uncircumcised man from 
 his people; but §ives no hint that he would cut off 
 those not circumcised on the eighth day; for had 
 this been the statute, then all the males born in 
 the wilderness, must have been cut off. It is evi- 
 dent therefore that the the whole force of Mr. C's. 
 argument, depends upon a circumstance accompa- 
 nying this ordinance, which was not essential to 
 its being. 
 
 But suppose the statute had bt^en, that all the 
 males should be circumcised when infants, then 
 Mr. C. would have asserted, as he did in the de- 
 bate, that child, infant 4t- meant people of thirty 
 years of age; persons arrived to the years of ma- 
 turity. This he proved from some old books, but 
 not from scriptures, Pedo-Baptist's have the advan- 
 tage in this place, the time when, this sacrament 
 might be administered, was specified — it was on 
 the eighth day. The reason, no doubt, of this po- 
 sitive injunction, — the particular specification of 
 the time, was to pre\ent undue delay: had no time 
 been specified, under one pretext or other, the rite 
 would have been neglected, and in many cases, 
 entirely omitted: some would have cavilled, per- 
 haps like Mr. C. andshe^^n by strong arguments, 
 that infant or child meant people of thirty years of. 
 age; to prevent this, the time was specified. 
 
 But the only argument, that should be drawn 
 from this circumstance, by baptist orPedo-Baptist, 
 is, that utidtr the foimer dispensation, persons 
 were admitted members of the visible church 
 when infants. Now reader look at Mr. C's, dif- 
 ference in its tfue dress. 
 
BAPTISM. 143 
 
 If circumcision was performed on the eighth 
 day, 
 
 Then baptism could not come in the room of 
 circumcK^ion: 
 
 But the former is true, and therefore the latter. 
 
 We refuse to admit the conclusion, from the 
 importance attached bj' the argument to the eighth 
 day: let us therefore amend the argument, by the 
 facts as establrshed by scripture. 
 
 If circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness 
 of Christ, was administered to persons in a state 
 of infancy, 
 
 Then baptism may also be administered toper- 
 sons of that age. 
 
 But the former is true, and therefore the latter. 
 The truth of this argument will appear from 
 the following summary observations: 
 
 1st. It was not essential to tlie being of circum- 
 cision, that it be administered on the eighth day, 
 from that day, to the seventy-fifth year, we have 
 it performed by divine command. 
 
 2nd. Baptism may be performed on the eighth, 
 tenth, or on any day. 
 
 3rd. From a collection of scripture facts, no 
 more importance is essentially attached to the time 
 ot circumcision, than is to the time of baptism. 
 
 4th. Difference. 'Baptism differs from circum- 
 ' cision, in the prerequisites required to apartici- 
 ' pation of the ordinance, circumcision required 
 
 * only carnal descent from Abraham, or covenant 
 
 * relation to Abraham, but baptism requires no car- 
 ' nal relation to Abraiiam, it requires simply faith 
 
 * in Christ, as its sole prerequisite. If thou be- 
 
 * lievest with all thine heart, thou mayest No 
 ' faith, was required as a sine qua noUf to circuraci- 
 
144 BAPTISM. 
 
 *6ion. But the New testament requires faith, ss a 
 ^sine qua jiom, to baptism.' Acts 8. 37. 
 
 I have not genorally, blamed Mr. C. for inge- 
 nuity of arguinetit. I have considered his soph- 
 isms, rather naked and exposed. This last differ- 
 ence is one of this kirid. He is contrasting two 
 ordinances, in order to fir.d the difference between 
 them, tobeof that nalure, and n.agnitude, that 
 they cannot be of the same import; and therefore 
 that the one car not come in the room of the other. 
 But in the coniraist here made, he should either 
 have left out 'Covetiant relction to Abraham' 
 when speaking of circumcision, or else continued 
 it, when speaking of baptism; for otlterwise the 
 contrast was not fair. But neither of these he 
 dare do. If he had omitted it altogether, the 
 most ignorant person, that could read the scrip- 
 tures, would have asked him for a warrant to cir- 
 cumcise Jewish prosylites, that had no carnal re- 
 lation to Abraham. He dare not have omitted it 
 in the subject of baptism; for then he must have 
 turned Pedo-Baptist, and lost his aim: because, 
 a covenant relation to Abraham, is the reason 
 mentioned by the apostle Peter, why the children 
 of his hearers were entitled to baptism. Acts. 2. 
 38,39. 'Then Peter said unto them, repent and 
 be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Je- 
 sus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall 
 receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; for the pr6r 
 mise is unto you and your children.' Should 
 you ask, to whom was this promise made? It 
 is answered to .Abraham ; and through him, to his 
 spiritual seed. So reasons the apostle Paul. 'If 
 ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
 heirs according to proAiise.' The strength of Mr. 
 C's argument depends upon the difference of the 
 prerequisites: 
 
BAPTISM. 145 
 
 1st. Carnal descent from Abraham. This how- 
 ever, nill not answer his purpose; because it is 
 not a fact. Carnal descent was not essentially 
 necessary, in erder to entitle to circumcision. 
 Were Abraham's servants, born in his house, or 
 bought with bis money, or those heathens who be- 
 came the proselytes of the Jewish religion, Abra- 
 honvs by carnal descent? They were to be cir- 
 cumcised, and yet they did not possess Mr. C's 
 prerequisite. 
 
 When a scriptural view is taken of this sobject, 
 Mr. C's prerequisite disappears. For a long peri- 
 od, the gospel was in a great measure, confined to 
 the natural posterity of Abraham. The promise 
 xvas addressed to them, and not to the other nations 
 of the world. This continued through the former 
 dispensation. So the apostle declares, Rom. 9. 4. 
 'Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adop- 
 tion, and the glory, and the covenants, and the 
 giving of the law, and the service of God, and the 
 promises.' But it is absurd to say that gospel or- 
 dinances ehould extend beyond gOspel promise; 
 this would be, to give ordinances to those who had 
 no warrant to receive them. But, as the promi- 
 ses for that time, were chiefly confined to that peo- 
 ple, so must the ordinances also. Circumcision, 
 precisely like baptism, must extend only to its 
 proper subjects; it belonged to the promise to point 
 these out. The law, under both dispensations, 
 lequired the administration of the ordinances; but 
 it belonged to the promises to point out the pro- 
 per subjects; a few observations will discover the 
 true merit of Mr. C's distinguishing prerequisite. 
 
 It was but a small share of Abraham's 
 natural seed, who were to be circumcised. This 
 tile he was bounds to perform on his servants said 
 O 
 
146 BAPTISM. 
 
 OP his children; but there is no hint given, that this 
 was to be continued to their posterity. Balaam 
 was, I suppose, as truly a son of Abraham, as Mo- 
 se? was. Will Mr. C. say, that he was under the 
 same obligatioa to be circumcised? He was a 
 Midianite, a >^on of Abraham by Keturah. Or were 
 all the hosts of wandering Arabs, that traverse the 
 wide deserts, under the same obligation to receive 
 this rite, the Jews were? Yet all these possessed 
 Mr. C's prerequisites; carnal descent. 
 
 This, reader, is the reason he uses the words 
 'covenant relation;' because he found something 
 else necessary, than merely carnal descent. 
 This latter clause, he should retain and remove 
 the former; or agree that all the worshipping as- 
 semblies that met at Jerusalem, from any thing in 
 the covenant of circumcision, assembled in no 
 other character, than an Arabian Caravan; for 
 they all possessed Mr. C's prerequisite. The cav- 
 enant relatio7i makes the difference, I grant. The 
 one was a people in covenant with God; the 
 other was not. For this I contend, so does Mr. 
 C. in this difference; yet, in other places denies it. 
 
 2nd. 'But baptism requires no carnal relation to 
 ' Abraham; it requires simply faith in Christ, as 
 its sole prerequisite. 'If thou believest with all 
 ' thine heart thou mayest:' no faith was required 
 
 * as a sine qua non to circumcision. But the New 
 ' testament presents fnilh, as a sine qua non to 
 
 * Baptism.' Acts. 8 37 
 
 To faith, as a conditio sine qua non of bap- 
 tism, we shall attend in its proper place. But 
 what I sh^U endeavour to establi^Jh in this place, is, 
 that it is ho more a prerequisite of Baptism, than 
 it was of circumcision. 
 
 I observe that it will be granted on all sides. 
 
BAPTISM. 147 
 
 that the Jews were under tlie same moral obliga- 
 tion fobtlieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, that the 
 church, under the present dispensation is. 'The 
 ju.>t sliall live by faith,' was as characteristic of 
 the Old, as of the New testament saints. It was 
 as truly the ground of their ju-stification, as it is of 
 ours. That it was as necessary, that faith should 
 precede their receipt of ordinances, as it is, that 
 it should precede ours, should not, by any profes- 
 sor of the christian religion, be denied. 
 
 A Jewish prosolyle testified his assent to the 
 gospel, by his submitting to the rite of circumci- 
 sion, in the same manner as a heathen would now, 
 by his receiving the ordinance of baptism. Mem- 
 bers of both dispensations were equally bound to 
 belie\e; because, without faith it was ever impos- 
 sible to please God. By what authority then, 
 does Mr C. require it as a prerequisite to baptism 
 and not to circumcision. That an adult should 
 believe before he is baptized, I grant. But that faith 
 preceded the circumcision of Abraham, is proved 
 in the epistle to the Rom. I would further ask, 
 was not a Jewish prosolyte bound to believe be- 
 fore he was circumcised? Mr. C. will grafjt this 
 in some sense. He was bound to believe the pro- 
 mises of God, made in the covenant of circumci- 
 sion, respecting temporal blessings; because cir- 
 cumcision sealed these. No matter, t\\\? faith was 
 as really a prerequisite to his admission to the or> 
 dinance of circumcision, as saving faith is, in or- 
 der to our admission to the sacrament of baptism: 
 and children, being circumcised, when eight days 
 old, would form no excuse to the prosolyte, for be- 
 ing without iaith. Would it have been a duty for 
 one of these converts to the Jewish religion, in the 
 waj of discrediting God's promises, respecting the 
 
148 BAPTISM. 
 
 earthly Canaan, to have submitted to the rite of 
 circumcision? Would not such conduct have 
 been consummate hypocrisy? Mr. C. therefore, 
 makes no escape by this distinguishing prerequi- 
 site. 
 
 It teaches a new doctrine, that a person may 
 warrantably, have a faith in the promises of God, 
 respecting temporal blessings, and yet possess no 
 faith m the promises respecting spiritual blessings; 
 and that the former is accepted of God without 
 the latter. It is plainly this, that an adult might 
 be admitted to profess the Jewish religion, by a 
 faith in the promises of the covenant of circumci- 
 sion, all of which were temporal, whereas, a per- 
 son to bs admitted a member of Ihe New testa- 
 ment church, must have saving faith in the pro- 
 mises of the covenant of grace, of such doctrines, 
 the simple statement, is a sufficient refutation. 
 
 '■ In the 4th place baptism differs from circum- 
 ' cision, in the character of its administrators. Pa* 
 ' rents, relations, or civil officers, performed the 
 ' rite of circumcision. Thus Zipporah circumci- 
 ' sed the son of Moses; Joshua circumcised the 
 * Jews.* Baptism is an ordinance connected with 
 ' the ministry of Jesus Christ.' Page 13. 
 
 Mr. C. is evidently at a great loss to invent dif-- 
 ferences between these ordinances; or he would 
 never have tried this difference. To expose it, 
 however, and give the most ignorant reader an op- 
 
 *This example ol Joshua circumcising the 
 Jews, proves that civil officers did it — Mr. C. you 
 should have told your readers that Joshua did it, 
 in the same way king Solomon built the temple* 
 I suppose neither Solomon nor Joshua touched ei;- 
 ther of these pieces of labor. 
 
BAPTlSxM. MO* 
 
 portunity of judging of its true merit, we shall 
 give one of a similar kind. On his plan of argu- 
 ment, I shall prove this position: that offering 
 sacrifices hefore the flood, and for 600 years after, 
 was entirely distinct in its nature and end. from the- 
 ordinance, from that time to the death of Christ. 
 Aiad I establish this position from a well known 
 fact, that prior to the Aaronic priesthood, every 
 person offered their own sacrifices, A king of 
 Judah, for offering sacrifices, was struck with the 
 plague of Leprosy, which deed, would, however, 
 have been perfectly warrantable, prior to the de- 
 liveringofthe law from Mt, Sinai. Now although 
 my difference possesses all the force of the one 
 which Mr. C. presents, yet will any person be so 
 ignorant as to believe me? 
 
 Christ Jesus, as the alone head of the church, 
 possesses the alone right of instituting its ordinan- 
 ces, and appointing administrators as he pleases. 
 He instituted the ordinance of circumcision; and 
 as long as the initiating seal of the covenant of 
 grace was administred in the rite of circumcision, 
 he made no special appointment of administrators. 
 But when he changed the form of the seal, he ap- 
 pointed special administrators for tiie ordinance. 
 This difference merits no further attention. 
 
 'In the 5th place baptism differs from circum- 
 ' cision, in its emblematical import. Baptism is 
 ' emblematical of our death unto sin, our burial 
 * with Christ, and our resurrection with him, into 
 ' newness of life» Circumcision was a sign of the 
 '■ separation of the Jews, from all the human fami- 
 ' ly; and it was a type of the death, or circumci- 
 ' sion of Christ.' Page 13. 
 
 Perhaps I do not understand Mr. C's. mode of 
 expression, although we should grant all that he 
 O 2 
 
150 BAPTISM. 
 
 says*, sttll it is difficult to perceive the difference, 
 The sum, of Mr. C's statement is, that baptism is 
 emblematical of our deliverance from sin, and of 
 our union to Christ: so that we die with him and 
 live with him. And of circumcision, that it was a 
 separation of the Jews from the rest of the world, 
 and a typical representation of the death of Christ. 
 Because if we be delivered from sm, and united 
 to Christ, as he says baptism imports; and by cir- 
 cumcision separated and distinguished from the 
 world, and directed by faith:j: to the death of 
 Christ, v/hicli he says is its typical import; why 
 then distinguish it from baptism, which he de- 
 clares to be emblematical of our burial with 
 Christ.-* This difference, if language has any 
 meaning, so far from distinguishing, concedes the 
 two ordinances to bo one in import. 
 
 *Mr. C. in his strictures, does not, indeed, appro- 
 bate, in high language, Mr. W's. understanding; 
 lie will therefore, more readily forgive his dullness 
 of perception. 
 
 +Mr. C. has conceded more in this difference, 
 ihan some of his readers, perhaps are aware. He 
 Jjas told us, that circumcision was typical of the 
 death of Christ, how will this comport with some 
 other declarations, 'it was carnal.' 'It sealed 
 temporal blessings only.'" I have added the words 
 by faith, because there is no other way for either 
 New or Old testament saints, righteously to view 
 the death of Christ: although I believe the author 
 would not have put them in. Notwithstanding of 
 all Paul says about the faith of Old testament 
 saints, Mr. C. ?i^ys very little about it. 
 
BAPTISM. 151 
 
 In this 'diflference, as in many other places, we 
 are indebted to Mr. C. for the inventio;'' of a new 
 doctrine, that 'circumcision was a type of the 
 death of Christ.' H \d thi.-« iden been revealed to 
 Paul in iiis pubHc dispute with Peter, it would 
 have finished his opponent. Hi^d he proved 
 to Peter, that circumcision was a shadow, Peter 
 would have united with him in declaring, that it 
 must have disappeared upon the coming of the 
 substance. But Paul was more fond of truth than 
 of novelty; and takes the Pedo-Baptist ground, 
 that circumcision was a seal of the covenant of 
 grace, as administered under the Old testament; 
 and therefore, Jie who affixed this seal made him- 
 self a 'debtor to the whole law;' As any person 
 woudd be bound to all the items of a bond, who 
 would subscribe his hand and set his seal. Cir- 
 cumcision was, I grant, performed in an age of 
 types; many typical things were in connexion with 
 it; but that it was a typical rite, I never before un- 
 derstood. There is a "difference between that 
 which is typical and that which is emblematical. 
 Circumcision was the -latter, but not the former. 
 Let us however, take a view of the natural import 
 of these ordinances. 
 
 1st, The doctrine taught in circumcision, was 
 the regeneration of the heart, Deut. 3. S, 6. 'And 
 the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart,' 
 compared with passages already quoted. This 
 intimates the true import of the rite of circumci- 
 sion, that the sword in the hand of the spirit, could 
 separate sin from the soul. We find the word em- 
 ployed by the Holy Spirit for this purpose in the 
 work of regeneration, Heb. 4. 12. 'For the word 
 of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than 
 afiy two edged sword, piercing even to the divid- 
 
152 BAPTISM. 
 
 jng asundftr of soul and spirit, and of tlie joints 
 and marr-w.' It would be absuid to apply anv 
 rite to a subject of which it was not emblVmali- 
 cal; but circumcision is used as descriptive of re- 
 generation. The work of regeneration, tlierefore, 
 was pointed out in circumcision.* That this same 
 doctrine is taught in scripture, is not denied. 
 
 2nd. Circumcision is used to express external 
 holiness, or holiness as manisfested in the lan- 
 guage of abelievtr; thus we find uncircumcision 
 applied to designate the contrary of that holiness, 
 Ex. 6. 12. 'How then shall Pharaoh hear me, 
 who am a man of uncircumcised lips?' We find 
 the prophet Isaiah, used the word unclean in the 
 same sense; Isaiah, 6. 5. 'I am a man of unclean 
 lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of un- 
 clean lips.' Now, because the waht of water con- 
 stitutes a pt^rson unclean, or the washing of it, 
 clean, and this is true in a moral sense with re- 
 spect to baptism: and, because uncircumcision 
 was used to point out the same kind of unclean- 
 
 *A11 that Mr. C. says on this subject is lost. 
 He finds it always easier, to reply to doctrines 
 he invented for his opponent, than to reply to those 
 his opponent did use. Let us hear him: 'To 
 'substantiate this answer, Mr. W. quoted, Deut. 
 ' 30. 6. From which verse he attempted to prove, 
 ' that the promise to circumcise their heart, implied 
 ' all spiritual blessings 1' Mr. W. did not say so; 
 what he said, was that for God to circumcise the 
 heart, implied that the subject was interested in 
 all the spiritual blessings of the covenant of grace; 
 because that the heart that is regenerated, will aj- 
 so be sanctified, and the person, in due time, Glo- 
 rified. I have said Mr. C. lost his subject, wft 
 
BAPTISM, 153 
 
 iiess, it follows, that the ordinances of circumci- 
 sion and baptism were of the same import; and 
 therefore, baptism, because it was of the same 
 signification, came in the room of circumcision. 
 But, that their import was the same, will appear 
 by observing, 
 
 Srd. That the want of circumcision declared 
 the character of a person unholy. So the sons 
 of Jacob refused to have any connexion with the 
 men of Shechem, until they became circumcised, 
 Gen. 24. 83, throughout the whole Old testa- 
 ment scriptares, by way of contempt, the hea- 
 thens are called uncircumcised. But, that the 
 want of baptism will imply the same unholiness 
 of character will not be denied. It follows, that 
 as it respects the character of persons, the im- 
 port of these ordinances were the same; and, 
 therefore, baptism might come in the room of 
 circumcision. 
 
 But why should any, declaring the scriptures to 
 be the word of God, dispute this point? The 
 Old and New testament scriptures, unite on this 
 subject, in declaring their import to be the same, 
 particularly in regeneration, the great leading 
 
 dispute respecting the nature of circumcision; 
 Mr. C. denied, Mr. W. affirmed, that regeneration 
 was the true import of the ordinance of circum- 
 cision. It wag not introduced by Mr, W. as Mr. 
 C. has it, P. 77, to prove that the import of the 
 two covenants were the same; but, to prove that 
 the import of the two ordmances, Circumcision 
 and Baptism were the same. Thus, by misrepre- 
 sentation, he takes care never fairly to discuss, or 
 even confute this assertion, that regeneration was 
 the true import of the rite of circumcision. 
 
154 BAPTISM. 
 
 doctrine taug])t in baptism. So the want of ears 
 to hear, is used invariably in scripture, to denote 
 the want of a heart opened by the spirit of God. 
 'He that hath ears to hear, If-.t him hear.' But 
 iincircumcision of the ear, is used to denote this. 
 Jer. 6. 10 'To whom shall I speak and give 
 warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ear 
 is uncircumcised, and they cannot barken.' We 
 find Stephen, in a New testament discourse, 
 preached immediately before his death, use this 
 word in the same sense. Acts, 7. 51. 'Ye stiff- 
 necked, and uncircumcised in heart, ye do always 
 resist the Holy Spirit.' 
 
 A subject so plainly taught in scripture should 
 not be controverted. But so it is, and such it will 
 be, in every age, with the deluded votaries of mi- 
 serable pystems; Mr. C. takes a plan, P. 77 to di- 
 vert the reader from the true signification of the 
 expression, to circumcise. 'In the days of Moses, 
 it was a promise, relatmg to events then future.' 
 I reply, that as it respects the subject in dispute, 
 I care not whether it respects events, future or 
 present; it is the import of the rite itself, upon 
 which we dispute. Is it used to signify regene- 
 ration? is the question; whether the regenera- 
 tion of New or Old testament saints? Let Mr. C. 
 gain his point, as it respects futurity, we have 
 gained it, in signiftcation,* the only thing in dis- 
 pute. 
 
 *This 77, P. of Mr. C's work, is sufficient to de- 
 stroy his whole theory, although he had been or- 
 thodox in every other point, and to my mind it 
 bears strong evidence of this fact; that, while he 
 is struggling hard to obtain converts to his public 
 theory, he does not believe it himself, e. g. 'I 
 
BAPTISM. 155 
 
 This difFerence, the Baptist have always made; 
 because tli**y i-.re deitrmirif^d that circumcision 
 shall be proved to b( a rite only carnal. They 
 know, if the contrary is proven, their peculiar 
 system is no more. 'Let God be true, and every 
 man a liar.' After all thur exertion.^, they have 
 lost their aim. It is not a national distinction, 
 for it did not distinguish them from other nations. 
 It was no security, for the possession of the land 
 of Canaan, because many of the specified subjects 
 of the Old covenant, never did inherit that land, 
 although Ihey were as willing and obedient as 
 those were, who did inherit it; and every thing 
 else taught by circumcision is also taught by 
 Baptism. 
 
 6th. Difference. 'Baptism differs from circura- 
 
 will circumcise ihiiie lieart, and the heart of thy 
 sted,' (this word seed., Mr. C. witlUiis usual free- 
 dom, calls children. 1 would be sprry to use the 
 same freedom with tl.e scriptures,) he declares 
 respects futurity and for the proof of this, cites the 
 denunciations and promises mentioned in the 
 same chapter, which respects the captivity of the 
 Jivvs and thvir return. And, therefore, this pro- 
 mise of the circumcision of the heart could not 
 take place until more than Eight hundred years 
 after it was given. This denies, that any Old tes- 
 tament saint, until that time, could apply this 
 promise; or, in other words, that there were none 
 circumcised in heart, until after their return, 
 from the Babylonish captivity; a fact, which nei- 
 ther Mr. C. nor any of his followers can believe. If 
 I have now done, as Mr. Ralston did, let the world 
 see his system, he will, no doubt, add it to his list 
 of misrepresentations^ 
 
156 BAPTISM. 
 
 * cipion in the part of tl e sys'em, tliat ivas the 
 
 * subject of the oper-tion. P' do Baptists apply 
 
 * water to the face. Surely they do not suppose 
 ^ that the Jews crtumcised in the face. Baptists 
 ' apply wftter to the whole person. Neither Bap- 
 ' tist nor Pedo Baptist applies water to the precise 
 
 * part.afFtcted in the rite of circumcision.' P. 13. 
 
 It 16 difficult for me to discover any other de- 
 sign in this differetice; than a little prophane sport. 
 Even Mr. C. could not think that this ditference 
 could possibly do any thing for his system. But, 
 lest any reader should be so ignorant, as not to 
 discover his sophism, we shall undress it, and let 
 him see it as it is. Did baptism come in the 
 room of circumcision? Mr. C. says, No. Wfjy? 
 he answers, because the same precise parts of the 
 human body are not affected by the rites. That, 
 although circumcision was a seal of the covenant 
 of grace, and of the same covenant, that baptism 
 also is a seal, yet the one could not come in the 
 roomof the other, because the same precise parts 
 were not affected in the rites. 
 
 The weight of the objection, will appear, by a 
 plain example. The Congress of the United 
 States, 40 years ago, ofdained that any persons, in 
 giving bonds, notes, &c. should subscribe their 
 names, and affix a cross ^ for a seal. Last session 
 they repealed that statute; and ordained that a 
 circular mark made with a pen, ^.after signing the 
 name, should be the seal of such obligations. 
 Mr. C*s heading the faction, declares that the cir- 
 cular mark could not possibly come in the room of 
 the crosffmarfc, for this unanswerable reason, that 
 it is not the same shape, of if, by the same act of 
 Congress, the part of the paper on which the sig- 
 nature and seal were to be affixed, was also chang- 
 
BAPTISM. 157 
 
 ed,ihen by Mr. C. the cross warfc cannot come in 
 the room of the eircular mark because the seal was 
 to be lound on a different part of the paper, on 
 which the bond was written. 
 
 More than three thousand years ago, Christ Je- 
 sus, the supreme authority over the church, ordain- 
 ed, that tJie cutting off a piece of flesh, should, as 
 a maik, be a seal of the blessings contained in the 
 covenant of grace. Nearly eighteen hundred 
 years ago, he changed the external form of the seal, 
 and, instead of the painful rite of circumcision, he 
 appointed the application of water. Who will 
 hence argue, that therefore, baptism did not come 
 in the room of circumcision? Mr. C. will perhaps, 
 say, that he has not granted that circumcision was 
 a seal of the covenant of grace. He has not indeed 
 granted this; but I observe that the su6/ccf in dis- 
 pute, is not thereby atfecied. He may call these 
 seals or not, as he please? ; but he is here proving that 
 the one could not come in the room of the other, 
 because they afliected different parts of the body. 
 The reasons for this assertion, is the only thing 
 here to which we have called the attention of the 
 reader. 
 
 7th. Difference. 'Baptism differs from circum- 
 
 * cision in the blessings it conveys. Circumcision 
 ' conveyed no spiritual blessings. Baptism 
 
 * conveys no temporal, but spiritual blessings.' 
 Page 13. 
 
 To this difference I have already fully replied. 
 Had the assertion of Mr C. in this place been true, 
 it would have indeed affected the point; but we 
 have proven that the blessings sealed were the 
 same; which ends all the intended force of this dif- 
 ference. From the bantering commencement of 
 Mr. C, on these seven points of difference, we ex* 
 P 
 
158 BAPTISM. 
 
 pected thathe would have attempted to have es- 
 tablished his position, by such arguments as af- 
 fected the nature of the ordinances. No — he 
 superficially calls the attention of his readers to 
 those external points of difference, which although 
 they had been true, would not have affected the 
 point in question; this last difference is the only 
 exception, and its assertion, upon investigation, 
 is found not true. 
 
 We shall now take some view of the different 
 methods of escape, by which he tries to rid hini- 
 self of the force of objections. 
 
 ' With regard to their not circumcising on the 
 ' 8th day for 40 years; while travelling to Caanan; 
 ' it is nothing to the purpose; for this plain reason, 
 ' that circumcision, during this period, was entire- 
 ' ly given up. It was performed at no age.' P. 18. 
 
 What was the intention of Mr. C. by this obser- 
 vation? It was to save himself from being caught 
 in a plain absurdity. He had been proving that 
 baptism could not come in the room of circumci- 
 sion, because it was essential, to the being of this 
 rite, that it be administered on the 8th day. It ap- 
 pears Mr. W. had denied the truth of his assertion, 
 and declared that, by divine command, hundreds 
 of thousands of the Jews, had been circumcised 
 between their birth and fortieth year; no covenant 
 alteration could be made upon the passage in 
 Joshua, upon which the assertion was foundedi 
 However, the part quoted from Mr. C's book ac- 
 counts for it, and the reason is plain; that during 
 this period, circumcision was er.tirely given up. 
 I grant this, Mr. C. — but what will your plain rea- 
 son prove? this is the alone conclusion, that there 
 were 40 years the Jews did not circumcise; but 
 every person grants this. Yet the matter in dis- 
 
BAPTISM. 159 
 
 pute is not thereby affected. The dispute is, is 
 there any thing in the nature of the rite of cir- 
 cumcision, or any thing in the divine command 
 that forbids the administration of it, on any other 
 time, than on the eighth day? On tliC omission of 
 it for 40 years, we agree; but, to account for the 
 administration of it upon those with whom it had 
 been omitted for 40 years, is the difficuUy. Mr. 
 C says it was confined to tiie 8th day; the scrip- 
 ture says it was not; and might with propriety be 
 admitted at any period of life. 
 
 Any person who can read his bible, may detect 
 the falacj' of his plan of plain reasoning. They 
 will indeed see, that the Jews were required to be 
 circumcised on the 8th day; but they will find that 
 the requisition, was not essential to the being of 
 an ordinance; because it was omitted for 40 years, 
 at one time, and after that during the whole period 
 of its continuation in the church, proselytes, at any 
 age, were circumcised. But, if. the argument 
 used by Mr. C. had any force, it would prove, that 
 in order legally to administer the rite of circum- 
 cision, it was as neces?ary to perform it on the 8th 
 day of the persons life, as it was to cut off a piece 
 of flesh. It is not the circumstances accompany- 
 ing the rite about which we dispute; but we dis- 
 pute respecting those things essential to the be- 
 ing of the rite itself. Where now, Mr. C.is your 
 plain reasoning, to prove that it was essential to the 
 being of the ordinance to administer it on the 8th 
 day? 
 
 But Mr. C. objects to the assertion, that one or- 
 dinance came in the room of another. * It ap- 
 ' pears to me a gross departure from analogy, from 
 ' the meaning of Jewish rites, and from matter of 
 ' fact, to say: 'That baptism came in the room of 
 
160 BAPTISM. 
 
 * circumcision.' The sacred scriptures do not, 
 
 * as far as I can understand Ihem, ever lead us to 
 ' think that one rite came in the room of another, 
 ' but Ihej teach us, that Christ came in the room of 
 ' all the Jewish rites — he is our passover, our cir- 
 
 * cumcision & our sacrifice.' P. 19. By saying that 
 One ordinance came in the room of another, means 
 no more, than that the latter occupies the room of 
 the former. All the ordinances of the New testa- 
 ment came in the room of those that were under 
 the Old testament, or we have these ordinances, 
 instead of those the church formerly had. When 
 we say that the particular rite of baptism, came in 
 the room of circumcision, we mean that baptism 
 occupies the same place in^e present dispensa- 
 tion of grace, that circum^ion occupied under 
 tlie former. 
 
 Scarcely asirgle ordinance how has tlie same pre- 
 cise form it hnd under the Old testament; even the 
 dispensation of the word by the Gospel ministry, 
 is now different, from that which it was then. 
 Will Mr. C. arirue that the preaching of the gos- 
 pel, under the New testament, by gospel ministers, 
 did not come in the room of that teaching by 
 priests and prophetij under the ceremonial law? 
 we mean no more than this, when we say tiial 
 baptism came in the room of circumcision. 
 
 But this is an age of novelty. 'Christ came in 
 the room of all Jewish rites.' That HE came 
 the substance of all Jewish rites, at least such of 
 them as were required by the ceremonial law, 
 none will deny; but, that he came in their room, I 
 suppose none except Mr. C. ever thought. Christ 
 is indeed called 'our passover:' because he was 
 'the Lamb of God' typically 'slain from the foun- 
 dation of the world.' HE was the substance, of 
 
BAPTISM. 161 
 
 which all the rites of that feast were the shadows; 
 but no hint is given that he came in the roonfi of 
 the passover. 
 
 Let us hear him further on this subject. 'I 
 
 * would now ask my opponent, If baptism came in 
 
 * the room of circumcision, why were so many 
 
 * thousands of the Jews baptised, who had been pre- 
 ' viously circumcised? This, on the principles of 
 
 * my opponent, was a mere tautology. If baptism 
 ' and circumcision are alike, the same seals of 
 ' the same covenant, why administer both to ^.he 
 ^ same subjects?' P. 19. In reply 1 observe, 
 
 1st. That in the change of a dispensation, the 
 members then existing, must be the subjects of 
 both dispensations. The same individual persons, 
 whose duty it was to have offered sacrifices during 
 the life and public ministry of Christ on earth, 
 would have been guilty of a gross violation of the 
 Divine law, had they continued Ihe same practi- 
 ces after his death. In like manner circumcision 
 was a duly which a parent was bound to discharge, 
 until another ordinance took its place; but the 
 substitution of baptism in its room, as completely 
 destroyed the sacramental existence of circumci^ 
 cion, as if it never had an existence. 
 
 2nd. It is impossible to make the same persons 
 subjects of both dispensations, without making 
 them the partakers of the ordinances of both. By 
 their circumcision, they acknowledged all the 
 means of grace, sealed to them under that dispen- 
 sation, in their particular form of administration; 
 but the same persons in their baptism, publickly 
 acknowledged the change, declared themselves 
 members of the new dispensation of the same cov- 
 enant, and thereby openly acknowledged that 
 Christ the substance of all the cerimonial law, wa? 
 P « 
 
.162 BAPTISM. 
 
 come, and put away sin by the sacrifice of him- 
 self. 
 
 Mr. C. should have shewn us in what manner, 
 the same persons could have been constituted 
 members of both di«!pensations of grace, without 
 giving them 1 he se:ih of both. He keeps his dis- 
 tance from this point, lest he might be taken in a 
 snare of tnUh. Circunicision, according; to Mr. C. 
 sealed to them the earthly Canaan. Then by bap- 
 tism they renounced all claim toth.it country; ev- 
 ery man lost bis title to his farm. By circumcision 
 they declared themselves the natural seed of 
 Abraham, alti)ought.hpy had been Hittites or Am- 
 orites; by baptism, they declared they were not his 
 seed. By circumcision they incorporated them- 
 selves with the Jewish nation. By bap.ism they 
 dischimed their own nation. The>e are Mr. C's. 
 odd doctrines — vviio can believe him.^ 
 
 The truth is, that those saints who were on earth, 
 during the life, death and resurrection of Christ, 
 ^vcre members of the Old testament church, by 
 their circumcision; and by baptism, were con- 
 stituted members of the New te-itament church. 
 
 3rd. Baptism was a New testament seal; it se- 
 cured all the covenant blessings, sealed, by cir- 
 cumcision; the covenant was the same, but the 
 form of the seal was very different, as was the whole 
 dispensation. It was necessary in the change of 
 dispensation, that there should also be a change 
 of seal ; but, at the time of this change, there could 
 be no change of persons; it follows that those who 
 had been initiated by circumcision into the former, 
 mast now be admitted into the latter, by baptism. 
 As they lived under both dispensations of grace, 
 how could they otherwise be initiated into both.'' 
 
 But, ia order to Qonfirm his assertion on this 
 
BAPTISM. 163 
 
 point, he presents you with a strange supposition. 
 ' Upon the same princ'ph*, if all the Jtnvs had liv- 
 ' ed to that time, and believed, they would all have 
 ' been baptized. What would have come of their 
 ' circumcision then?' P. 19. I answer, the same 
 thing that came of all their, sacrificts, temple 
 worship, &c. Instead of which we have now our 
 New testament worship. Abraham, the first initi- 
 ated by circumcision, as a seal, 'saw the day afar 
 off' when baptism would take the room of circtim- 
 cision, 'and was glad.' With the same propriety 
 I might ask. If all the Jews that ever existed, had 
 lived, when baptism was introduced, what would 
 have comt* of their sacrifices then? 
 
 The difference of the fifficacy of these two or- 
 dinances, forms another strong reason with Mr. C. 
 why baptism could not come in the room of cir- 
 cumcision. His observations scarcely, however, 
 merit transcription. 'Although they had the be- 
 'nefit of circumcision for so many hundred years, 
 'Moses declares, 'The Lord hath not given you 
 ' an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to 
 ' hear, unlo this day. Where now, are the spiritu- 
 'al blessings promised to the subjects of circum- 
 'cisionas such! What spiritual blessings had it 
 'secured foB so long a time!! P. 77. This ap- 
 pears rather like a iciJful misconstruction of scrip- 
 ture. Mr. C. infers from the passage quoted, that 
 for several hundred years, the subjects of circum- 
 cision had not been regenerated, justified, or san- 
 tified. Tiien, he asks with an air of triumph, 
 what good had their cirrumcision done them? 
 Were there no saints during these several hun- 
 dred years? He docs not deny tht re wtre saints 
 under that dispensation; nay, he even condescends 
 to grant it; P. 44. For, although he supposes 'Ju- 
 
164 BAPTISM. 
 
 daism to be no better than Gentilism,' yet some- 
 hmt) there were saints at that time. But saints as 
 they were, 'they had not a heart to perceive, eyes 
 to see, and ears to hear.' Will this do for a true 
 character of saints? no. What then must be the 
 true import of the words? That notwithstanding 
 the administration of grace to these people for 
 400 years, there were m?ny found who had not 
 'hearts to perceive, eyes to see, and ears to hear.' 
 Which is equally true of Gospel despisers in every 
 age of the church. With these, circumcision had 
 the same influence, that baptism had with Simon 
 Magus, or with any other subject that is not rege- 
 nerated. 
 
 If Mr. C's. observation has any meaning, it is, 
 that boptism has some intrinsic efficacy in giving 
 'hearts to perceive, eyes to see, and ears to hear.' 
 For otherwise, there can be no difference, even 
 intended. He then acquiesces in the doctrines of 
 the Fathers who hold baptism to be regeneration , 
 for if it be not, what efficacy has it, more than cir- 
 cumcision. Therefore Mr. C. should not touch 
 the Fathers, or the Roman Catholicks on this point. 
 
 Perhaps Mr, C. will clear himself by his usual 
 'as stich.' Was Moses speaking to them as the 
 subject" of the covenant of circumcision? Mr. C. 
 should answer, no; beause 'hearts to perceive, 
 eyes to see, and ears to hear,' were spiritual bles- 
 sings; and therefore did not belong to that cove- 
 nant. W^ill Mr. C. say he vv^as addressing them, 
 as the subjects ot that covenant? He then relin- ' 
 quishes the point in dispute. If he says, the con- 
 trary, his 'as such' will be of no use. 
 
 The above is an instance of Mr. C's. honesty. 
 It is evident from P. 44, that he believes there 
 were saints at that time; yet, now, when he has 
 
BAPTISM. 165 
 
 another purpose to answer, he will give this pas- 
 sage a contrary, significaUon. Although he should 
 succeed in proving what he intends, that there 
 were no saints at that time, he still fails in esta- 
 blishing this difference. The extent of our asser- 
 tion is, that the grace and othrr spiritual bless- 
 ings, which Old testament believers had, were 
 sealed to them by circumcision; but, if his asser- 
 tion be true, still circumcif^ion sealed as much to 
 them as baptism does to the unregenate persons 
 baptized. But, if they were saints, then circum- 
 cision sealed to them, that which baptism seals to 
 saints now. 
 
 Upon Mr. C's. attempt to prove that baptism 
 did not come in the room of circumcision, the fol- 
 lowing observations will be found true. 
 
 1st. That heis coBipflled to change his ground, 
 and adopt principles ncio even (o baptists; asser- 
 tions, at which Dr. Gdl or Mr. Bootli would have 
 blushed. He finds no difficulty in asserting tliat 
 circumcision was not a religious (»rdinance; that 
 it secured a country to millions who never saw it, 
 neither they, nor their seed. What will reflecting 
 minds think of this doctrine? or does Mr. C. think 
 he IS writing to people of the 12th century, or to 
 those who will at all times be satisfied with round 
 assertion? 
 
 2nd. It is evident that he does not appear seri- 
 ous in anything he says on that subject. Had he 
 possessed sufficient candor to have carried out 
 any system on this point, it must either have been 
 too ridiculous for even his friends to have believ- 
 ed; Of else, after all his opposition, he would have 
 established the assertion, that baptism came in the 
 room of circumcision; but in this he dare not pro- 
 ceed; he ofteo suddenly stops and fills the vacuum 
 
166 BAPTISM. 
 
 with declamations; e. g. P. 77, 78. He joins with 
 fanaticks, in rejoicing iii their nets light. As Mr. 
 C. fails in language, to express his detestation of 
 Peda-Baptism; — so the shakers fail in either sOngs 
 or tunes, to celebrate their discovery that the re- 
 surrection is past; that they are now glorified 
 saints: and, therefore, use reels, &c. without 
 word?, to express it. With them Mr. C. exclaims, 
 *0 human tradition, how hast thou biassed the 
 ^judgment and blinded the eyes of them that 
 * should know.' 
 
 V. PROPOSITION. 
 
 Thai infants of professing parents are fit mem- 
 bers of the visible church; and may be acknow- 
 ledged such, by administering to them baptism, an 
 initiating seal of the covenant of grace. 
 
 "VVe establish the truth of this proposition; first, 
 from the moral relation existing between parents, 
 and children. Relation always precedes obliga- 
 tion, and is of the same nature, Natural obliga- 
 tion springs 'from natural relation; moral obliga- 
 tion, from moral relation. These principles, I 
 believe, are not denied. Parents, in virtue of this 
 moral relation, are bound to use every means, both 
 by example and precept, to 'train up their chil- 
 dren in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.' 
 And children, upon the same principle, are bound 
 to receive and obey this instruction. Hence the 
 divine declaration respecting Abraham, Gen. 18. 
 19. 'For I know him, that he will command his 
 children, and his household after him.' The ex- 
 istence of this relation, and the promise for the 
 continuation of it in the chruch; was a comfortable 
 
BAPTISM. 1^ 
 
 doctrine to King Hezekiah in his affliction. Isaiah, 
 38. 19. 'The father to the childreu, shall make 
 known thy truth.' 
 
 If it be a fact, that there is such a relation be- 
 tween parents and children, and such privileges 
 resulting from it, then I ask, where is the impro- 
 priety in giving children the seal of these bless- 
 ing'*? or are Biptists prepared to say, that chil- 
 dren shall be the heirs of these privileges, and 
 yet be denied the seal of them. That this princi- 
 ple may be more fully understood, I shall make a 
 tew plain observations. 
 
 1st. That moral obligation may exist in its full 
 force, whei e there is no natural relation, as is often 
 the case between rulers and subjects, .guardians 
 and children placed under their care; but, at the 
 same time a covenant is supposed to exist, which 
 secures to both parties, privileges, to vv^h<cli each 
 are entitled, according to the stipulations of this 
 covenant. While this relation subsists, neither of 
 the parties can divest themselves of the obligation 
 or lose their title to the privileges; only by forfei- 
 ture there is a dissolution of contrac*. 
 
 2nd. That infants may be the subjects of such 
 a covenant is evident from fact. A nation, con- 
 sisting of rulers and ruled, are mutually bound to 
 each other by covenant. But the children of ci- 
 tizens are entitled to all the security and protec- 
 tion of their parents; and this, while in a state of 
 infancy, before they can give any consent to the 
 national constitution or covenant. It follows, 
 that babes are a party in a covenant, entitled to 
 its privileges, and grow up under its obligation, 
 when they possess no knowledge of either. 
 
 Now, it is vain to stop and ask, what good does 
 it do these children to have them comitituted 
 
168 BAPTISM. 
 
 members of such a nation, when they have no 
 knowledge of its constitution or laws. Suffice it 
 to say, that, in every age of the world, it was a 
 fact, it was their privilege, and establishes this 
 principie, j^o much haied by the Baptists, that 
 children may po?sess a seal to a covenant, and 
 have its privileges before they can have any 
 knnwledare i-f it.* 
 
 3rd. That a family, consisting of parents and 
 children, is a nation in miniature, and-granted by 
 all, to be the first bf-ginning of civil government. 
 And it fares with a family as it does with a nation. 
 According to the state of the nation, with respect 
 to privileges, the stfite of the subjects, are good 
 or bad. So is it with a family. If the parents 
 are poor, so are the children, if rich, the ctiildren 
 are born the be'rs of the estate; and this is secur- 
 ed to the children by contract, although the pa- 
 rents should die intestate, and the children be in- 
 fants at the time of their death. In a word, what- 
 ever is the privilege of the parents, is, in a 
 greater or less degree, the privilege of their chil- 
 dret. a'so, 
 
 4th. That this moral relation existing between 
 parents aiid children, is formed by God himself, 
 as truly as he constituted the relation between kings 
 and subjects under a theocraticai government. 
 While infants are incapable of watching over 
 themselves in any degree, he has appointed their 
 parents their guardians. 
 
 But, when we view this subject, and consider 
 
 *l shall afterwards shew, in its proper place, 
 that this principle is conceded by baptists, in con- 
 stituting children members of a national cove- 
 nant by circumcision. 
 
BAPTISM. 169 
 
 these principles in the chuTcb, 'a holy nation, a 
 peculiar people,' they appear in all their force. It 
 is surely granted that it is the privilege of children 
 to have G^dly professing parents, to have parents 
 under vows to God in the church, to warn them 
 according to the laws of his house, and teach 
 them the worth of their own privilege, hy giving 
 them suitable relig-ious institutions. 
 
 Parents, I grant, are morally bound to tlns.duty; 
 but professing parents are bound, by covenant to 
 thes€ duties; and to these they have engaged 
 when they affixed a seal to the coveBantof grace. 
 
 The doctrine of the covenant of works, estab- 
 lishes the truth of my assertion. Although in ma- 
 ny respects, the relation between Adam and his 
 posterity, is very different from that relation ex- 
 isting between parents and children, yet, in this 
 they agree, that Adam was constituted an agent 
 for his family, the human race; so that all who 
 spring from him, partake of the effects of his agen- 
 cy. In like manner, parents are divinely consti- 
 tuted agents of their respective families. The vi- 
 olation of the positive precept in the covenant of 
 works by Adam, was the violation of the same by 
 all his posterity: or had he partaken of the tree of 
 life in a state of innocency, it would have been a 
 seal securing to him and all his posterity, the 
 blessings found in that covenant, although the 
 same posterity was unborn. The reason of this 
 was, he was, by God, appointed their foederal head, 
 and in law they were constituted one. If a nation 
 employ an enribassador,with powers plenipotentia- 
 ry, his contract is theirs; and according to the con- 
 tract, the nation enjoys benefits, or receives trou- 
 ble. 
 
 -As in the case of Adam, so also in the case of 
 Q 
 
no BAPTISM. 
 
 all parents; the Divine Beinpr chose them. In the 
 choice, children have no ageticy whatever. 
 
 But this doctrine, as it represents the covenant 
 of works, is materially conceded by Mr C. p. 159. 
 ' The token or seal of this transaction, vras the 
 ' tree of life; which was to him a token, and formal 
 ' guarentee, that life would be enjoyed, on condi- 
 ' tion of his obedience:' which of' course would 
 have been the same to all his posterity. I there- 
 fore argue, and that from principles conceded: 
 that, if the moral relation of Adam to liis posterity 
 was such, that a seal, through him, could be ad- 
 ministered to every one of his children, although 
 unborn; and this because he was divinely consti- 
 tiLted their agent; that, therefore, a seal, tiirough 
 the relation of parents to their children, may be 
 justly administered to their children, after they 
 are born. 
 
 In all the transactions of life, by contract, the 
 doctrine of infant baptism is recognized, we bind 
 ourselves and our heirs. Considering the minor- 
 ity of our children, we deal for them, under this 
 consideration, that \^e are their agents and they 
 incapable of understanding. We mention duties 
 to be performed by them, and in their name we 
 seal contracts. The conduct even of baptists, 
 contradict their theory on baptism. Their princi- 
 ples, if true, destroys almost all contracts in life 
 I therefore reason: 
 
 If parents may contract and seal the same for 
 their infant offspring; then infant baptism is right. 
 But the former is true, and therefore the latter. 
 
 But take a look at the baptists syllogism. 
 
 If children, by their ignorance and want of faith, 
 are incapable of understanding the contract, rt" 
 covenaQt of grace; then children n»ust not be bap- 
 
BAPTISM. ni 
 
 tized. But the former is true and therefore the 
 lalter. 
 
 Apply the same argument to other things and 
 you Ts ill immediately see its genuine force. 
 
 If children by their ignorance and want of know- 
 ledge, are incapable of understanding a contract, 
 or covenant; then children must not be parties in 
 a covenant, or contract. But the former is true 
 and therefore the latter. Now, every person that 
 ever saw a bond or will, knows this conclusion to 
 be false. But such is the argument of baptists a- 
 gainst infant baptism. 
 
 The doctrine of infant baptism is universally 
 recognized in scripture. It was entirely unneces- 
 sessary either fo give any precept in so many 
 words, requiring the baptism of infants; or yet 
 mention the case of individual children baptized. 
 This seal, in scripture, was established in the 
 chuch, for more than a thousand years, and thou- 
 sands of examples given us of infants initiated by it; 
 and, although, as we have shewn, the form of the 
 seal differed, yet its nature did not undergo any 
 change. To this seal the Jews had been accus- 
 tomed from its first institution in Abraham. Tiiere 
 could be no necessity to repeat that^o well under- 
 stood by fhe ancient church. 
 
 It would indeed have been an evident curtail- 
 ing of the privileges of the church of Christ, had 
 the in/arts of the New testament, been excluded 
 from that security, or from those privileges to 
 which infE\nt membersof the Old testament church 
 were entitled. They would have complained, 
 that the children of their fathers were received 
 members of the visible church, while their chil- 
 dren were excluded. Nay, that they enjoyed a 
 seal of the covenant of grace, an intimation of their 
 
173 BAPTISM, 
 
 security, right and title of its blessings; while their 
 children must be raised like the children ofhea- 
 theng. 
 
 The baptists, from this specious but false reason, 
 deny the warrantableness of infant baptism; be- 
 cause, the persons baptized, are not only incapable 
 of believing, but also of discharging the duties 
 required in (he covenant. While yet, it will be 
 easily made appear, that they concede the princi- 
 ples of Pedo Baptists in full. They declare that 
 the rite of circumcision constituted the infants of 
 the Jews, members of their nation. 'The promise 
 ' of the covenant of circumcision was not,' says 
 Mr. C. 'made to the Jews, as members of the 
 church; 'but of the nation,' 
 
 It is granted, that infant children are not only 
 incapable of believing, but also of discharging 
 the duties required of professing members. But 
 I assert, (hat they are as capable of discharging 
 the dnties required of professing members of the 
 visible church, as they are »f doing the duties of 
 a civil citizen. Accordingly, on Mr. C's plan of 
 reasoning, I argue that circumcision was not a 
 seal of admission into the Jewish nation, because 
 it was absurd, to constitute any person a civil citi- 
 zen, who was incapable of discharging any of the 
 duties of tha( character. The momenta person 
 acquires citizenship, they are entitled to as many 
 of the privileges as they are capable of enjoying: 
 and bound by all the laws of the nation. Why 
 then does Mr C and o(her baptists, make such a 
 lamentable outcry against the Pedo Baptists, for 
 constituting persons members of the visible 
 church, b' cause they are incapable of believing, or 
 obeying the divine law, in any respect, seeing they, 
 at the same time, argue that infants were, by the 
 
BAPTISM. 173 
 
 divine command, constituted members of a civil 
 kingdom, and agreed that they were placed in 
 such circumstances, as that they are under every 
 civil obligation, and yet are unable to discharge 
 any of the duties of that relation? Let us compare 
 the baptist and Pedo Baptist concessions on this 
 subject, and their similarity will strike any reader. 
 Bap. A child, as the member of a nation, is en- 
 titled to the security and protection of that nation. 
 
 P. Bap. A child, as the member of a church, is 
 entitled totthe security and protection of Christ, 
 the King and Head of the church. 
 
 Bap. A child, as the member of a nation, has a 
 tempored subsistence secured by the pronnise of 
 that nation. 
 
 P. Bap. A child, as the member of the church, 
 has a spiritual subsistence secured by the promise 
 of Christ, King and Head of the church. 
 
 Bap, A child, although in a state of infancy, 
 was constituted the public member of a nation 
 by covenant, and the same confirmed by circumci- 
 sion, a pubhc seal of the same. 
 
 P. Bap. A child, although in a state of iufancy, 
 is constituted a public member ofth.e chiirch by 
 covenant, and the sanie confirmed by baptism, a 
 public sea^lo^" the same. 
 
 It is hence evident, that, by -whatever argument 
 a baptist will urge against a Pedo baptist, ihat a 
 child is disqualified by its infancy from becoming 
 a member of the church, a Pedo baptist will urge, 
 precisely the same against their becoming mem- 
 bers of a nation. And I might further add, that 
 an infant citizen of a nation is bound, in virtue of 
 the relation in which it stands to the nation, 
 to become acquainted with the laws of 
 iti nation, and to render obedience to the same. 
 Q 2 
 
174 BAPTISM. 
 
 In like manner, an infant citizen of the kingdom of 
 Christ, is bound by virtue of the relation in which 
 it stands to the church, to become acquainted with 
 Jier laws, and yield obedience to the same, ft fol- 
 lows, that every possible objection which Mr. C. 
 or any baptist, can bring against the church mem- 
 bership of infants, stands equally against their citi- 
 zenship; and on the contrary, we may justly ar- 
 gue upon the principles of common sense, that as 
 children, by circumcision, even by the concession 
 of the baptists, are constituted members of a king- 
 dom, in which activity is required, and yet are in- 
 capable of being active: There is nothing absurd 
 in constituting them members of the visible church, 
 jn which nothing more is required, in relation to 
 its laws. 
 
 Mr. C. spends a considerable time, in sporting 
 upon this question, 'what good does infant sprink- 
 ling do its subjects.' I reply that, allowing: the 
 difference of relation and privilege, it does as 
 much good, as constituting them citizens of a ci- 
 vil kimgdom by circumcision. They are equally 
 capable of obeying the laws, and enjoying the pri- 
 vilege of both. 
 
 We shall now attejid to his view oi this subject. 
 His great levity of expression, so inconsistent with 
 the solemn subject, shall not receive any further 
 notice, than what is absolutely necessary to do 
 Kis arguments justice. 
 
 'VViien I hear any Pedo-Baptist, pleadings foF the 
 'baptism of infants, upon the footing of the faith 
 ' of the parents, that is, on the footing of carnal 
 ' generation, it brings to my recollection, the re- 
 ' ply of John the baptist, made to the Jews, who 
 * solicited baptism, upon the footing of their great, 
 ' great, great, many times great grand father^ 
 'Abrahaai. They were as confident of the valid* 
 
BAPTISM. > 175 
 
 *ity 01* their claim, as any modern Pedo-Baptist.' 
 Page, 20, 21. 
 
 In what sense does Mr. C. use the word faith. 
 If by it, he means any thing more, than the faith 
 of pi^rcnts expressed by their public profession, 
 he has been terrified by an apparition, the creature 
 of his own brain. An honest writer who makes 
 the edification of his opponent an object, will take 
 care to use the words in the sense, in which they 
 are commonly used. He must know that Pedo- 
 Baptists, mean no more, when they 'plead for the 
 baptism of infants, upon the footing of the faith of 
 the parents;' than we do when we say, that Ja- 
 cob should be circumcised, when an mfant, be- 
 cause Isaac his father, was a public professor in 
 the church — we mean no more than Mr. C. does 
 when he says that Joseph should be circumcised 
 at eight days old, because a title to the land of 
 Canaan was vested in Isaac his father, and a pro- 
 mise made of that land to him, through his fatner. 
 Or if any should have asked King Dayid; if he be- 
 lieved in the doctrineof circumcising infants, he 
 would have replied, yes: he even solicited cir- 
 cumcision 'upon the footing of his great, great, 
 great many times great grand father Abraham.'* 
 
 Parents baving claimed the promises of the co- 
 venant of grace for themselves, and having declar- 
 ed the same by a public profession, have, in the 
 divine constitution of things, the seal of the same 
 
 *The reader will forgive me forusmg Mr. C's. 
 language, I only do it, to let you see that his lan- 
 guage is equally subversive of the rite of circumci- 
 sion. I do, indeed, think his language prv>fane, I 
 believe that he is only making sport ou the sub- 
 ject of Baptism. 
 
nS BAPTISM. 
 
 privileges, offered to their children. In the same 
 sense, that God gave the promise to Abraham, and 
 bis children, Peter declares to his congregation 
 'the promise is to you and your children.' The 
 promise to Abraham was, 'I will be thy God and 
 the God of thy seed.' 
 
 But what connexion did Mr. C. find between 
 the expressions, 'upon the footing of the faith of 
 the parents,' and 'upon the footii.g of carnal gene- 
 ration.' The scripture calls Abraham the father 
 of the faithful. D(tes Mr. C. suppose that he was 
 the carnal father of all the faithful? If he does 
 not, V\'hy does he i:je the expression as proving the 
 same signification? I am afraid that during all 
 the time he was a Pedo-Baptist, he was ignorant 
 of their doctrines, and this, the probable reason, 
 why< he forsook them. 
 
 I suppose Mr. C. never heard a Pedo-Baptist 
 plead for a right to the baptism of children 'upon 
 the footing of carnal gereration.' That, upon 
 the footing of carnal relation existing between pa- 
 rents and children, carnal benefits flow, is not de- 
 nied; this is justly plead as the gro-.ind for the pos- 
 session of estates, fcc. But, thac any spiritual 
 privileges flow, merely on the footing of carnal 
 relation, is never plead. The Jews were the car- 
 nal descendants of Abraham. He was tiieir na- 
 tural father. They were hijs natural seed. But 
 ask the apostle Paul, if this be the ground on 
 which they received their spiritual blessings; he' 
 answers, no — It was not because they were his 
 children by nature, but because they were the chil- 
 dren of the promise. It follows that the children 
 of professing parents, according? io the flesh, are 
 also their seed by promise, and are thereby enti- 
 tled to a seal of the promise. 
 
BAPTISM. 177 
 
 The true covenant relation existing between 
 Abraham and the Jews, when thej came to John 
 to be baptized, I believe, was neither understood 
 by them, or their successor in opinion, Mr. C. 
 Had these Jews come forward, humbly asking the 
 the privilege of baptism, as a people in professed 
 covenant with God, and therefore Abraham's seed, 
 John would have baptized them without reproof. 
 But it appears they were of the mind, with those 
 men of straw, witli whom Mr. C. contends, that a 
 carnal relation was the only 'entitling prerequisite,' 
 and therefore were justly reproved when they de- 
 manded the administration of this seal. The 
 HEAD of the church, indeed, often establishes a 
 spiritual relation when there is a pre-existing car- 
 nal relation; but these are in their nature entirely 
 distinct. The one may exist without the other. 
 Believing heathens have a spiritual relation to 
 Abraham, and this existing in its full force, being 
 nothing impaired, by the want of cairnal relation. 
 
 It is, in every case, necessary to determine, who 
 are the persons professing this spiritual relation; 
 this, when determined, should decide the contro- 
 versy. When a promise is given, we should know 
 the person, or persons to whom it is addressed; 
 should you ask, to whom are the promises of tlie 
 gospel addressed? 1 reply, to 8iiiiier& as such: 
 should you again ask, to whom is the seal of these 
 promises to be applied? we answer, to those who 
 by a covenant relation declare that the blessings 
 promised, are theirs. Let us search the scriptures 
 to find out these persons. The whole Bible, with 
 one voice, declares that these belong to believing 
 parents and their seed. And that of such persons, 
 the church of Christ is constituted. Let the fol° 
 lowing observation be admitted. 
 
17b BAPTISM. 
 
 1st. That the church all holds, at least, a visible 
 covenant relation to Christ. 
 
 2nd, That the members of the church have a 
 professed covenant relation to one another. 
 
 3rd. That when God entered into a covenant 
 relation with Abraham, every item of that cove- 
 nant was also made with his seed, as truly the babe 
 as the adult. The only qualification there speci- 
 fied, was, that they be his seed. Neither the apos- 
 tle Peter, nor any other Pedo-Baptist,has plead for 
 any thing more, than that which is contained in 
 the assertion. 'The promise is to you, and to 
 your children.' We therefore infer that those 
 persons, found in tlie covenant relation, may just- 
 ly receive the seal of all its covenant blessings. 
 ,4)1 this may be true, without any carnal relation. 
 Let us hear him a little further. 
 
 'Mr. W. tells us, that infants may, if they are 
 ' obedient to the divine law, after (hey grow up re- 
 ' ceive benefit from baptism.* This is an honest, 
 ' though I presume, an unintentional confession, 
 ' that they receive no benefit from it; either at the 
 'time of receiving it, or immediately after. But 
 ' he has said, that infants in the act of baptism, are 
 'laid under an obligation to obedience; that the 
 'vows of God are upon them thenceforth. Let 
 ' me ask how many years old are they, when they 
 'recognize this obligation.' P. 33. 
 
 The substance of the quotation is, that no ben-e- 
 fit results from 'infant sprinkling;' of this he fre- 
 quently gives hints. But in his appendix, we have 
 a black list of evils, resulting from it. P. 180. I 
 
 ■*This is a part of Mr. C's. edition of Mr. W's. 
 speeches; and is as honest, as his edition of many 
 parts of the bible. 
 
BAPTISI\^. 179 
 
 reply, that benefit, may either be, sensibly or in- 
 sensibly received. An infant or idiot, of parents- 
 in easy and independent circumstances, receives 
 more benefit than the children of parents in diffi- 
 cult circumstances of life: they are insensible, 
 however, of any such difference. Yet they de- 
 rive these superior favors, upon the same precise 
 prmciples, upon which we plead for infant bap- 
 tism, that is, relati<m. Because, infants receive 
 previlegcs according to the standing of their pa- 
 rents. They are either rich or poor, as their pa- 
 rents are iti riches or poverty. 
 
 This assersion of Mr. C's. lies against the 
 strongest evidence of fact. Because a child, if it 
 lives, receives both immediate and future benefit 
 from the relation it has to its parents. But \tis 
 privileges are inconcievably extended, if the pa- 
 rent be religious, it has thereby secured a reli- 
 gious education. It is trained up in tlie nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord; it has an early op- 
 portunity of. ministerial instruction, being raised 
 " beside the shepherd's tent,' when born, or even 
 when It becomes a living soul, an everlasting re- 
 lation between it and Christ may be forn^ed; it 
 may, 'by the washing of regeneration and the re- 
 newing of tlie Holy spirit,' be as full an heir of 
 everlasting life, as the most experienced saint. 
 All we crave for this child is a visible seal of these 
 blessings. 
 
 If a father die when one of his heirs is an infant^ 
 he makes it equally a partaker of his estate with 
 those children that are grown to years of maturity, 
 when the babe is grown, it claims the interest in 
 the will, which was a contract, existing between 
 the father and the child, although the child was 
 entirely unconscious of the whole transaction, at 
 
180 BAPTISM. 
 
 the time of engagement. But the want of con- 
 sciousiiess neither affects its rights nor privileges. 
 I suppose that none of these facts will be denied. 
 From these principles I therefore argue, 
 
 1st. That a child may be visibly sealed an heir 
 to the testament of Christ, from which it may, or 
 may not, receive any benefit. An infant may be 
 tlie legal heir of an estate, and yet by profligacy, 
 ©r death, receive no benefit. The signature and 
 seal of the parent, is the visible security ot the 
 child, and yet it m;iy never secure any thing profi- 
 table to it. Mr. C. will acknowledge the truth of 
 these assertions, because circumcision, which, ac- 
 cording to his assertion, sealed the earthly Canaan; 
 if the child either died in infancy, or removed in- 
 to another country, it received no benefit from 
 the seal: according to his system this painful rite 
 was administered in vain. 
 
 2nd. The right of Esau, Ishmael, or Jacob to 
 the earthly Canaan, according to the opinion of 
 Mr. C. was the same, because they were all by di- 
 vine authority, circumcised. But the posterity of 
 one of these only, entered in; query, of what use 
 was their infant circumcision? 
 
 3rd. There is a difference between the privile- 
 ges and obligation of a bond; and discharging and 
 enjoying the same. A man may contract in behalf 
 of a child, by which the minor may be bound to 
 perform certain duties, and entitled to certain 
 privileges; and yet incapable of either doing the 
 former, or enjoying the latter, and even if he ar- 
 rives to years of maturity, may be equally inat- 
 tentive to both; yet this neither affects the moral 
 propriety or validity of the contract. Again Mr. 
 C. what good do these seals do minors.-* 
 
 4th. I assert that baptism possesses the same 
 
BAPT1SM» 1811 
 
 intrinsic validity, when applied to an infant, that 
 it does, wlien administered to an adult. It does 
 not in cither case possess any saving power, so 
 a will confirmed to an heir, when an infant posses- 
 ses the same force, that it would, if the heir was an 
 adult. In either case they lose or enjoy as they 
 ire profligate, or soher. 
 
 Baptists appear offended with those, who say, 
 that baptism is regeneration. Mr. C. here joins the 
 Pedo Baptists and vociferates, and by turns sports 
 upon it, in his usual manner. Yet I fear he wiH 
 be found guilty of the same error, and on this 
 point may justly give the bond of brotherhood to 
 Cyprian, his former enemy. If I here blame Mr. 
 C. improperly, th^n what is the meaning of the 
 question, 'what good does baptism do infants? 
 For if it may be said that baptism abstractly con- 
 sidered, does good, it will follow, that it has a sav- 
 ing power, or it is the doctrine of Cyprian and 
 others, that baptism is regeneration, or without 
 union to Christ, nothing is really good. 
 
 When a baptist asks the question, 'what good 
 does baptism do infants.^' he must mean that if. 
 docs some good to adults, that is, that it either re- 
 generates them, or is an infallible seal of regene- 
 ration. The greatest hereticks on this subject, ne- 
 ver attached any mor« importance to this ordinance 
 than those just expressed. Mr. C. vvould refuse { 
 suppose, to subscribe the following sentiment, not 
 only because it stands in opposition to his ques" 
 tion, but for a reason still more important, it is the 
 production of the Westminster assembly. *Th€ 
 
 * sacraments become effectual means of salvationj 
 
 * not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth 
 ' administer them, but by the blessing of Christ 
 ^ and the working of his spirit in them that by 
 
182 BAPTISM. 
 
 ' faith receive them.' Short cat quest. 91. 
 'I never recollect' says Mr. C. 'ef any Ihinj? or- 
 
 * daiued forthe benefit of man, or any thing en- 
 ' joined upon him, by divine authority, that had 
 '■ not some immediate advantage, resulting to the 
 
 * subject who obeyed, according to the truth. 
 ' My opponent has placed all the advantages of 
 ' infant sprinkling, upon a slippf-ry, per/iw^ps; upon 
 ' a wonder working if.'' p. 33. Was not circum- 
 cision an ordmance of divine appointmeiil? Al- 
 though you should say it was civil; I ask, Mr. C. 
 what benefit immediately resulted to the t-ubject 
 of this rite.'' If he says national protection, so I 
 say in the other case, church protection. For if 
 the kings of the earth alford their infunt subjects 
 protection, the king of Zion is equally able 
 and willing to guard his babes. The truth is, that 
 in whatever shape, Mr. C. can turn the round as- 
 sertion I have last quoted, the rite of circum- 
 cision, is ready to meet him in the face. After the 
 child was circumcised, there was a great variety 
 of events, casualties, &c. tliatit took a slippery |)cr* 
 haps and a wonder working ?/, to put him in the 
 possession of that land, Mr. C. converts the 
 subject upon the spot. Baptism is a Divine ordi- 
 nance, immediate benefit must result. Mr. C. ne- 
 ver recollects an instance of its failing. Peter 
 must have been mistaken about Simon Magus, 
 Isaac when he circumcised Esau. What a bless- 
 ed thing it would be, to be baptized by Mr. C. 
 
 'But he has said infants in the act of baptism are 
 
 * laid under an obligation to obedience, that 
 ' the vows of God are upon them. Let me ask, 
 ^ how many years old, are they, when they recog- 
 < nise this obligation? Shall I say at 10 or 15 
 
 * years, after sprinkling,' p, 33. By this all deedS;, 
 
BAPTISM. 183 
 
 bonds, conveyances &c. are completely destroyed, 
 because the person, or persons who give these in- 
 struments, bind themselves and their heirs. In- 
 stead of casting a vail over the subject, by loose 
 declamation Mr. C. should have defined the nature 
 of such obligations, upon children, before the age 
 of 10 or 15 years: or let me ask Mr. Chow many 
 years old are those children, thus bound before 
 they are conscious of such obhgations? In an- 
 swenng this question by whatever mode he 
 chooses, he will answer his own query. 
 
 In page 43. he closes a declamatory speech, 
 with this assertion, when speaking of infants. 
 ' They are private property, the property of pa- 
 ' rents and not the property of the church, hence 
 ' parents as such, have orders how to bring them 
 ' up.' To look at this afsertion as it is, it is suffi- 
 ciently refuted. 
 
 1st. It is not the duty of the church, to see how 
 their youtli behave. 
 
 2nd, It is as absurd for ministers to direct pa- 
 rents, respecting the manner of training up their 
 children as it would be for them from the pulpit to 
 direct their members how to break liorses, and 
 train cattle for the plough, because horses, cattle, 
 and children are equally the private property of 
 farmers, and equally under the care of the pastor 
 of the congregation. 
 
 3rd. Ministers must neither teach nor reprove 
 children 'Shall I say under 10 or 15 years.' 
 
 4th. Hannah and her husband had no right to 
 deliver up Samuel to the Lord, by yielding him up 
 to the church, when he was a young child. 
 1, Sam. 1. 24.28. 
 
 Mr. C- will get no serious person to yield their 
 assent to the truth of the assertion above. Because 
 
184 BAPTISM. 
 
 It is evident with all the care and attention of 
 both minlFttrs and parents too many of our youth 
 grow up in carelessness; but it is indeed surpri- 
 sing to find a raan styling himself 'Minister of 
 the word of God' exerting allhis power, to prevent 
 ministers and others from eserting Godly influence 
 over youth. In a vs'ord why does Mr. C. say chil- 
 dren ' are private property, the property of pa • 
 ' rents, and not the property of the church?' Let 
 us compare this with that v/hich God himself says 
 Psal. 127, 3. *Lo children .ire an heritage of the 
 Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward.'* 
 
 But Mr. C. now tries to escape by an old baptist 
 tract; 'I ask, does not the baptism or sprinkling of 
 
 *Mr. C. can satisfy his followers with something 
 as a cure, to any true impression, those things 
 may make on tlieir minds, or if they believe his 
 view of the subject, it is because (hey are left 'to 
 strong delusions to believe a lie.' Such senti:nents 
 Hi'ght not have disgraced Lord Chesterfield, 
 who taught his son to be profane, but they certain- 
 ly disgrace the character Mr C. tries to assume, 
 and which his few followers tliink he possesses. 
 Whatever force such opinions can have is, with- 
 out doubt, demorilizing. We have generally blam 
 ed the baptists, for raising their children, hea- 
 thens, in a land where Christianity is, but these 
 observations only respect their relation to the 
 church. But Mr C. appears in full on the subject, 
 and actually orders the church to let the cliildrcn 
 6f their members alone, that they have nothing to 
 do with them. 'Tell it not in Gath; publish it not 
 :n the streets of Askelon, lest the daughters of the 
 Philistines rejoice: lest the daughters of the uncir- 
 cumcised triumph.' 
 
BAPTISM. 185 
 
 * an infant require a positive command? And I call 
 ' upon my opponent to shew if there was ever a 
 ' positive institution founded solely upon reason or 
 ' inference.' p' 48. 
 
 What does Mr. C. mean, by positive command and 
 positive institution ; Sind these as distinct from moral 
 commands? Let us here define the subject. 'By 
 ' moral positive, or positive we understand those 
 ' that depend entirely for their moral obligation, 
 
 * upon some express precept of the Deity; the pro- 
 
 * priety of which, nature, in its most perfect state 
 ' could not discover. Moral precepts are such as 
 
 * respect our duty to our fellow creatures; and are 
 ' in some degree more or less discernible by 
 ' mankind, even now, and were perfectly so pre- 
 ' vious to thp fall.' 'In positive institutions, the 
 
 * obligation is altogether in the command; but in 
 
 * moral duties, the obligation is not only in the com- 
 
 * mand, but also in the nature of things. In posi- 
 ' tive institutions we are not authorized to reason 
 ' what we should do, but implicitly to obey. In 
 
 * moral requirements, we are clearly shewn and 
 ' commanded to perform certain duties, but left 
 ' at liberty to reason, to know in what these duties 
 ' consist-'* p. 46. 47. 
 
 If I understand the above distinctiOB«, the senti- 
 ment of Mr. C. that positive commands, tell us 
 plainiy our duty, and the way in which that du- 
 ty is to be discharged: but the precepts only rao- 
 
 * The above view proves, that Mr. C. had at 
 least heard of the terms moral and mo^^al position. 
 It is a kind of miserable mixture of truth and error. 
 It is said that Mahomed formed tne Alcoran from 
 the Jewish, Christian, and Pagan systems; therefore 
 it had some truth in it. 
 
 R 2 
 
186 BAPTISM. 
 
 ral, tell us in some kind of general terms the duty, 
 but let each subject discharge it as he pleases. 
 Togive us an example of the way in which he un- 
 derstands the subject, he quotes a passage; Phil. 
 4. 8. 'Finally, brethren, vvhatsover things are 
 lionest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever 
 things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, 
 v.fhatsoever things are of good report, if there be any 
 virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things.' 
 
 Mr. C. certainly, and not the scriptures, is the 
 first to whom we stand indebted for this new reve- 
 lation of mora] and positive precepts until his time, 
 the christian world have been in the dark on the 
 subject; but, like evtry other new theory, we can- 
 not adopt it at once; and thii^, for the following 
 reasons. 
 
 Ist. The will of God revealed, is the rule of the 
 subject's duty, and it matters not to us, how that is 
 made Jinown in the sciiptures of truth, whither by 
 vision, dreams, Balaam, Isaiah or the apostles. It 
 IS our duty to obey. ' 
 
 2nd. Itr^ matters not whether in express revela- 
 tion, or by plain letters, our particular duly is 
 made known. Mr C. would, indeed, have a very 
 large bible that must expressly tell every indivi- 
 dual his or her duty, in particular; for as the same 
 may not be learned by inference, when it is re- 
 quired by the positive moral law, the command 
 must contain the name and sirname of the indivi-. 
 dual, upon whom the duty is enjoined. If indeed 
 God appoints a positive institution for the benefit 
 of the church, I may easily and by a natural pro- 
 cess of reasoning learn that the same is my duty; 
 but this I find by exercising my reason upon the 
 command, yet this I must not do, if I adopt Mr. C*5 
 system; for thereby, I will destroy all positive in- 
 
BAPTISM. 187 
 
 stitutions. They, according to his system, maybe 
 moral, but not positive when found by any pro- 
 cess of reasoriing. e. g. A person applies to Mr. 
 C. for baptism; he makes a full profession of his 
 faith; Mr. C. asks the scriptures for his duty; he 
 finds examples of adults being baptized, of differ- 
 ent ages; he finds Christ giving a command to min- 
 isters to go and baptize; but, from the begining of 
 Genesis to the last of the book of the Revelation, 
 he finds no such passage, as according to his 
 system, he now needs. These must be the 
 words of the passage. 'Alexander Cambell, V. D. 
 M. go take this man (naming him) and plunge him 
 into Buffaloe, Chartiers or Short Creek,' (as con- 
 veniencj may serve, for, to make the passage 
 express, it must contain the name of the creek.) — 
 Without much inference Mr. C. can now go to 
 work. But the misfortune is there is no such pas- 
 sage, and of course, on his scheme tliere cannot; 
 now be any positive institution. They must be 
 founded upon some 'express precept of the Dei- 
 ty.' 
 
 3rd. It is an unfair division of the moral law; 
 because it supposes, that, upon some of its pre- 
 cepts, you may exercise your reason, in order to 
 find your duty; and another class of them, upon 
 which reason must not be exercised, without de- 
 stroying the institution altogether. 1 fear this di- 
 Tision will hardly be admitted by readers of com- 
 mon sense; because they will immediately reply, 
 that one class of moral precepts were made for 
 leasonable men, and another class for people with- 
 out reason. 
 
 Lastly, I object to Mr. C's. system of the moral 
 law, for another very important reason. It has no 
 foundation in scripture. He cannot erenprpve 
 
188 BAPTISM. 
 
 it by inference; for then we should have admitted 
 it. 
 
 We are now constrained to adhere to the old sys- 
 tem of morals; which we shall briefly state, in an- 
 swer to one question. 'What is the duty which 
 'God reqiiireth of mar»? The duty which God 
 'requireth of man i^ obedience to his revealed 
 will? short, cat, quest. 39. This is intended to 
 comprehend the whole duty of man. If the will 
 of God, even by the most diligent search can be 
 found, our duty of course follows. 
 
 If this doctrine be not true, then the following 
 things must be true. 
 
 1st. That reason, in some sense, is a law: that 
 is, in those ca<es were the divine law, fails in clear 
 revelation, D. Hume atid T. Pain, and I wns go- 
 ing to say M — wouid agree with this, because it 
 strikes at the tirs* root of divine revelation. 
 
 2ad. There must be as many different laws as 
 there are subjects of law; becaui^e two individuals 
 never reason in the same precise way; and with all 
 that variety of reasorana:, the conduct ol each, 
 will be morally right, although very distinct, and 
 in many cases, directly opposite. 
 
 3rd. That in order to obtain a knowledge of the 
 moral law, difficult search must be made in order 
 to discover our duty; but no such search is ne- 
 cessary, where we enquire for our duty, as requir- 
 ed by laws ptsUively moral. 
 
 Now because we refuse the doctrines contain- 
 ed in these assertions, and yet admit the rruth of 
 the a5>;ertion, that there is a distincticii between 
 precepts, naturally moral, and those po-itivt-ly so; 
 we ask for the distinction. I answ r, that those 
 conlimands which are founded solely upon the will 
 of God, are positive; and those whiclij in tlitir iia- 
 
BAPTISM. 189 
 
 ture, are unchangeable, & being founded upon the 
 divine nature are naturally moral. To the first 
 class belonged, I grant, the prohibition to eat of 
 the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in the ce- 
 rimonial and judicial laws; to this same class al- 
 so belong the commands of Baptism and the 
 Lord's supper, while to the latter belong the ten 
 commandments, with the exception of a part of 
 the fourth commandment, which respects the 
 precise portion of time to be devoted to the Lord; 
 together with all those commands throughout the 
 scriptures, vrhich are in their nature unchange- 
 able. 
 
 By inference or otherwise our duty from all 
 these commands is found; they all require perfect 
 obedience, which we have neither will or power 
 to render. From the darkness of our minds, but 
 not from any defect in the divine law, we disagree 
 respecting our duty; even in our practice, we cari- 
 not 'see eye to eye.'' Mr. C. is perhaps the first 
 christian writer who has charged these defects on 
 the law ol God. 
 
 The way by which we learn the divine mind, is 
 by inference, &c. but nothing on this subject is to 
 be decided, by the commands being positively, or 
 naturally moral; in either, with the same ease or 
 difficulty we learn our duty. Sometimes our duty 
 is mentioned in general terms, as in Phil. 4. 8. 
 The passage quoted by Mr. C. or in Micah, 6. 8 
 'He hath shewed thee O man what is good; and 
 what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do 
 justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy 
 God.' But the same duties, are in other parts 
 particularly mentioned; and this in language, gen- 
 erally so plain that 'he that runs may read.' 
 
 Upon Mr. C's. view of the subject, the greatest 
 
190 BAPTrSM. 
 
 part of practical duties must cease to be. Where 
 is the express warrant for the change of the sa- 
 bsth? This belongs to tlie positive part of the 
 fourth commandment. If Mr. C. will adhere te 
 the positive injunctions on this subject, he must 
 either turn Jew, or seven d;iy baptist; where is 
 ihe express »varrant for family worship? Not in 
 the .'^cnptures, nay, even secret prayer fares the 
 same fate; unless a man is wealthy enough to 
 own a clo-et; for, in the express warrant requir- 
 ing this subject, ihey were told to enter into a clos- 
 et. Preaching, and almost every duty by Mr. 
 C's. sxceeping system, is annihilated. In this he 
 will be contadicted by the experience of ail God's 
 people; loose and profane gospel hearers, will be- 
 come his disciples, without undergoing any 
 change. It is nature's system he teaches. 
 
 Moral precepts would receive no force had the 
 revelation even been made on Mr. C's plan. The 
 commandment given in Math. 7. 12. 'Therefore 
 all things, whatsoever ye would that men should 
 do to you, do ye even so to them.' This is a re- 
 relation, as expressly prohibiting slavery, as if the 
 command had run in these express words, no man 
 or woman (naming them), shall make irafic of his 
 fellow men. 
 
 H. ving thus premised a few things, and having 
 called the attention of the reader to Mr. C's. ab- 
 surd theory, upon which he builds his system; 
 we shaU prosecuted the subject in debate 
 
 That baptism, is itself, literally required, 
 and expressly commanded, is not denied by Mr. 
 C. From example, command, and the nature of 
 the duty, we learn the persons to be b^iptised. 
 Bat, because he cannot find these express words 
 thou shall baptize wfants; he refuses to do it, and 
 
BAPTISM. 191 
 
 although even this rt'velt>.tion had been made, he 
 would have been under the necessity of reasoning 
 from a general command, to a particular duty, 
 and this, according to his theory, would not have 
 done. 'In positive institutions we are not autho- 
 'rized to reason what we should do,' Nay, the 
 vrry age of the children must be mentioned. 
 They must be under ten or fifteen years. So from 
 the rea-^ontng before, a slave holder justifirs the 
 nefarious practice of slavery, because, they can 
 find no express warrant against it, seven day bap- 
 tists can find no express warrant fur t}ie change 
 of the sabbath; and even some refuse to read any 
 other book than the Bible, because we are com- 
 manded to search the scriptures, but not command- 
 ed to search any other book. I suppose the cliurch 
 of Corinth, was at as great a loss to find the prop- 
 er manner of celebrating the sacr?.mf nt of the 
 Lord's supper, as Mr. C. is to find the proper sub- 
 jects and mode ot baptism; and therefore, encou- 
 raged drunkenness and gluttony, in this sacred 
 feast. Christ corrected this mistake by Paul, not by 
 any new revelation, but by repeating the revela- 
 tion made at the institution. 
 
 We have, Mr. C. making an assertion as if it 
 had been asserted by a Pedo-Baptist, 'a positive 
 institution as founded wholy upon nason.' I reply, 
 that no Pedo-Baptist will say so; we say that no 
 duty whatever is founded upon reason. The di- 
 vine law stands ready to condemn or approbate 
 every act performed by man. Reason, in no case, 
 is a bar at which human actions will be tried. It 
 may be laid down as a general assertion in no 
 case to be contradicted; that every ordinance, 
 nay, every justifiable act, is founded solely upon 
 tl»€ divine law, vs^hether the true meaning of the 
 
19^ BAPTISM. 
 
 law is to be discovered, by its express letter, by 
 inference, or example. 
 
 Before I further attend to his objections, 1 would 
 observe, that is an evident trait in Mr. C's cha- 
 racter as a disputant, that those ^vho were not 
 present at the public debate, should know; tliis 
 was evident in the debate, arid is manifest in his 
 book: that wherever he received an agument 
 for which he had no reply at hand, he attempted 
 to look the argument out of countenance. He 
 would treat it with the greatest possible contempt; 
 and upon that occasion vociferate and declaim un- 
 usually. He would give an excellent character 
 to his own argument, thereby attempting to pass 
 it, with those who had implicit faith in all he said, 
 the argument pa?sed decently, but with those who 
 possessed sense, it was treated with contempt. 
 
 We have a striking example of this in his rea- 
 roning on positive institutions. It had been ob- 
 served by Pedo-Baptist writers, that tliere was no 
 express warrant for female communion, and the 
 arguments offered by Mr. Edwards and others, on 
 this subject, never yet have received a reply. Mr. 
 C. muf^t now attempt it. Now reader attend to 
 his strong and convincing reply. 'As to Lis se- 
 'cond query concerning female communion, I 
 ' have to observe, that although sundry Pedo* 
 ' Baptists have made a salvo, to soothe their minds 
 
 * in this apparent difficulty; it is a poor and pitr- 
 
 • ful come off. It is the most puerile and childish 
 ' retort, that I ever heard usfcd by adults, that had 
 'any knowledge of words and things.' P. 70. 71.* 
 
 *This argument or rather mede of reply, for I 
 surpose Mr. C. intends it for both, is a coniplete 
 tanipheUsin. It was evident to an enlightened 
 
BAPTlSlil 19» 
 
 Mr. C. would now have dropped the subject with 
 this lublc r- p!y. but son ethirig mu-t be taid, was 
 
 * the Lord's supper, nstituied or appointed to mef, 
 'or women,' as such? Was it not aprioii ted to 
 
 * (lie di^<ciples of Christ? he gave il to t!ie disc.-^ 
 ' pies Sfjiria: partake ye all of it.' The truth of 
 the doctrii e, that won. en should be r.dmitted to 
 a comniuniin table, no person dispulfs. In this 
 we agree with Mr. C. But tf e question is, what 
 is his rxpress warrant? Thou shalt admit W( men 
 
 {' aming thfm) to a communion table? or let a ' 
 w^oman so examin«' herself ar d -^o let I er eat. No, 
 thet-e are not to be found. He would ha%'e pfe-i 
 fer<'d ^uch passages. 
 
 But Christ gave the dements to his disc'ples; of 
 the bread he said: Est ye all of it; of the wi; e 
 drink ye all of it.' This is true, hut were tl ere 
 ai y women among the disciples? answer No. 
 Then how is the warrant of female communion 
 found here? Mr. C. has an answer at h&nd: thirty 
 or forty years nfter tie institution of the sufiper, a 
 woman is called a diciple. lam n( u p - par* d 
 to mfer with him that a woman, may be a Itnitted 
 to the sacrnmert of the supper. Should I found 
 my argument for the communion of men. upon 
 the fact to wl ich Mr. C. alludes, I can est. bl h it 
 by easy inference; but the circumstatice of n en 
 being the only comniunicants at tl at time, makes 
 the infeience for the admission of women lay more 
 
 audience, and must be so now to tie reader, that '^ 
 he could not ro any thing with the reply on this - 
 subject. Mr. C. is well acquainttd with 'he ig- 
 T»ori nee of this day, and intends to profit bv ^t; 
 liad he consulted his f-uty, he would rather If led 
 to have eulighlened them. 
 
remote. We shall however attempt to And it 
 
 Every disciple of Christ, may be admitted to a 
 communion table. 
 
 But women are called disciples of Christ: there- 
 fore women may be admitted to a communion 
 table. 
 
 Mr. C. thinks- this inference so easy, that at least 
 we should take it for an express warrant. But 
 in reviewing the sylogism, I find it not true. I 
 find a dt'ftct in the first term, it is too general, I 
 shall therefore amend it. 
 
 Every disciple of Christ may not be adirsiftedto 
 a communion table, because they may be overta. 
 ken in a fault, and for some time, be under the in- 
 fluence of the sin, and as Miriam was, excluded for 
 a season from the visible communion of the 
 cliurch. 
 
 But wo;.^ennre disciples of Christ: therefore wo- 
 men may be excluded from fhe communion of the 
 church. 
 
 This last syllogism J know, is not very good. 
 But it proves this, that it takes some reasoning to 
 fi'id a just inference: it is not a truth, that because 
 they are disciples of Christ, that, tlu-refore, they 
 have always a right to communion. It takes some 
 reasoning to find, that they are of that kind of disci- 
 .p'es,thnt should be admitted to a communion table. 
 Thus by reasoning and inference, I grant that it 
 may be proved, that women have a right to be 
 admitted to the full communion of the church. 
 
 Mr. C. saw what Mr. Edwards had done with 
 Mr. Bonthe's express warrants, and thought he 
 should escape by inventing a new example, and 
 thus be prepared for a new conclusion. But it is 
 now found that his premise Avill not necessarily. 
 admit of his conclusion. A person in delerium mixy 
 
BAPTISM. i95 
 
 be a disciple of CHrist;ar>d this, in addition to the 
 abote, can shew the fallitcy of his jiroumtnt, that, 
 hficause a person is a di-ciple of Clrist,ihat there- 
 fore they must be admitted to a comnmnion table. 
 Mr. C. will have to txen his irivtntive powers 
 once nitre, at d agrain declaim at some length, be- 
 fore he will produce an express warrant for fe- 
 male communion. 
 
 Mr. C. gfivfis us a riew comment upon nets 2. 23. 
 'For the |:iromi.*eis unto you and to yt^ur children, 
 and to all that are afar off, fven as many as the 
 Lord our God sl-all call.' Tlie promise he sup- 
 posps to whicl Pe^er re'er«, is cited from ,1' el v. 
 17, 18, 19 20. P.ge 56. 57, ni d ccording to his 
 usual manni r dfclarf-s tl at I e 'that saitli he cua- 
 '■ not see it is bin d ii deed,' page 5G. 
 
 Ky the things promised ir. this verse, quoted by 
 P ter, Mr. C must either understand the exlrnor- 
 (liDiiry m{'.nifer.tation of the spui',as manife-ted on 
 Ih* day ol Petiticost, or the special f x( rcise of 
 li e si^me spirit, in tl e wt tk of yrace. But it is im- 
 pohsible that it cat' be tl e f rn!er;for the promise 
 t* winch Peter refers, was nut only addressed to 
 lh( s( present on that occasion, but to their chil- 
 dren; to thdBc who wer» yet leathen, or oh' rn, 
 'air oti.' But few of the children, or tho^e q/i-.r offy 
 ever witnessed these mir. culou> out-pouri gs of 
 the ^pirt; and. of course, could not be the sub- 
 jects if lhl^ part cular pn njise. But ti;e propiie- 
 c} ofJfelh;.d a- pr- per acc<>n.pli?hm<nt on the 
 day ol Petiiicost; and theretore. ttiC promise mm-, 
 ticned by Peter, could not, as Mr C. supposes, re- 
 fer to the prophecy 6t Joel. 
 
 Mr. C. inanaj.es hi^coIT^ref t on Peters wcrds 
 as he dees hjs otht r opponenis; le -a).^ P( ler-i ad 
 aieferciice to the ji^ropbecV made by J^ei; aiid 
 
1% BAPTISM. 
 
 t'e rea?;on hfi gives must be sufficient. This is 
 his strong arsrum<^nt — he that cannot sce it, is 
 BLIND iNDEf.D. T lis , hovvcver, Is his usual mode 
 oF •speech, when he either does not understand a 
 point, or does not believe his own assertion. 
 
 Mr. C. next entertain-? you, with an attempted 
 ref'ifation, of an ariruaif^nt drnwn in favoF of in- 
 fmt baptism, from thf eircum=?tances of a ntmib-^r 
 of households beinar bapfizf^d. Paije 72, 73. Af- 
 t' r takin? a view of the household of Cornelius, 
 r enfioned in the 10 h chap, of Acts, he conchidi^sj 
 ' The imasjinary infints of the housetiojd of Cor- 
 ' nelius when the lOf'i chap4;'r of the Acts is read, 
 ' come out distinguished believer* and notable 
 ' christians.' The ncuteness of Mr. C's genius 
 has made some discoveries on this chapter wl;icli 
 I'.o oiher pcr-'on can s< e. We cannot perceive a- 
 ny thinjf in the chapter which excludes the possi- 
 bili'v of infnnr nenbers b?ing in it. Should I 
 make this public d.claration respecting a family, 
 that thry weie religion-; hnd instructive parents; 
 a household that feared God; would any o'-e clial- 
 lange me for speaking improperly, although some 
 of them were infants, and some sufficiently growa 
 to yield the fruits of religious education? But 
 Luke asserts no more respecting the houj^ehold of 
 Cornelius, Acts 10, 2. 'A devout man and onfc 
 that feared God, with all his house;*^ and finally 
 that they were baptized. 
 
 2nd. Household, was the household of Lydia, 
 ' The 40th verse ^jrohibits the supposition of in- 
 
 * fants, for we are told that Paul, at her request, 
 
 * after he was discharged from prison, visited hrr 
 
 * family; and that 'when they had entered the 
 ' house of Lydia & had seen the brethren, and com- 
 
 * forted them, they departed.' So that thege sup- 
 
BAPIISM, ,idf 
 
 ^^poped that infants were brethren in the faith, 
 * capabl.e of receiving comfort from Ihe words of 
 ' (h«' apoi^tle.' 
 
 Reader, attend to this new ppecies of household, 
 Ii was composed of the neighbors who had railed 
 to visit hep family, ai d hear Paul preach. T ese 
 were all baptized. Paul and Silas, who also had 
 called with her, were thereby constituted a part of 
 her household; and of course, with the rest were 
 baptized. It is not possible that any person can 
 believe Mr. C's doctrite. That if a nymher of 
 neighbours, either accidentally or b\ design, hap-, 
 pr ned to meet in ihe house of a neigV bor, that they 
 thereby constituted one household. But his idea is 
 still more ridiculous, because a conjrregation, 
 it appears, had c<l]ected at the house of Lydia; al- 
 thou^'hthey had no concern in her secular affairs, 
 yet from this simple circumstance, accordma: to 
 Mr. C. they were the members of her household, 
 and i>.s such, obtained baptism. Any thing, Mr. C. 
 r;itl er than the baptism of I.nfants. 
 
 Whether Ljdia was a widow, or had a living 
 hu,eband. I cannot tell; but I am certain she had a 
 family. She not only had a' house, but also a 
 household;^ this family ,whethprbHbes or not, were 
 baptized. Mr. C. has found, (F •.uppose from Mr. 
 Robison) that she was a traveilina^ merchant; be« 
 cau~e it is said she was of the city of Thyatyra; 
 and from this circumstance, v^ouid have the rea* 
 der to believe that she was a sina^le lady, that 
 merely called at Philippi to sell a car^'O qt trc-ods. 
 He indeed ti.lks so familiarly abotit it, that the 
 reader .would -uppose I.e vva^? personally "cquiint- 
 cd with her. But she had a hou'-e, a suitable place 
 of entertainment. Tliis I corie..:? doiis i'at appear 
 ojuch like a Urav^Uinij merclvaiit,* She bad oiigj- 
 S 2 
 
19§ BAPTISM, 
 
 Dally, I'ved in Thy?tyra. She now residfd in 
 Pliilippi. Mr. C. you should at least try to make (he 
 like-e^J of truth. 
 
 The next exami^le mentioned, is the household 
 of th" jaifor, page 73. After Mr. C. r«'vipws this 
 subject, he concludes, 'So that the suppo'-ed in- 
 ' fants of thi-; hou e wer-^ c^pa!>le of h »viii!j a ser- 
 * mon preached to theai, of believinsf.' &c. But 
 the examination of the premi<;es, will, perhaps ren- 
 der Mr. Cs conclusion not so easy. Let us now 
 resd the passage.' 'A:;d they spake irito him thfe 
 • word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 
 And he took them the same hour of tlie night, 
 and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and 
 all his straitj^ht-way. And when he had brought 
 them into his hous*^ he sat mi'at before them, and 
 rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house.* Acts 
 16. To whom w;is (he word here spoken? It is 
 to the jailor, and to all that were in his house; in- 
 cluding, perhaps, servants and others. Suppose 
 thai tb.ese wr?e adults, as Mr. C. suppose^. Yet 
 the>e by the inspired historian, are carefully dis- 
 'tinguishe.i from the infants and other members of 
 the family. Because, when bespeaks ofbapti- 
 t'zing, it is the jailor 'and all his.' Mr. C. inten- 
 tionally confounds those who heard tlie word, 
 with those that were baptized; but Luke does not* 
 
 Mr. C. supposes that they were all triumphant 
 believers who were baptized in his household. Here, 
 as u"^ual, Mr, C. takes the advantage of the reader 
 not acquainted with the original text. Because 
 the words 'rejoiced, believing,' are in (be sin- 
 gular number, and therefore cannot include those 
 to whom the word was preached*. He rejoiced 
 
 *'f «ere is . but htiie doubt, but Mr. C. kiicvy 
 
^ B4PTISM 198 
 
 • 
 
 w'fb all hishoiisp; or rejoiced over t^at family, he 
 ha <]!»•=!' d-'flJcated t» t'e L'-rd bv baptism. Nei- 
 th T the jjy of t'le fmiily nor yet' the joy of 
 of er^ is mentioupd. T!<e f!i:ni!y had 
 just now received the ordinance of baptism; 
 vv-y did thev not join with their father in this joy? 
 or whv does the inspired historian, mention the 
 j >V of the father alone? T^ie answer is easy; a 
 great share of the fanriilv were children, too yon s: 
 to have an un ierstanding of the seal, they h.id 
 just T' cived. 
 
 Th*" last household mentioned by Mr. C. is the 
 household of Stephanus. ICor. 1. 16. He says 
 that 'all the members of this household, were 
 saints of the first magnitude; because they addict- 
 ed themselves to the minislry of t!ie saints. Li- 
 b'jralitv is, indeed, J^n excellent character; but he- 
 fore Mr. C. I' never heard that it constitutes a 
 person; a saint of the first magnitude.' The 
 truth, however, id, that tlie apostle ^ives a good 
 character of this family; thev were l'b'>ral in en- 
 tertaining saints. But Mr, C. ihink^. that no fa-" 
 'niily could be said to be liberiil, who had infants; 
 for this is the only reason he )?ives, why they could 
 have no infant members in the family. *They mi- 
 nistered to the saints.' His most ignorant rea- 
 ders can judije of the force of this argument. 
 
 Notw'thstanding all Mr C. has said, the ar- 
 
 this ftci. This circumstance miglit awaken his 
 few disciples, when they see the use he makes of 
 Greek. This i^, however, to be observed, that Mr. 
 C. always speaks with the most confidence, and 
 exults most in victory, when he kuows he is 
 wrong. Tai3 may d> with one class of mankind, 
 but the wise will scorn it. 
 
300 BAPTISM. 
 
 guTient of Pedo-B^ptist, founded upon the f;^ct8 
 of so mniiy households b^'ins: bap'ized, remmns 
 unimpaired. Wiieri this seal of the covenant of 
 grace was first admiriistered, uiidt r another fornti, 
 the name-; of some of the infants, members of the 
 household, were mentioned; nay at eight days old 
 this seal was administered; of which we have a 
 particular account given, when this posit've in- 
 stitution was first mentioned; Gen. 17. 27 As 
 the mode was the almost only thinj changed, it 
 appeared no longer i ecessary to mention the pre- 
 ci'^e age of the ditferent members of liouseholds 
 admitted by thif? 'ieaU 
 
 But the simple and natural method in which 
 we find the baptism of households stated, form a 
 strong argument in favor i*f the system of Pedo^ 
 Biptist. Mr. C. desires to amend the texts by 
 inserting the adult members; this would end the 
 controver=:y; but a reader of common sense, when 
 he finds (he word household^ will at least suppose 
 it probable, there were infant members in it. The 
 househuld of Abrahani is mentioned; we know it 
 had infant memi)ers; yet the baptist deny that any 
 irif;,nts belonged to the households ofLydia, Ste- 
 phat'Us, &r, for this strong reason, that none of 
 them are mentioned. 
 
 Next, Mr. C. objects to the interpretation gi- 
 ven by Mr. W. of Psal. 127. Let us hear M:. C. 
 'Now what a perversion of a plain portion of- 
 'scripture, to attempt to shew, from these words, 
 'that infants are, in a spiritual sense, theinheri- 
 ' tance of the Lord, or a reward, or gifi, presented 
 * to him by their parents T »is is just the rever-!e 
 ' of the meaning of the Ps.hn ' 11- accordi.':g!y 
 pre er ts us with a paraohrase, hsi we <ho.ild 
 njjsuuderjsland the pass, ge, -Lo,' even chiUren 
 
BAPTISM. 201 
 
 '^ tliemseives, which are born by or<!inary prenfra- 
 ' tion, are an heritage or icift of the Lord to pa- 
 ' rents, andthe truit of the womb is las reward to 
 tlif.m.' P. 74. But we ask to wiiom is the address 
 niide? We answer,* to parent*; and tho-se behev- 
 ers, having a standing in the covenant of grace; 
 and it is to them, an intimation, that tley.inay m- 
 Joy themselves ♦vithout'inquielude. They may 
 c>»nsidpr themselves df^livert^d from all the Hnxi'!- 
 tie«! and trowblfs of the world, manifested by their 
 rising early and sittiiig no late from rest; feeding 
 on the bie;id of sorrriw, &.c. Because you are 
 tiiken into a relation to Gid, by which you have 
 peace with G ^d secured, and fin illy, a conquest 
 over the world. As the persons addressed ^re 
 believer-?, so the heritage of which the Psdinist 
 speaks, is believer's children. These God de- 
 clares to be ills heritage; and vvhile they are only 
 lent to paients, the right of the Head of the 
 Church IS not (hereby relinquished. All we ask 
 is, that this heritage should be sealed to the Lord, 
 by baptism. 
 
 Mr. W. did, in the public di-^pute, and does yet^ 
 contend, that the passage in Psal. 127, does dt^- 
 dare, that infants may he constituted members of 
 the visible church, by declaring, thrnt the children 
 of believers are the 'heritage of the Lord.' This 
 is a title in scripture given to the church, Joel 2. 
 17, 'Spare Ihy peojile O Lord, and give not thy 
 heritage to reproach.' The church is an herifai^'e 
 which Christ 'purchased of old.' It will indeed 
 take the ingenuity of Mr. C. to prove that the ex- 
 pression in Psal. 127, must mean something dif- 
 ferent from tijat which it was, in every other part 
 of scripture. 
 
 The next argument he attempts to rt fute, ip 
 
^0:^ BAPTISM. 
 
 drawn from Malt. 28. 19. 'Go ye therefore and 
 teach all nations, baptizing thf m in the name of 
 the Fnfher arid of the S 'n,and ofthe Holj Ghost.* 
 P. 151. Mr. C. afttT prcifoundly trying his Greek 
 skill, Sijccpeds in proving ttiat V e word them, 
 d"es not relate to nntinn-; but only to those partg. 
 of nations, that are discipled. This, indeed, may- 
 serve him for an opportunity of di.-playing himself: 
 because no person ever denied that which he has 
 proven; and therefore, hix Gr'ci-^n labor i.^ lost. 
 N'> person ever supposoii that Chri'-t's injunction 
 required the baptism of every p»=Tson, prophane 
 or sober. But this iiift-rence will not be denied, 
 even by tlie B :ptists, that it is tht> duty of G')sp<.l. 
 ministers to go and preach the Go-jpcl to diifi:rent 
 nations, arid give such as receive it the s'^al-j of' 
 the covenant of urace, Yt-t we observe that 
 somotliins; more is fou d in this expression of 
 Christ. From ti.e irjunction of Christ in .M.itt» 
 28. 19. tiie tollowing things are evident. 
 
 lit That an adu t should be t ught by the 
 preaciiing of the everlasting Gos})el, before he b^: 
 biptiz«^rd. 
 
 2 d. That it wa^ the duty of all the nations to 
 \vhom the apostlt^s came, to receive the word of 
 life to them prfe:chrd, and the sacrament of bap- 
 tism to them j^res'-nM'd 
 
 Old. Th.it every ineaiber constituting the na- 
 tion, whet' er m de or female, bond or free, young 
 or old, should profit, bv the admiidstra'ioii of' 
 word and saeranient. It will be granted, thai 
 the parents wf-re not the otdy persons hound lo 
 receive these; but their (.-hildreii also. The pan 
 n nts being once instructed and initiated. in t le^ 
 mysteries of grace, w- r qualitied and dispo ed. 
 t(i instruct their children; who, like olive 
 
BAPTISM. gOS 
 
 plants, might be set around their GoepeT table, aid 
 reap the frjiit of all the blesniiigs iheir paientB 
 possessf^d. 
 
 4(h. That a!l who w^re in the nation, and ca- 
 pat)le of being: taught, should be instructed. And 
 otrain, all who wtre capable of being .baptizd 
 shfiuld r»:CPive this ordinance. But as receiving 
 instruction, supposes the activity of tie suhjrct m- 
 slructfd; so none but tho-^e capable of under- 
 standing could receive instruction. But iri tlie 
 receiving of tiie sacrament of bapfi-ni, no activity 
 was necessary; then the infant menibi rs of the 
 nation could be the proper subjects of it. Tlie 
 fit subject^ of baptism U( re thvv more numerous, 
 than the fit subjects addressed in the mitiistry; be- 
 cause baptism included adults and infant.-. But 
 as Mr. C. iri fond of syllogisms, he shall li&ve it in 
 that form. 
 
 If infants are the members of a nation, ihry 
 were included in the positive command of Christ, 
 Malt. 28. 10. 
 
 But the former is true, and therefore the latter. 
 
 Our first assertion will not be denied. The se- 
 cond I think is a natural ct)n«equei ce. Mr. C, 
 thinks not. Why? because the words might be 
 'rendered go ye therefore into all the world and dis- 
 jfciple all naiiohs; and because infants cannot be 
 discipled they niust not be baptized. But I ob- 
 serve, that Mr. C's. inference is not true. Read 
 Math. 10. 42. 'And whosoever shall give to 
 dririk, unto one of these little ones, a cup of cold 
 water g) the name of a disciple, verily I say unto 
 you, he shall in no wise loose his reward.'' There, 
 *a little one, a babe^ is called a disciple. But a cer- 
 tain Dr. Lathrop, who happened to quote, for some 
 purpose, Matt. 18. 5, 6. Mr. C. to the surprise of 
 
804 BAPTISM. 
 
 the Doctor, fnund the w- rds little one in v. &, 
 Were to be. Ui.dersstood ot heliever>-; and tlicn 
 he :bu«?es ti e D ctor for d rv g to think that the 
 words to/e wic could mean a b b' . Tl e amount of 
 Mf. C's. reasoning i, th;^t the word-^ little one 
 were taken in a fijurufVe sei se iii Matili. 18. 6; 
 Th.-r^fore, this must be their signification iii every 
 Oti^er scripture passage. 
 
 Mr. C admits that infants may, in irifancy, re- 
 ceive a seal of civil citizenship, even at ei^ht days 
 old: althougli they are both iiriconscious of the 
 sign and of the tlvlns? signified. Grunting circum- 
 cision to be, what Mr. C. supposes, a national sign, 
 a .seal of t!ie earthly Canajin, yet it will not be 
 denied that it was an instructive seal. They must, 
 according to him, have by it, been taught their na- 
 tional character, their civil rights and priviledges, 
 their security for posse,s.*-ing their land, aid final- 
 ly, the source from wliich all fi iwed. Why, Mr. 
 C do all tfiis to male infant-, when they 
 had no understanding of any of the doctrines 
 thught m this rite? But this was in a civil sense, 
 disciphng them; and as we have before shewn, 
 has all the Baptist difficulties attached to it, that 
 disciplinjr them in a religious sense could have. 
 
 'But the commission of Christ says, first tench 
 'and then Baptize.' Page 152. I rej.ly that Christ, 
 upon issuing tlie commission, mentioned in Mark 
 •26. 16. continues: 'He that believeth and is bap- 
 tlz: d shidl be saved; but he that belii vethnot, shall 
 hi' damned ' NdW, updU Mr C- plan. I argue. 
 He that will not believe, shfill not he saved, but no 
 infant in a state of infancy Avill btlieve; th'ereAre, 
 noinfant dying in a state of infancy will be saved. 
 Tin truth of my conclusion drnwn on his pi in, is 
 evident; becaufC faith is t^et belore sblvation; and 
 
BAPTISM; 206 
 
 of course, without faith, salvation cannot follow. 
 N^r will any person either believe Mr. C's pre- 
 mises, or are they prepared to receive his con- 
 el u>'ion. 
 
 Thus from scripture and reason, I think the im- 
 partial rtader w^ill say, that the doctrine of infant 
 baptism is established. Indeed the reader will 
 acknowledge, that little more was necessary afte? 
 the estabhshment of the first propositions. Mr. 
 C. was well aware of this, and therelore plead with 
 all the ingenuity of which he was master, with 
 all the sternness which he possessed, and with all 
 the pity which a /(tiling combatant could claim, 
 that Mr. W. would h t him loose from the old 
 mmty covenant, and from the doctrine of circum- 
 cision, here indeed hift cause looked miserable. 
 Here was the mortal disease of his system, Mr. C. 
 felt it. When the discussion of this was done, 
 little more was necessary. 
 
 In order that his system should live, the cove- 
 nant of the Old testament, the church in that day, 
 nay even the gospel of that age, must all die, they 
 must be no more; and the language of a Paine, n 
 Hume, a Bulingbroke must be revived, to bring 
 down scorn and contempt, upon that age, that Mr. 
 C. may succeed in establishing his theory, and 
 lead captive unthoughtful, and ignorant hear- 
 ers.* 
 
 * Perhaps the degeneracy of a part of our com- 
 munity cannot be better discovered, than by the 
 support which a periodical work, edited by Mr. C. 
 receive. The loose, and I think, the prophane man- 
 ner with which he treats divine revelation, must 
 be shocking to the Christian ear. See his obser- 
 vations on Prov. 37, 27, and on Acts. 13, 33. 
 T 
 
206 BAPTISM. 
 
 Mr. C. concludes his discussion of the doctrine 
 of infant baptisnri, in a way, which must convince 
 everj attentive reader: that the ignorant and un- 
 wary are his mark, this he evidences. 
 
 Nt. By his address to the Roman Catholicks, 
 page 183. And here I may remark, that his ad- 
 dress to the Papists and others, are drawn on the 
 plan of Mr. Hume's history of England M- . Hume 
 because he was an infidel, ^ives no discriminaling; 
 view of the different churciies in Britain, but pla- 
 ce- on a level, the churcfi of Rome, and the re- 
 formed churches. So Mr. C although he may 
 not very well understand the ditierent points, 
 ivhichdistintifuish the church of R nne 'from pro- 
 testants, yet at least he is careless about if. 
 
 It is true, that in some sense tiie Papists are 
 Pvdo-Baptists, because tliey yet in. some way, 
 however corrupt, retain a few of the apostolical 
 practice-: but vvdi t' e Baptists dtuy tlie ijeing of a 
 God, because tb.e R .man Catholicks believe it? 
 While even this doctrine is corrupted by them, in 
 their worshipping of saints and ange]-;'so the doc- 
 trine of infant baptism is corrupted by papists, by 
 the sign of the cross, and other super-^titious rites 
 attached to it by them: yet we are willing toagree 
 with tbem, so tar as they recognize the doctrine 
 oftheBble. 
 
 2nd By his address* to the Episcopalians, his 
 manner of writing to them, has rather a tei.dency to 
 confirm them in every view he opposes. The seri- 
 ous members of that church, deplore all the abuses 
 of this doctrine, and while to Mr. C. it is ihe sub- 
 ject of sp<irt, yet to every honest Episcopalian, it is 
 the subject of lamentation. It is usual with the 
 prophane r.jbbie, to take peculiar pleasure in 
 dwelling upon the faults of profebsors ol the Chris- 
 
' BAPTISM. 2C7 
 
 ii>nreH£ri on, forming t^en by, some e-xcuse for 
 tl en. five*. It is a pity to fid Mr C. copying 
 t! fir roi durt. |ind presenting it to the world for 
 tl eir in mit-.tion. Annonj? thf Episcopalians, he 
 onlv sfrlectp tho^e mt nb^ rs, who like him?t!f, have 
 denied their own baptism. 
 
 3id, Respecting thot wliich Mr. C. says of ti;e 
 Piesbvterian?, I shr-ll mal<e a f '. w observut'ons. 
 He asserts iri poge 183 'For if, as their confes- 
 
 * sion says, the sprinkhd infant, 'js engrafted into 
 
 * Christ' by sprinkling, then its sins must be for- 
 ' given it; then it must be pardoned and aicepitd.' 
 It IS quite sufficient 1 ere lo reply, tlift neither 
 such expressions, nor sentiments are found in a 
 confession of faith, belonging to any branch of 
 the Presbyteiian church, and is one of Mr. C's 
 usual coinmer.ts. Mr. C. has soon forgotten his 
 shorter co.iechism, when' in a citation made from 
 tiio.t small book, he can be contradicted h\ every 
 teliorl boy. 'Ey it, the cl ureh of R ne serines 
 ' all b rn within her d< minion, the cliurch of Em- 
 '• f,dar.d and the church if Scotland, secure, by this 
 ' rite, all within the pale of their respectivt- jur:>J- 
 ' dictions, each sect has its-own views-.' P; gc 183, 
 II Mr. C. lieie means that pr rents, who have pre- 
 sented their children to God in bapli^m, tcacii 
 tlicir respective vitws to their children, then I 
 grant tlat children generally pos^sess the sentl- 
 n>ents of their pi.rt-nts; but I have never yet been 
 able to discoAeV a dif^eience in this rfspt ct, be^ 
 tvvfenthe children ofB.*ptists and Ped .' B:iplist?. 
 Nay, I ha^e known some, who ut dergo all the 
 changes of their ])arents, and-\vith them leap- frcm 
 creed to creed. Will Mr. C. advise parents to 
 teach tl'.eir .children views, they believe not. 
 Query, how does he teach his own cijildren? 
 
20b BAPTISM. 
 
 But why attribute that to baptism, which belongs 
 to the manner of teaching alone? The Roman 
 Catholick is as strongly attached to his particular 
 views as Mr. C^ is, he teaches hi? children to hate 
 the doctrine of the protestantr^, with the same par- 
 tiality, that Mr. C. would teach his, to hate the doc- 
 trine of Pedo Baptist?. The consequence is, that 
 children of tlie one,- become Roman Catholicks. 
 and the children of the other, some kind of Baptists. 
 This phenomenon is by Mr. C. ascribed to infant 
 baptism.* 
 
 But every reasonable reader, will refuse his con- 
 clusion, because the principle is not contained in 
 the premises, the effects not found in the cause. 
 
 Mr. C. not. content with charging almost every 
 
 * Ttie reader will pardon me, for paying any 
 attention to Mr. C's observations on other branch- 
 es of the church. These remarks have generally 
 their answer in thcmsfplves. I should have paid 
 no attention to that which he has said, but for the 
 sake of a certain class of readers. There are 
 some, who easily take OiTenGe at the church of 
 Christ, to us all, infidelity is natural, while Thomas 
 Pain and others, proclaimed war against the scrip- 
 tures, attempting thereby to disarm the church. 
 Mr. C. IS not willing fully to df-clare on their sidi^: 
 but while he almost concedes their views with re- 
 spect to the Old testament, he attacts the church ' 
 in another quarter viz. her practice, doctrine, and 
 profession, with a (e\v he may succeed, but with 
 the wary and discerning he never wdl. Tiiose 
 who feel little mterest in Divine truth, or vital 
 piety, will content themselves, notwithstanding of 
 ail that has been said, with a supeificial view of 
 the subjt'Ct. 
 
I BAPTISM. 209 
 
 error rind outrage upon truth, upon Pedo-Baptismj 
 but interwoven in its being, he finds persecution 
 with ail its horror?, on this he reasons as fairly, as 
 I would do, should I assert that adult baptism, was 
 the cause of the basest crime committed by men, the 
 betraying of the son of God, it was done by Judas, 
 an adult subject of baptism and one indeed thought 
 b> Mr. C. to have been dipped. On the other 
 band the baptists were a sanctified people from 
 the begining. That such was the character of the 
 baptists, let readers judge for themselves, like 
 other branches of the church, they have had their 
 faults. Let us hear the facts from a German writer 
 of the age, in which the baptists arose. Mr. 
 Hoorne, page 318 319. Whether he was a Pedo- 
 Baptist, or not, I cannot say, yet certainly he was 
 impartial. ''Their founders in Germany were 
 ' Nicholas Storch and Thomas Mu'itzerus. They 
 ' rejected Pcdo-Baptism and taught that baptized 
 ' infants shovld, when tliey became adults, be re- 
 ' baptized. That impious magistrates should be 
 ' slam, and in their room pious princes and ma- 
 ' gistrates should be set up. They arose about 
 ' the year 1525. They collected their, troops a' d 
 * occupied Midhusias a city in Thuringui ; from 
 ' which tiiiryled their army to indiscriniiii.ife hufch- 
 ' ery, believing tht^y should reign without a rive!, 
 ' and would-have let't Germany a heap of ruins; 
 ' but Philip, Ldangrave of Hes^e seized their lea- 
 ' dvr, Muntzerus and took oft" his head, and set it 
 ' upon a poh, in the centre of a public pl'^.ce, as a 
 ' tevr T lo oih.r-i,* an 1 dispersed the troop-;.' 
 I'-liiMtzfTuslike Mr. Chad his own .standard of 
 
 *rhis upon tlie wrioie, w^s ruygh IfCi' 
 one oi Mi.C'ss hoiv baptists. 
 
.^10 BAPTISM. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 piety, and like him, he attempted to destroy eve- 
 ry ocher systemi and set up one in its room: yet ho 
 succeeded better amo'i^ the Gf^rmans in obtLuning 
 followers, than Mr. C. has among the Americans. 
 Tha*: was the af?e of -popery, this is not. 
 
 It is evident, from any church history tliat men- 
 uons the events of that day. that Mr. C, might, with 
 )nore propriety, have described the per.-;ecutio>i, 
 and the full spirit of it found in the church, to 
 which he has the honor- of belonging, more than 
 in any branch of the protcstant church. Every im- 
 partial historian JL^stifies the conduct of the cele- 
 brited Knox, and many, the conduct of Calvin, in 
 those events for which Mr. C. condemns them: 
 but none the conduct of the baptists. In justice 
 io this branch of the church, we must, however ob- 
 serve, that no more of a persecuting spirit is now 
 found among them than in other branches of the 
 church; nor would any of their writers, treated 
 thi^ subject as Mr. C has done, I do not believe, 
 thattheconductof these ancient Ana-baptists, pro- 
 Cv^ded from their view>; of baptism, nor do I be- 
 heve that the persecuting spirit of the baptists 
 arose from tlieir views of baptism: every impar- 
 tial reader will equally deny both. 
 
 We shall next attend to the history of baptism. 
 But before we proceed to give a particular histo- 
 jy Vv'e shall mike a few observations. 
 
 1st. Mr. C. refuses the t'-^stimony of any person 
 with respf-ct to facts, who does not agree with 
 him in opinion. Upon this general view of the sub- 
 ject, and as if there could be no controver^sy on 
 this point, he proceeds to invalidate the testimo- 
 ny of Cvprian and others, b'*cause their views, 
 not on facts, but on abstract subjects, diff^n'd 
 from his: yet he never oace attempted to impeach 
 
BAPTISM. 211 
 
 the character of any of the fathers, on truth and 
 veracity. 
 
 2nd. This position, must therefore be true, that 
 no witne.-s can be received in a civil court to 
 give testinnony, whose relij<ious sentiments may 
 difft r, from the Judge before whom he testifies: 
 what are your rf:ligiou'^ sentiments? must be the 
 first question asked to every witness, who appears 
 before court. Qu^^ry, will ever the world be re- 
 duced to that state of iajnorance. It w^s the po- 
 pish opinion in the 13, 14, and 15 centuries, Mr. 
 C. has revived it. 
 
 3rd. Many of the fathers, I grant, were in the 
 habit of callinj; baptism regeneration, although 
 this manner of speech, is not to be justified, yet it 
 is not probab'e, that their sentiments differed 
 much on this subject, from those n-nv s;en(^rally 
 believed, by both regular baptists and Pedo -Bap- 
 tists. It was evidently a practice of the Old-tes- 
 tament saints, to call circumcision a covenant; 
 while it was only a seal of a covenant, as in Gen. 
 17. 13. So the filhers might have called b .p- 
 tism, regeneration bec;\use baptism is the sign of 
 it. H td this been true however, their testimony 
 on facts might have b'^en neverless true. 1+ is 
 remarkable -'that Mr. Robertson, believed to be a 
 Socinian writer, was fully qu^Uified, with Mr. C. 
 to bear testimony, while the pious — or as he is 
 Tjsually styled the holy Cyprian, was refused. 
 O- this subject Mr. C's. readers will pity him. 
 
 In the history of infant bnptism* we have a few 
 
 *I hive for myself translated the most of the 
 foll<»wing quotations from the oriijinal works, or 
 extracts of the same, found in the LUtin edition of 
 Bingham's antiquities. J thought on this plan. 
 
212 BAPTISNf. 
 
 remaininsf sketches, or rather scraps of those fa- 
 thers who wi-Tv cotemporarj with the ppostles; 
 by comparing their testimony, I think it will easi- 
 ly be infered, that infant baptism was preached 
 in their daj. Chmeiis Romanus and Hermes 
 the shepherd, lived in thost* day^;; whether they 
 were thr person^;, of whom the Apostle spake, I 
 cannot affirm;* y«t certairdy they were the imme- 
 diate successors of the apostles. That both these 
 writers, grai ted the possibility of the salvation of 
 infants will not be denied. 
 
 Clemens Romanus says in his epistle to the 
 Corinthians. 'Job was just ard without fault, 
 '.true, worshiping God, abstaining; from every evil. 
 'No one is free from cnmiption (rhupou) although 
 'he is but a day old {ouch ei mias hemeras he zoe 
 antou,) 
 
 Now reader attend to the testimony of the co- 
 temporary writer cf Cletnens pnd see the impor- 
 tance attached by Hermes (he shepherd to bab- 
 tism. 'It is tiecessary, as by water, they have to 
 ' ascend, that they may re-t; for they cannot other- 
 
 * wive enter into the kingdom of God, than by lay- 
 
 * ing a,?ide the mortality of this present life. They, 
 'therefore beitig s-ealed w:th tl^e seal of the Son 
 ' of God, and being de-.d, enter into the kingdom 
 'of the Son of God. For btfore a person receives 
 ' the nnme of the son of G^id, he is destined to 
 
 tliut I could ut least, do more justice to tl e facts, 
 than if I had taken them, as found in English 
 books. 
 
 *From tne pat.r,ivc' nianrur i*. Wi:icii Mr. C. 
 speiiks of the-^e fraher-^, you would think i.e was 
 personally acquainted with ihtni. 
 
BAPTISM. 213 
 
 ^ death; but where he receives th?t sign, he is 
 
 * freed from death, and is delivered to lite. But 
 
 * tliey ascend being sealed to life. To these there- 
 ' fore is this seal preached, and they use it that 
 'they may enter into the kingdom of God.' Pas. 
 lib. lib. 1. vis. 3. chap. 3. . 
 
 Compare these declarations, and wJiat is the 
 evident result. That there could be no salvation 
 to infants without baptism. For if as Clemei t 
 says, they had moral corruption from the womb, 
 and as Herms says, baptism the only way by 
 which they could enter into iieaveri. It follows 
 that such as desired tlie salvation of their chil- 
 dren, would have this seal administered. Now 
 although we grant that they attached an undue 
 importance to this ordinance, yrt it affects not 
 the point upon wliich we demand their testinion}'. 
 To every impartial reader, they declare, that in- 
 fants at that time were baptized. . 
 
 Justin Martyr who wr ite about the year 148, 
 has this declaration. 'There rire many amon^ us 
 'of each sex, sixty or seventv years i.]d, uho were 
 
 * made disciples of Christ whc. children (hoi (fc 
 '■ paidon cmafiicliusan to Christo.'') Those nf 
 wjiom Justin here speaks, were of course, initiat- 
 ed into the church during the !ifV tin e of some of 
 the apostles. But in the sume apology, like 
 Hermes, he declares the necessity of b<iptism for 
 Siilvfition and this he attempts to establ sh from 
 John 3. 3. 5. But that he also gratifed the d >c- 
 trine of original sin, is evident from some passa- 
 ges in his dialogue P.315,31G. That Justin viewed 
 b;!ptism, as coming in the room of tircumcisior, 
 and thereby, granted the baptism of infants, is 
 abo evident, 'V/e,' says he 'have not receivi d 
 Hhat circunicJon according to the fles!i,but in a 
 
114 BAPTISM. 
 
 'spirittial mnnner, ao Enoch and the like (oi 
 * omoioi) saints received it; but we hnverei eiv- 
 ' ed it by bipti-m: seeini? we as smners, ar^' re- 
 'ceived by the tnercy of God, and are all fr. 6 in 
 'like m.inripr. old copv P 261. 
 
 Biif Mr. C. \,■^v\r)r faitiifullv^ mutilated Mr. W's. 
 q'iotati.n^P. 105, lOB. says -T ere is not then, I af- 
 farni the slisntest yjrouttd, to quote .[u>^tin Martyr 
 'as a testimony in favor of infant baptism.''* 
 
 Let tlie reader now julge for himself If it be 
 CO), ceded that baptism is to the subj.'ct no'v, that 
 U'liich, circumcision was to its subjects under tiie 
 Ohl testament, then infants may be biptized. But 
 this concession is absolutely made by Jusluj Mar- 
 tyr, or otherwise his words can have no meaning. 
 H'ld Mr. C. m«de the same concession with this 
 Tith'T, he never would have d nic d the doc- 
 ■frine of infarit biptism. But it is also evident 
 from the same writer that he did not think, with 
 Mr. C. that the nrivihdges of New tc^tamenf pa- 
 re' ts were abndgeri, tlio-e now 60 or 70 years old 
 were disciples to Chnst Avlien chddren. So the 
 
 *The re-.ider will look at a note in Mr. C's' 
 bviik, P. 105. The last and first asseriions o^ 
 that noie ar*. equally true. Indeed Mr. W. does* 
 think, that th'' books assii.Mied to 'the li>^* of Mr. 
 C'?. Si'.ints — ridch as sai.nt Barn has sAun H rmes, 
 &;c. Were never seen by tho>.e saints Their 
 ttief'logy ditf« rs very much, from that which 
 would h;ive been written by the consp^iniuns of 
 the rtpostits— one of whom was an evangel st be- 
 fore the Apostle Paul, the style sav- rs more of 
 th.: 4i:h, th<>.n of the l-it. century. Mr. C. knows 
 this, but »t serves hi'* purpose, to hand forth spu- 
 noud works, for genuine. 
 
Baptism. 115 
 
 Jews had t' em discipled when eight days old by 
 circumcision, this is the opin-on of Justin M itvr, 
 but not of Mr. C. 
 
 It appears to have been an opinion generally 
 received, in the time of Justin M.:rty.r. that the or- 
 dinance of baptism, \va>j essi ntial to salvation: 
 W'.thont doubt, at that period, they would have 
 their children baptised The homilies supposed 
 to have been vi^nttr-n by Clement Ronianus* has 
 this que-tion, 'of what u^eis ihf^ water of bap- 
 'ti-m in the worship of G)d? ,He answers^ 1st. 
 'Il pIcdSMS God in that it fulfills his will. 2nd. 
 ■ Beciuse being regenerated by vi^aler and renew- 
 ' ed by God, the v.eakness of our nativity, ^^hich 
 ' was produced by man, is removed; so that final- 
 ' ly ydu can enter iuto hfe but otherwise it is im- 
 possible,' (alios de adunaton. 26.. P 698. 
 
 Let us next attend to the te.-timony of Ircneus. 
 Ii indeed, appears something diffii-nk to tix pre- 
 cissely ti;e time of the birth of tiiis celebrated 
 man. Mr. D.)dvve!i Ih^t writes a d'sse.'tation on 
 his age, fsas fixed it A. N. 97 tiiis he ci>l!( cts from 
 an . xpression bflreneus, Mhe fall cf the empireof 
 'Dnmilicn happered in liis time ' But Mr. Bing- 
 ham states* that another copy, has it 'aI»iost ai 
 * his time.' Yet certain it is that he was born be- 
 fore the year 122, while asyet Poiycarp the dis- 
 
 * I have more" reason for supposing Clement, 
 was the author of these homilies, thiin M\\ C. 
 has for, suuposing that his saint B.»rnabas was the 
 author of the Catholiek Epistle ascribed to him; 
 yet I am far from being convinced that Clement 
 was their author, allhousih I beieve the work to 
 be very ancient and pi"obably written about the 
 time uf Justin Martyr. 
 
216 BAPTISM. 
 
 ciple of John the Divine was living, whom Ire- 
 neus declr.res he saw and heard prf-ach, his tes- 
 tinriony should be of force on this question, were 
 infant childrt n admitted, bj baptism, members of 
 the visible church in that age? The sincerity 
 of his assertions will not be disputed by any chris- 
 tian, he sealed with his blood, the doctrine he pro- 
 fessed. He uses these words book 2f)d. chnp. 
 39. *Christ came to save all by himsflf, all I say. 
 ' who by him are regenerate unto God, both infants 
 ' and little oiies, young men & elder persons,' By 
 the expression 'regenerate unto God.' he certain- 
 ly meant bapt:z('d wnto God, because he 
 uniformly u^es the vvo;ds in this sense. 
 Tims he says in book Itt chap. 19. 'Because 
 'to deny baptism vvliich is our regeneration to 
 ' God' {eis thcon anagenncsecs.) He has also 
 the>e words. 'When Christ give the command- 
 * ment of regenerating into God, he said go atid 
 ^ teach all nations.' &c. 
 
 Tertuilian ordained trie Bishop of Carthage^ was 
 born in the last part of the 3rd century. He ex- 
 presses his mind clearly on tb.ii! sabject, as it re- 
 spects the fact, that infants w ere baptized. I grant 
 that upon the s'jbject of baptism, he lield some 
 opinions entirely unjustifiable, and in some things 
 alm.ost as wild in his notions as Mr C He was 
 indeed lather opposi'd to the baptism of infants, 
 or any unmarried person. He advises that in 
 most cases it be delayed until after marriage; yet 
 he opposed tlie baptit^m of infants, merely because 
 they were unmarried. But he expressly decliTes 
 that in case of necessity arriving from evident ap- 
 proach of death, their baptism should not be de- 
 layed. And this he does upon the authority of 
 Christ's words John 3 5. *ExQept a man be born 
 
BAPTISM. an 
 
 of wv.ier ann of tlie spirit, he cannot entrr into tl e 
 iii'igdoiM of God.' See Ttriullian on baptism 
 ch; p. 18, 19. 
 
 Origin that was his cotenrif r ry, &ind« ed e .r- 
 lier in the church than leiiuiluin, alfords us am- 
 pK' testimony, both as it icspectB his own views, 
 and th<- opiiiion of others in iii> age, -everal tiiiukp 
 stHfid much ill 111'- f»vnras a witne?-: he wa* born 
 about tl;e year 183 Hi^ father & grand fatltr boiii 
 professed chrisluiiVity; and, Ix-ug born himself 
 Witliin a little more than 100 years of ttie lifertime 
 of some of the aporitles, he must have had a particu- 
 lar knowledge (»f the act>, practices, and views 
 of the church, frnhi the earliest i!ges. of her New 
 testnment history. Leonidas, hi> fatlur, sufleri d 
 martyrdom in the persetutiim rinsed h) S* v( rus ti c 
 R man Emperor; at which time, Or-gm, who wns 
 or;ly 18 years of age, wrote a letter to hi- futf < r, 
 to continuf steadfast in his adhc raice to truiii, 
 to death. He says: 'The baptism of children are 
 ' given f r the forgive ie>^s of their sins: but wliy 
 
 * are children, by the usage of the church, baj)tized, 
 ' if they have nothing thnt wants forgive ne^^r' 
 He adds: 'It is because, by baptism, the pollution 
 
 * of our birth is taken away, 'hat infants ;irp b:.p- 
 'lized.' Naj', he usserts, that the practict was ri - 
 ceived from tfie apostles I c < ecl:ire>: The church 
 
 * had also an order from the apostles to gi\e 
 
 * baptism -to infants: for they to whom, tl e DiviriC 
 
 * mysteries vv« re committed, knew thr.t liitrewas, 
 
 * in all persons, a natiir;il pollution, which ought 
 
 * to be wasjied awny, by water and the spirit.' 
 
 Cyprian and Ambrose (ieclare, that it was tlie 
 
 original practice of the church to baptize infciiits. 
 
 I was even urtred against P, lagius that he denied 
 
 the doctJiwe ©forijjinal sin, and vttiic grauteid limt 
 
 U • . ■ 
 
Sl« BAPTISM. 
 
 infants should be baptized. 'Mftn skhdep m'*,? 
 says Pelagius, 'as if I denied baptism to infants.' 
 
 Thus, reader, I havr tfiven you a brief view ottlie 
 testimony of tbe first New testament writers up- 
 on tlijs subject; I think it remai is evident, 
 thntthe writers of the two fiist centuries, admit- 
 ted the baptism of infants; and tiiar it had beeB 
 constimtly priictized in the church from the earli- 
 est ages of the New testament. There is not a sin- 
 gle hint given, of adults possessing an exclusive 
 right to this ordinance. 
 
 The false views of the church ar. that time, foriti 
 a reason, why it is vi-ry improbable, that tht y 
 would neglect the baptism of their children. It is 
 conceded by all, that infants may be re<i;enerated; 
 but their expressions seem to say, that baptism was 
 regeneration; it \vr»s not likely, with this opinion, 
 tliey would ne.i^lect the ordinance. They held 
 that ba-ptism was essential to. salvation; with this 
 view would they neglect the administration of it 
 to their children? 
 
 The primitive fathers, generally granted tlie 
 doctrine of original sin. Pelagius was among the 
 first who openly denied it; and therefore should 
 have been among the first to deny infant baptism;* 
 for without guilt, any atonement is unnecessary, 
 or any sign to rt»present it. 
 
 The heresy of denyirig infant baptism, did not 
 m)ke its appearance, until the third century, whf^n 
 iTiaiiy other errors made their appearance, soriie 
 of which Mr. C. mentions. He should have ad- 
 
 * I should think, that Mr. C. might feel hurt when 
 he finds the hereticalP'laarius considering it slan- 
 der, to hold that which Mr. C. thinks is an honor* 
 O teinpora. mores. 
 
BAPTISM. 2 IS 
 
 a«d this opinion of the baptists to the list. That 
 was the age ol the novelty of sentiment. They 
 began to deny inf mts a nuiht to baptism. This 
 is the reason why Cyprian, Austin, Clirysostim 
 and others of the sur.ce -dinaf fathers, are so ex- 
 plicit on the subject ofbapti-^m. 
 
 The writers uf the two fir«t centuries have but 
 little on the subject of baptism; became the right 
 of children to that ordinance at that time, was not 
 disputed. It farfid with the subject, as vv'ith the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, until the lime of Ariu-^, 
 little wassaid on that subject; but, after his time, 
 we have an abuitddnce on the subject of the Trin- 
 ity. The church is apt to assert a truth but feebly, 
 until it is opposed; but opposition gives life to the 
 testimony ot the church. 
 
 Mr. C. by his despising the te-timony of tlie 
 early f:\ther?,by his r»-viling their characters, con- 
 cedes to Use world, that their testimony lay against 
 him. A man, who in court has a witness coll.'vd, 
 who test I fie ■? in his favor, will endeavor to estab- 
 lish the character of that witness. Had Mr. C. be- 
 lieved the witness of these fathers on his side, he 
 would not have called forth the hid of a standerinn; 
 Robinson, to cdlumniate them. No, he vvt)uld ha\e 
 carefully concealed their failings. Hss ingenuity 
 to impeach, is his insrenious cof fes-ion, that all 
 their testimony was in favor of Pedo baptism. 
 
 THE MODE OF BAPTISM * 
 We have now come to that part of the debate- 
 
 * If Mr C. has. done Mr. W. luile justice m u.e 
 other part of the aebiilfc, he has done nnn sui!. 
 
^d BAPTTSM. 
 
 for which Mr. C. expressed so much fonli'ifss dii- 
 rifig the dehate. When, at any time, be either vv \s 
 exhausted himsetf, or had not filled up his time, 
 he wouhl fly to thi=» >ub)ect, infornini; the au- 
 d ence tnat he would fill up the time as he pleas- 
 'eJ.* I( must however be observed, that he never 
 touched this p^rt of the debate, with any thing like 
 a true s:tir;t of investigation. H- sp"n:l3 a great 
 s'^nre of his time, ifi pr:iisirig Lexogripheis; no 
 t; ne in givinsf trtiethe analysis of words. He sports 
 much and does little on this point of deb ite. 
 
 It i^ not our intention hereto ofter to the publ'c 
 finy critici'^'iis upon the G eek word, 1ransl;.ited to 
 baptize, W -iter- have done this to good purpose 
 already. M ■. Rxlsfoii in a late publicatio i, cer- 
 tainly h:\s given a very ju4 ri«MV o( this part of tlie . 
 subject; and I tliinlc, has done justiee to theGr-'pk 
 
 lesson tuc nude ut" Oipiia-n. ia tun part of tnc .1' - 
 b'C, be has Mr. W. i^iving some tolerable good 
 criiicisnis on the Grce Ic words: but some of the?e, 
 ho.vever good, were never -een by Mr W. until 
 he read tnem in Mr. C's book. Othur criticims 
 Mr. VV. did make; these Mr. C. has mutdAtid. 
 S Kue ot the arguaients ire entirely misrepresented, 
 <j. g those svtiicii wyre drtwn from the typical 
 aiotiemeut. You wouhl suppose, that Mr. VV. be- 
 iieved, that the w iter of baptism respected 
 tiie ground of juslification alone, which is not a 
 fact. . 
 
 t 
 
 * It is supposed Mr. C did th;s u picli, s qu fiel 
 W'th Mr. Fiudly, on« of the Judges, because he 
 k tew thit the J idges wer;- bou id to keep the 
 disputants to the qaestio \. II'. mis-^ed ids ami, ne- 
 aesdity alone impelled Mr. F, to use this power.- . 
 
BAPTISM. 321 
 
 ■vvonls.But I observed, durine the piblic debat«j 
 and I noticed the same in Mr. C's strictures oa 
 Mr. RV"? reviewv that he scarcely attempts to re- 
 move the difficulties, which stand in his \va)', IVoin 
 the meaning of the original words. I iiave observ- 
 ed the same thing, with most of the baptist wri- 
 ters. They have a beaten track in which they all 
 travel; indeed some attempt it, who do not know 
 the difference between the Greek and Dutch. 
 And yet when Pedo B.\ptists attempt to shew that 
 the word baptize IS frequently U'^ed, both by hea- 
 then and sacred writers, when it cannot be transla- 
 ted, fo (Zip, toplunge: and must mean to sprinkle, to 
 ))our, no reply i'^ given, and frequently none at- 
 tempted. I shall therefore, only for the present, 
 briffly reason from the nature of the ordinance. 
 
 The only matter here in dispute, is, how much 
 WAter is necessary in the administratrion of the 
 ordinance of baptism? O i this Pedo Baptists have 
 had but little difficulty; because, from a drip- to 
 the fullness of the ocean, they do not ohjcct It 
 is sufficient that the element of water be used. 
 Water is a sign; and until the baptists can shew, 
 thit the command which requires the use of this 
 sign, specifies also the quantity to be used, we 
 niustregar'd all their reasoning as inconclusive. 
 
 The word baptize, in its-tuUesf, supposed extent, 
 can determme nothing in favor of the baptists. 
 For, siip )ose it does mean plunging entirely under 
 water; >et they cannot draw the conclusion, that 
 baptism is not rightly .administered, unless by 
 plunging, because deipnon. tli^ word used to pont 
 •out the meal taken in the Lord's supper, means a 
 full feast. But it is conceded, that the Lord's sup- 
 per miy be rightly celebrated, by eating a mor- 
 sel of' bread, atid drinkini? a small quantity of 
 ■ V 2 
 
222 BAPTISM. 
 
 wine. T'k C jiriat'uTi^', repr )V'h1 bv the apostie 
 Paul in It. C r. 11. A )pr'ar to '. we fallen int'Mhe 
 same mistake in eating the Lord's supper, that ilio 
 b-iprists have, with respect to baptism. Thi^v sup- 
 posed that, becau-^e the word deipnon 'i^niti.-d a t'lrll, 
 meal, they thertfore eat and drank he r'lv, S » !l^e 
 b.pti<ts, because thfy •ssppo-^e the W'^rd baplize 
 inedi- 1 i plunging, nm>t ihercfnre conclude tfi.it ;t 
 cannot be baptism, unless the person is wholly put 
 under water. 
 
 We anrue l=;t. Th-^t if sprinkling with the blood 
 of >acrjfice* wa^ saffic ent to represeiit the clean- 
 sing efficricy of Christ's bloo.l, then the sprinkling 
 of water in baptism is sufficient. 
 
 But the foroier is true, Aiid therf-fore the latter. 
 
 That tliis was the end proposed by the bl.o(J 
 of sacrifices, is not denied. Bit the bload of Je- 
 su:=, is, in scripture, called a fountain, Zach. 13. I, 
 *i:i that day tliere shall be a fountain opened to 
 the house of David and to the inhab tants t)f Je- 
 ru-alein, f >r sin and for uncleanness.' But thi? 
 [fountain' was sufficiently represented, by sprink- 
 ling; and, in the use of it, required bv the cerimo-' 
 niiil law, the sign and the thiru siirnified had their 
 connexiori shewn. Heb. ^,19 20. 'For wfien 
 M'^ses had spoken every precept to all th** peo- 
 ple acceding to the law, he took the blood of 
 calves and of goat», with water and scarlet wool, 
 and hysop, and sprinkled both the book and all 
 the people, saying, thi^ is the blo'od of the testa- 
 ment which Gid hath enjoined unto you.' 
 
 L^.t us for the present, take it for truth, that, by 
 the blood of sacrifices, nothing more was ifiteiid- 
 ed to be emblematic dlv set forth, than the justify- 
 ing righteou:ine-!s of Christ; yet. bv this act of 
 6©J^ the belieyer is. perfectly washed from all le- 
 
BVPTISM. 223 
 
 gal eu'i*; wh^reaf?, the wa^jhincr of re?pnif'r'>tion, 
 si -nfied i » the-sacr iin«uif ori)aptism, is but p.irti'^l. 
 C 'rrwptiOMs, mor il p UuMon, remain even -f- 
 ter re|i!;eiier:»tit)n. Ti!eref<jre, dccordintj to Mr. 
 C's. concession, the act of surinkjin;; blood, was 
 a fit si/n to »epr;'sent the perfect, the ei>tire wnsh- 
 intc of a believer; whereas, tve only plead that 
 w-ter, used in b iptisnj, pijj[riifie^ the renewing of 
 the heliever in part. But as the former wis le- 
 presenled by sprinkling, so I say, may the latter 
 also, 
 
 
 
 SECOND ARGUMENf. 
 
 If the mode of baptism, be distinct from its icinjg«, 
 then it is not necessary to phing:ethe person en- 
 tirely u:id' r water, ia the administration of thi» 
 sacrr\mei,t. 
 
 But the form'^r is true. And theref)rethe latter. 
 
 That the mode U .distinct from its beinsf, will 
 appear, by observing, that the only thini? es e;i- 
 tirdly necess -ry to the bein^ of the ordinat;ce in 
 its extern-il :idministration, is the u^^e of water; the 
 nam«. of the per-ons of the Trinity, the subject 
 suitable, and the administrator duly authorised. 
 Bread and wirte were the elements used in the sa- 
 crament of the supper, but no bapti-t will say 
 tliat it is essential to the beinijf of the ordi* 
 nance, that a person sliould si-t at table, although 
 Christ sat at it; that the bre^d should be unleaven- 
 ed, although 't!ie bread used in its first institution 
 was unleavened; or that it should be administer- 
 ed after ni^lit in an upper chamber, although 
 th'-eAvere facts in its first institution. 
 
 VViter is the sis<n used inbptism, but nothing 
 Qan depend upoa either ita quality, or quaotityj 
 
'22i BAPTISM. 
 
 because an ocean of pure wafer, cannot wash 
 awriy a single stain, or rt move a t^ingle corruption; 
 it is only a sign. If is in vain for you, reader, to 
 listen to a great and tedious process of Greek in- 
 vestigation, to .prove that ba|)tizing meant plung- 
 jni{, seeing that a drop of water is as truly a sign, 
 as a river would be. Th's is the reason why 
 neither Mr. C. nor any other baptist, can be 
 brought to prove the necessity of dipping from 
 the nature of the ordinance. 
 
 AVhen the baptists have succeeded in proving 
 (which they never yet l^ive dot e) that John the 
 Baptist and the disciplp> dipped, the utmost infer- 
 f'ice, will not eff' ct (he m^de used by the P< do 
 B^.ptist. They will only, after all, infer, that 
 plungir.£; is a suitable method in warm clinriates; 
 as if I should assert that sitting at the Lord's ta- 
 ble was a suitable mode in receiving the ordi- 
 nance of the supper, because Christ and hit; de- 
 eiples sat at meat. » 
 
 THIRD ARGUMENT. 
 
 If God will liave mercy and not sacrifice, then 
 «prir kling is sufficient in baptism. 
 
 But. the former is true. And therefore the latter. 
 Our fir-t assertion will not be denied. That r;ur 
 infi rer;c.> is just will appear, by con-idering. tjiat 
 no ordinance which God requhes, will, in any i:e- 
 gpect. violate any of his precept-; but (he sixth 
 commandment, which forb.dr? us to1<ill, must re- 
 quire 'us to uv:e all lawful endeavours to preserve 
 cur own life, and the lives of others.' But a great 
 many di-ea-'es, to-which the hum;m body is sub- 
 ject, at'd some seas'^ns of the year, entirely for- 
 bid the use of the cold bath; & to adminisler it, is 
 
BAPTISM. 32S 
 
 tbe form required "by the baptist churcVi, woti'd 
 endanger the life of the subject,* whereas, in 
 some cliniaties, and to some consdlutions, it would 
 be agreeable, and wholecome. There is, howe- 
 ver, nothing essentially belonging to this ordi- 
 nance, but that which is equally suited to all. sea- 
 sons, constitutions, and clinistes; because that the 
 gospel of which it is a seal, is so adapted. To 
 wf atever country or climate, mitiisfers were sent 
 to preach, they were also to baptize. 
 
 I have thus in a few words, endeavoured to es- 
 tablish the assertion, that sprinkling water is 
 sufficient in the administration cf the sacrament 
 of baptism. Allhousjh we grant that dipping Is 
 baptism, bec.»use the elemer>t of water is u ef', 
 yet f object to d pping for the followiig reasons. 
 
 1st. BecTuse it is unnpcessary. Any water op- 
 pl-ed ill t' e name of the Tjrnity by a person duly 
 authori-ed. is sufficient; a drop is as truly em- 
 b'em^tical f^s an ocean. 
 
 2, d. Because it make-J the ordinance to con- 
 sist, not in the element of water, but in the quan- 
 tity u-^ed, ^^o that the subject is not b ptised unless 
 emirely put under water. 
 
 *B.ptists will tell you tiidt thry never knew 
 any pM>on huitby bi ing dipjied. 1 tir~t di^puie 
 tlietruUiof t:e disertioii, I tijiuk coatr.iry facts can 
 be producsd They mostly liONAevrT negfecl the 
 ordinance until the season w;H admit. But the 
 idea they wi-h to hold oul, is rather that there is 
 a kind of mir; cuious preservation of the sub- 
 j -ct. 'i'hid wdl do with f-inaticks. But-I would 
 jnf.'rni the pUblic tiiut water used in this ordi- 
 nal ce, Will produce the suinu- ell'ect as at olher 
 tiiues. 
 
208 BAPTISM. 
 
 3rH. Because it arffues erreat ignnrarc^ of thu 
 ordinance. It savors too much of the ii?elp<^p cer- 
 emonies att!>ched to the ordinance of bapti-m in 
 the darkness of popery. A. baptist will coptend 
 a= firmly for dippin? in baptism, as a Catbolic 
 did, at that time, for the sifrn of across in tlie {id- 
 ministration of this sacrament. 
 
 4th. It c?lls too much of the attention to lie. 
 sign; nothing in tl-.e administration of this ordi- 
 nance should even for a moment, divert the atten- 
 tion from tfig thin^ signifif-d. If the subject be a, 
 babe, then the faith of the parent should b^ I'c- 
 tively employed, in clr.iming the promise, made 
 through them to their children. It the subject be 
 an adult, he sliould exrrcise faitlt in the \ery act 
 of receiving the ordmar ce; but his atter.tioii will 
 certainly be called off, by a plunge iti co!d \vat( r. 
 
 To this vir;v of the subject, hovvevf r, Mr. C ob- 
 ject*. To those arguments which nie founded upon 
 the original words, I do not propose to attend to. 
 He knows, he ft els, notwithstanding of all liis 
 egotism and boasting, that he was safisfi< d on 
 this subjf ct during the public d»bate.* But we 
 shall attei d to a few of tsis objections, which. 
 
 *From ttie gieut tlirtats ol iVir. C. wtiat he 
 would do with his> oj-ponent, v\tieij he v\ouid con.e 
 to riiis part of the depate, Jt was txpicted, iie 
 would ai least, present soniethiiig ingenious on 
 this part ot the tubjict; but all tl.t karned gen- 
 tlemen on the stage Willi wlioiu I conversed, telt 
 theuiselyts exirei' ely disappointed. We &u^pect. 
 l.is Grtek bkill, indttd, to be very dehcieni; al- 
 ti.uugli he has persuaded a numbir that he is a 
 perlfcct bdept ui tiiib, and aliiiOi>i eve'ry tiling tise^ 
 
•BAt^TISlVl e^t 
 
 ?ie gave in reply, loihat wIugIi hs states were Mr. 
 1^ 's. {jj^eecues; 
 
 H« says P. 140. 'I dt-ny that baptism has a 
 'r >pecf to Ihe.bloud cil sprinkling, bul that u de- 
 ' notes the vva^hin^ ot'i:ej;eneration ai<d the reiu w- 
 ' ing of tie H \y G osf, and <«s emblemaucaj ^f 
 *lh«' bunal and resurrection of Christ and of our 
 'death and burial with him unto sin, and of (3ur 
 • lesurri cfinn wilhhirnto a new hfe.' Upon ihig 
 I would ibseve: • 
 
 1st. That the 'Washing of reareneration,' is in^ 
 de»^d the thine chiefly ?jguihf^ by the sign of wa- 
 ter u-ed in b)ptisn»;it is not however, the oily 
 thi4io;. Juslitication, regfnerafion, at d^anctifica- 
 fioj^i aliJiougli all distinct in their tiaturc, yet 
 have the s-.ime ground, the s:».me foundation, the 
 blood of Jesu?. Hf'nce being wasfud in this 
 blood, is U'fr-d to denotf, nc-t only the justihca- 
 tion of a believer, but also that vvuik of the spi- 
 rit, by which the belieVei; is finally perfected. 
 R< v. 1, 5. 6. 'Unto him that hath loved us, ai d 
 washed us from otjr sins in his own blood, and 
 liath made us kings and priests urto God.' In 
 this passai^e it is evident, that in every respt-ct, 
 in which. we were stained and polluted with sin, 
 the blood of Jesus has washed us tVom it. 
 
 2nd. It is only because the debt of the believer 
 is paid bv the death of Christ, that he can be re- 
 generated, or snnrtified. Tf e washinar of reo^e- 
 neration cou'd have no existence withi-ut the 
 sh« diug of that blood which is the washing of 
 justification. 
 
 3rd. It follows that every eniblematical repre- 
 Ser>tation of justification, is also a sign of tbe 
 washing of regeneration, where the things signi- 
 
S28 BAPTISM. 
 
 fi*^d are inseparably connected, s.o also must tlie 
 eipns bf. 
 
 4iii. Tliat bnptism docs leach, tl e de;ith, bnfi- 
 al aiid resurrection ol Christ, is ccnceded. Rut 
 Mr. C. by th>s ci nression hae yi^^ldtd the print 
 ii; dispute, her ;:use, be^oid a'.l dcubt, this doctrine 
 Tvas tjuiglit by the'typic 1 blo()d th:it uas s'prir kit d 
 u ,der t!ip cerimonial luw. Christ Jfsus was 'the 
 L n.b of God sbnn from tie A ui tlfition of tlie 
 norld.' Th'P deiith was prefigured by the shed- 
 inp of tlie l)]o(id of .beasts sl;iii! in si-crific*', this 
 \v; s sprinkit d upon the people to it tim.!ie their 
 interest in it. Now if ^prnlclir.gihis bh^od up"n 
 the people was a sufficient rC) resentation of this 
 d<'ath as, Mr. C concedes, vvh} doe? he iefu>c 
 sprinkling: of water as a sufiicient represeutalion 
 of the fiame thinp;. 
 
 Mr: C. endeavours to esiahhsh his mod ot bap- 
 ti-m from Rom. 6. 4, 6. ^Btij'ied with him by h-*])- 
 tism into dc ith, that like as Christ was raised 
 fr^m the dcud, by tlie Glory of the Father, even 
 so we also should walk in newness of life.' P. 140, 
 208* For the proper understandme: of this pas- 
 sa_e I ob crve tliat baptism is a *=« al of union to 
 Christ, fis it is a ?=eal of all the blessings of the 
 covenant of grace. The blessing is in two 
 
 *Thi- latter quot. lion is taken froni Mr C*s 
 C tpchism — This is the only place in which I have 
 p.-.id any attention to that xvi rk, a lay genthnan 
 banf'ed me a full re- 1\ to that ci-lerhism, I t))ought 
 it not necessary to pnblisl) it. Had I ihoujzht Mr. C. 
 Bericus, I shouhl hiive replied. However,. to eve- 
 . ry discerning reader, it carr es its contut \\<-:-. It 
 may serve f'r snort; but the intelligtnt and Eeri- 
 ous reader is disgusttd with it. ' 
 
BAPTISM. 229 
 
 respects united to Cliri&t. He has a vita^ 
 union 10 him, in which senst-, Christ is ihe vine 
 and tliej are the branches. They are in Vns, re- 
 spect said lo be one si irit with Cliri^t. John 15. 
 5. I Cor. 6. 17. But there is also a union in law 
 between Clui-t and the believer. In this se^.sp the 
 believer was crucitied with Christ. G\l. 2^20 In 
 the same sense he was buried with Christ. Now 
 beciU'-e baptism is a seal of that union, subsisting 
 between Christ an<l the b^-liever, tltey are s;kid 
 to be 'buried with him by baptism.' So ihra bap- 
 tism intimates that the believer died and was 
 buried with Christ. The death and burial of 
 Christ, stand necessarily connected — tliat sign 
 which represents the one, mustnecessarily repre- 
 sent the othei: but the death of Christ iscf-lled the 
 sprinklin;? or staining of blood: Isaiah 63. 2, 3, 
 which may be represented by the sprinkling of wa- 
 ter in baptism. 
 
 It indeed appears strange to hear Mr. C. state 
 80 fully tlie connexion between a figure and the 
 reality. Christ was buried, so a person baptized, 
 must be buried under water. Christ arose; so the 
 person must come up from under the water.* To 
 understand*however, the truth of the thing signifi- 
 ed, our attention will be calhid from the mode, to 
 which Mr. C. adhears so particularly. Ti^e sub- 
 ject to be b.Aptized will rather enquire, was Christ 
 my surety? am I cruciti''d with Christ.'' was I bu- 
 ried with him.'' If these things are facts, then 1 
 may take the sign and the seal of the^^e ble-^sings. 
 
 * Why but Mr. C. teaches in order to make out 
 the fi-j:ure, that the person should stay under water 
 3 days.? For if he will follow the letter, this too 
 should be done. 
 
 V 
 
2S0 BAPTISM. 
 
 It was the chief object proposed by the baptists to 
 call the attention of thur members, to there ex- 
 ternal ceremonies, while little attention was paid 
 tp the heart, so baptists adhere clearly to, and say 
 much about the mode of baptism. If more of that 
 time was spent, in searching for the possession of 
 the thing signified by the water used in this or- 
 dinance, it would be better for the souls of their 
 members. 
 
REMARKS ON THE DEBATE, BY THE REV. 
 SAMUEL FINDLEY. 
 
 Christian brethren^ of every profesHon; 
 
 I am confident you will agree with mp that 
 Christianity without truth and integrity, is but a 
 sliadow without its substiince. On the same 
 principle, the p. rson who writes or speaks fur the 
 edificition of tlie christian vv<;rUI, is expected to 
 be eminent, t"or his. undoubled veracity. I:i pro- 
 portion as he is, on tlin other hand, detected of 
 incapacity, or iiidi«iposition, to speak or write the 
 truth, on every occasion, his reputation in tha 
 christian world, ought to be d*[)ri<;aled, and his 
 influence rei.oui ccd. Facts iniiumerabie, might 
 be adduc< d, to evince the correctne-^s of this prin- 
 ciple. F.'r instance, shew me a man who is uf 
 known di-ingenuity in his statement of facts; and 
 I will shew to the world a man on whose tloctrmal 
 views of the christian religion,, there is little, if 
 anything, truly scriptural, and vice versa ; point 
 me out a man, wtio dares to he ajiainst the Holy 
 Ghost, speakuig in his own word, in leaclung, ag 
 the doctrines thereof, the vegtiries ot his owa 
 brain; and F wll point you out a man, who will 
 r< gard tRe tiuth, in his sta'emerit of facts, 
 only so far as his sinister ends may be 
 thereby promott d. Now as that old draaron, wlio 
 i-t the Devil hi d Satan, \vra always hud his chil. 
 dr: n in ihe world, who deliaht to do his works; 
 he has tlieni stdl. Tliere are. even at this .day, 
 those who speak vreat swt Hint; words of vanity 
 end of falsehood, in p»ivertii!^ the truth as it is ia 
 J' sus; and who enii loy themsf Ivt «, in all the arts 
 ot fi e;js and diceit,in leading: capiive unwary 
 souls. The Lord has, in ioriner a^es, admiiiisttr- 
 
SS2 REMARKS, &c. . 
 
 ed seasonable checks, to the influence of such 
 unprincipled heietick3,by accomplishing that pro- 
 njise, "vVhen t-rror cometh in like a flood, the spi- 
 rit of J 'hovah will lift up a standard against him." 
 This standard has consisted, and must still con- 
 sist, in the agency employed, by his faithful he- 
 ralds, in defecting the falsehoods, and rectifying 
 the niistakts, of the grand propatj:ators of error 
 and delusion. In the very fact, therefore, that the 
 church is, in ou-v own day, infested with enemies 
 to all righteousness, the watchmen upon Zion's 
 avails, are called out, to buckle on their armour, 
 arid to bf'come as iron pillars, and a? brazen walls, 
 in the defence, and vindicatiori of precious truth; 
 they are calh-d forth, to contend earnestly for the 
 faith, that was once delivered to the saints- 
 These remarks have beet^ elicited at present, by 
 Rev. Mr. Walker calling upon me, to furnish, to 
 the christian world, a correction of sucli mislate- 
 ments of facts, as might have occured to my notice, 
 in a rect-nt publication, entitled 'the substance of a 
 debate &c. stating, at the same time, that he had 
 undertaken to correct the errors of doctrine con- 
 tained in that work, and also a number of the 
 statements there made of facts, in a publication 
 now in the press, and in as much as it has ordi- 
 narily required, the combined testimony of two 
 or thr*:'e witnesses, to convict a criminal at the 
 bar of justice, he therefore requested for truth's 
 6ake, wfiich had been so audaciously murdered, 
 in the above publication, to ttirnisha statement, a 
 plain, unvarnished statement of the truth, in op- 
 position to the falsehoods, colour ngs and perver- 
 sion of the substance ^c. As my attemion was 
 particularly drawn on tlic occasion of tliat deb ite, 
 and my name particularly implicated in the pub- 
 
REMARKS, &c. aSS 
 
 licafion of its Pubsfance, Itl.e nnore readily stepped 
 forward, to vindic ite the trutli. in bfarii.g testi- 
 m Miy to her sacred clvims, in opposition to the 
 propagation of falscho )ds tlie niost nuked and 
 gros-!." However, to pursue Mr. Campbell through 
 all his mcanderin.ifs — to iiet* ct h-m in all his mis- 
 stiitements of facts, ai d to correct him in all his 
 aberrations, from scriptural principle, would be 
 almost an endless underlakin?. O e mii^ht as 
 v^ell undertake, to trace out tie meanderine;s of, 
 a wandering Arab, in order to prove that he did 
 not always tread in a high way; or detect all his 
 particular acts, to prove him an uricultivated sa- 
 vage. The task in either case, would be endless; 
 but it is unnecessary. Once prove that an author 
 is capable of misrepresenting facts, and of main- 
 taining urscriplural principle-^, arid you have left 
 his f brie, as Sampson of old, h ft tie Das;on 
 house of the V\\\V\»\\nes, wHhoul its pillars. This 
 in part, I trust you will find accomplislied, by the 
 Rev. Mr. Walker, in relation to the widely circu- 
 lated, and herculean performance of Alexander 
 Campb. ll's — To complete the catiistrophy, it re- 
 mains for me, by a few statements, to evince eith- 
 er the I'capacity cr ind'spo-ifion of Mi-. C. to 
 Eta'e the truth. This being done, we trust Mr. 
 Campbell's wtiole scheme will, as we are convinc'd 
 it ought, to appear, but the baseless fabrick of a 
 vi-ion, vvithoul a wreck behind. I ird' ed feel 
 thit my task is a pan.ful one. In dettcting a 
 nmn's misstalemeni of tacts, the subject of ciili- 
 ci-m, is necessarily held up to soe-eiy, : s an ob- 
 ject ( f abhorrence. On this snme acco; nt, the 
 critic becomes awtnlly re-pon^ be. It w. uid no 
 d')ub! be higlily de«ir ;ble, were iliere no e in fo- 
 ciety go enltagued with the Prince of darkness, 
 
234 ITEMARKS, Sic. 
 
 as to give occasion, for thpir ''ellow creafures, at 
 any time, to engage in thr- exerci-e of siicli an 
 office. But this we are scarce!}' authorised to ex- 
 pect; offences must conne. And when offence is 
 given on the ground of false'iood, a banner must 
 be displayed on the part of truth. It is noivherc 
 predicted of truth, as it is of iniquity, that as a- 
 sfiamed it shall hide its head. It does not indeed 
 properly belong to truth, nor its advocate, to aim 
 especially for tfie last word. The heretick more, 
 ffr quenily seeks for this, because he has no other 
 ground, on which, he can liope to gain the ascen- 
 dency over fiis antagonist, than that of speaking 
 much, or speaking the la«t. The advocate of 
 truth, on the other hand, havi-g honestly and can- 
 didly, stated the truth, on whatever «ubject he is 
 called to aj pear, more generally leaves the fur- 
 ther issue of the c^se, in the hands of that God, 
 whose blessing alone, can, in any case, give genu- 
 ine success. 
 
 Bat to proceed, Mr. Campbell has stated, in 
 the frontal pige of hi- book, that Ue "had previous 
 to his publication, made application to me, for a 
 copy nf the rute>5 to be observed during the de- 
 bate, but without effect.'' It isalre^dy bf^fore the 
 public, that this statement is incorrect. It has 
 been stated and cannot be disproved, that f never 
 saw, nor mt t with any person, on the occasion of 
 Buch a dema' d. 
 
 It has also been stated,- and cannot be disprov- 
 ed, that a ff'W lines left at my house, \\hen 1 was 
 80 miles from hom'-, wa-s not an applic ition lor 
 the copy but f>r th«' original draft ' f s.iid rules. 
 
 Mr. C. then proceed- t^ -^late th^ substance 
 of them from rernllec'ion. There is howver, a 
 true copy of ibeoe rales (the originul of whicfi 
 
 » 
 
REMARKS &c.. 235 
 
 wltTi Mr. Cptn))1->fir>i own fiennfure fffiyrl, cnn 
 at any t'nn' hf c\!iil)iie<!.) iri^eilcd in paiie 4 of 
 this \o!nniP. Tlie rettdcr is cn'reated in coir:parc 
 Mr. Canipbell's siibstarc«% wild the true copy, 
 that he may, ihe moie decidedly f'elerniiiie, low 
 much depi ndei re, he i-; s; ft , in placitg on Mr. 
 Ca rnpbe 11 's rero/Zec/Jons, (which is the {;ref»t grontid 
 of his narrative,) iri other ptatejt ente. On a fair 
 conipp.rison, it ums\ be peictived, by tl e candid 
 and judicious reader, that some of Mr. Camp- 
 bell's rules, both as to substance and form, are an 
 ent're forg:ery. 
 
 But ae.'iin, in Mr. Campbell's statements of what 
 he calls fact?, coripccted with tlie debate, in the 
 5ih pagt,we mc-f with the followina: words ; "The 
 Debate was dosed hy my?e!f, but after I sat down, 
 Mr. Samuel Finrily, by an injudicious, and un- 
 becomit g uddress, contr;iry to the rules by which 
 he, as one of the Moderntnrs, should have been 
 governed, produced an unpleasant excitement in 
 the corieregation. But as the public, obviously 
 and <mphaiically expressed their disapf)rohation 
 of if, I feel no desire by a minute statement to per- 
 petuate the remenibr;ince of it." Now', whether 
 Mr. Canipbell has, in tlii« statement, spoken the 
 truth or not, *ill be submitted to the r' ader, after 
 I have f;iven a brief narrati\e of the trarsaction, 
 to which he here allude^. Mr. C. has said thai he 
 had closed the debate, previous to Mr. Findley's 
 address, of which he com} laii s; and in the same 
 sentence, he states, that <aid add ess was contra- 
 ry to the rule*, bv which le, as a Moderator, 
 Fhould have been governed. The coi troversy 
 for which these rule- were f.rmed, it appears, was 
 C'T' -e.l. They had coti<eqne'.'ly lived their day. 
 How then could Mr. Findley's uddrcss violate 
 
23G EF/vIARKS&c. 
 
 them? Prnjfrader do reconcile this if jou can, 
 B'li to be more e\. lict, it is fire'y ndii'itt* d that 
 Mr. F. d (1 tjive nns.dore^s at tic c]o?e ol tin con- 
 tiovfr-^^y. What tlieu was the r^^nson, ai d what 
 (he substf tic<' <t that fuldse.-s? The-e enquiries 
 shall he a' svvered as briefly as p( s^ibie. If it be 
 found that his rp;.son for givina; it was good, ar.d 
 th.'tt the plotter of it was importnnt; there c( rttiin- 
 ly could be no suffi-cient cause for ui pleasant ex- 
 cil<'m( nt at the lime, nor yet for censorious re- 
 flections afterwards. 
 
 1st: Then the reason <{ myaddress, is to be 
 found in what, I truly conceived to be irijudicioiis & 
 uibecoM ing & sotjiethre^ at least ten d^ grees worse 
 than either, in Mr. Cs. closing addres. Leav- 
 ing his siibjeci of debate altogether, he tmdeitock 
 to haranuiie thH audience, upon the unf.iir man- 
 agement of his opponents; as displayed ihrotjgh- 
 out the course of the d( bate. He even a^^serted 
 that I htid ii-^ed partiality ir» the matter of order, 
 and had etsdeavoured to keep him under urdue 
 restraint; & reflected moreover that the judges had 
 disappointed hinj, in bunging the subj. ct to a has- 
 ty close; and tha» at this he was the more aston- 
 isht^d, seeing the regulations made provi ion for 
 continuing from day to d y; with these re flee 
 tiofts Mr. Canipell coriclnded his last fiddress. 
 Previous to tliis unexprct< d aid unprt ced* nt har- 
 angue; the thought «f .speakint; in the w yif ad- 
 dressini: tlie audiet ce, had rot en'aied my niird- — 
 Upon Mr. Campell's conclud ng I b' koned to the 
 auiiiencf . Thfre was the ij.o^i j rcjfoui.d aiientUia 
 g ven. I pr ceeded then to dt'livt^r an addres--, the 
 substance of wh'ch as I u-derstHid, »s a're.rdy in-' 
 ee- ted, in page 16, 17 18, of tln>work— H .v.ng' 
 ciobcd my addres.-, I look my leave of the i»udiencc " 
 
REMARKS 4'c. 237 
 
 as respedably as possible, ami withdrew. "So far 
 88 any niarks of atiettion, came under my notice 
 upon mydescei dinp; the staa'*', tliey were • nlire 
 h of tl,e careFsinfTliind. My friends, at least did 
 rot discoAer any mortification, at my l.avint acted 
 an injudicious aid unbeconiMig pjirt; and I bad 
 the opinion of s^on-e to the \ery rev« rse, who were 
 as capable of judging-, cither on a question of or- 
 deror merit, asMr. C. orany cf bis friends. 
 
 Another instnnce of Mr. Campell's indisposition 
 or incapacity, to statr the truth, y< u have in a 
 note appended to the 69th page of his book— He 
 there calls Mr. F. tie abettor p.nd second, of Mr. 
 W. We have only to sny, that Mr.Findley ap- 
 peared in no such character. No, he appeared on 
 that occasion, as free • f person^ obligation to se- 
 cond,or abett Mr.V\ . as Mr. C— ;& nothine but the 
 exercise of that prerogative, which he reed from 
 the band of Mr. Campbell himself,to defend truth, 
 and good order, to the iisupportible chagrine of 
 Mr. C:.mpt IPs lawless spirit, could have ^t^duced 
 him, [Mr. C] groundlessly to apply these con- 
 temptible epithets. 
 
 In the same pa-e he complains that Mr. F. had 
 made a proposition soor er than he tiad anticipated 
 to bring the subject under discussion to a close. It 
 IS utterly dei.ied that Mr. F. made any such prop, 
 ositi.^n Jit that tine, but with the he;.riy concur- 
 rence of his associ:,te judge. Now is it honest? is 
 It candid?toaitribute a decision that wa^^ « qually 
 concurred in. by eacf. of the judges acting on tl e 
 occasiort, to tie ut;fair interposition of an individ- 
 ual. Sqchhnw.ver is the honesty and such the 
 candour of our author. 
 
 Wc have a like instance of disingenuity, in the 
 7b th p. of his book. His words are, "Here I was 
 
2B8 REMARKS >c. 
 
 iriternjpted by Mr. F. who objected (othis mode of 
 proceding. He said that as the obj»-ct of this 
 njeetiiitr,w:is the t^dificatiof, ofthe public, be could 
 not p( rcuve bow the as-kmo; and an>;werit)g of 
 que-ti"n« could promote their ediHcaliori,be desire 
 th.it ue should procefd in sr<Tr^^^ why more condu- 
 cive to their ed ficsition. To which I replied — 
 Mr. F. ynu are doubtless an advocate for tie VVest- 
 Diin-^ler creed and ciitf.'chism, and I presume as 
 such, muvt agree with your bretberen, that the 
 cat* cheticfil mdde of instruction- is the best, as we 
 aren-'W [Toceedingas the Westmitister divines di- 
 rect, I fhi: k you cannot without a dereliction of 
 priiicii-'l" object. Mr. F. then was mute, I proceed- 
 ed.'" Wh:U magnanimity? Wlir.t kniiibt-hood wa« 
 d:--pl '.yed )\cTt.'? Truly when I read this p!Tt olf 
 Mr.CamcbeHV repoi) I was induced toexcluim. O 
 (ruth whither hast thou fit d! O shame, O thon/mr 
 ofG)d&/earof man, whither bast thou ti-d!! 
 Did Mr. Caniftbell think there vvere none present 
 thiit couid or would, bear tesiiuiony to ti!e ti nth, in 
 opposition to bis abominable perversion.'* If be 
 did, I fissure him he is irreatiy mist;>ken. To the 
 audif nce then present, i apfjeal, while 1 write 
 for the satisfaction ot tho-^e, who have had no other 
 source of inlorinfttiori, thun the ab''ve mistate- 
 ment of the f ct. The (ruth is tliis. Mr. Campfell 
 bfid been stating questions, pr d makjiij a^serritn.s, 
 & ()!using in e.-cli interim, f<-r the m ;ttrr i Itwo, - 
 ttiree, or four rninule-, untill his father had tine to 
 Vnte, in lull, the word- lie hid used, .mid tlien 
 there was a ri-aoma:, and restating vf what bf.d 
 bten slated, to asc nain t' a' no mistake bad tn- 
 ken place; lie staied at the sane time, tiiat he was 
 tf:us particular, with » view io publish to (he w< rJd 
 the whole of what parsed on tht occasion. Ai'icr 
 
REMARKS &c. 23& 
 
 he had repealed such intervals again and again, 
 until the :mdie;,ce became quite restless and dis- 
 composed, frosii nut having their attention occupi- 
 ed. — Hndju>t while Mr. C;;inpb"ll w-s suspending 
 his address, in waitins^ iipon his father's iPon^scri- 
 buit,' what he had said, 1 asked him it he was done, 
 he replied no, it was his 40 ntinuies, ;ind he would 
 occupy ti.eni us he pleased. — I observed that it was 
 his 40 minutes to speak and argue, it he h.:d any 
 thing to say, but it was not his time to waste; that 
 the public weie waiting for edification; but that 
 they would njj\ be disponed to wait upon, his vvri- , 
 tingabook. Thi« closed the inteiview between' 
 Mr. C. and myself. He progress( d in the d- bate, 
 and I, of cour,se, reiTi;iii.ed mute. I had succeeurd 
 in callifig him to order, vrbich was my object ia 
 speaking. 
 
 See again Pnge 99, to the same etfecr. His 
 words are: — "Mr. F. said that he and his associ- 
 ate M )der.itor ti)ought that enough liad been said 
 on the Covenants, &c." Now I have to inform Mr. 
 Campbell, and the public, that the word covenant 
 or covenants, did not escnpe from my hps at the. 
 t'me; nor was it the subject of remark — our opi- 
 nion respected the controversy on tl e subjt-ct of 
 baptism. Mr. C. may perhaps, at this, wipe his 
 mout h, and say, is it not a little one. ^ Be it so. It 
 is sufficient to discover his disinclin;ition cr in* 
 capacity at any time, vvheie fact is concerned, to 
 State the truth. 
 
 For anothf r aberration of a similar kind, wc 
 invite the reader's attention to p. 118 if his book on 
 the debate &c. Tnere he tells you that Mr. Und- 
 ley asked the name of the author of the book, 
 which he held in bis hand — stri.nge indeed! that 
 Mr. Findley should have asked the uanie of an au- 
 
240 REMARKS &c. 
 
 thor, whose name lieknevva's well as Mr. C. — No, 
 no; thf i^'oild IS dvt'ud \o prove, (except on the 
 g >'ui.d of perjury,) that Mr. F. said a siiigJo 
 syll.ibl.- loMr. C. in his c( urse < t ■^eadirl^, until 
 Ije hitd inadi^ his lotroductoiy letnr^rks, and pass- 
 ed a ful.-ome edioary upon his socini;in friend, R. 
 RibMtson, and until he had reud from pajs^e 185, 
 of his hi-tory, the folhving sentence: ''The Afri- 
 can Fathers were the least ot all others, tinc- 
 tured with the true spirit of the suhlime reli- 
 gion of Jesus. Si.ives themselve?, they never 
 thouLiht c.f christian liberty: and even Cyprian 
 hin)S(lf, the ^uide of the rest, durst not ' think 
 for himself." In opposition to the long train 
 of forged rant which Mr. C. has in his^ book, 
 I then called him to order, stating that the rules 
 by which my juiisdic.tion on the occa^/lon was to 
 be goverm d, absclu;ely prohibited all diminutive 
 or di-respectful personal allusions — see rule 3rd. ♦ 
 and that if this rule had any meaning in it, he 
 was cert;iinly transgressing it. 1 stated that I 
 a{)preh('ii(Ief), that by this rule, I was as 
 much bound to protect the chsr-.uter of the de;.d 
 as of the livitig, against personal and ground- 
 less iiivec tive; yea more so, for their character 
 was submitted to our trust, as a kind of st-crcd 
 dsposile. They were not alive to defend it 
 themselves. lu this respect tliey had a claim up- 
 on us, that living characters had not. Mr. Camp- 
 bell's reply was, ''Atn I not to be' permilt( d to 
 re; d hi>tory as well as my antagonist.'"' You 
 are sir, said I, at liberty to rrad history. — What- 
 ever of hir^rory you can find in R. bertson, rra- 
 ny wh( re else; you are at liberty to read it, but 
 sir, you are not at liberty either to sp« ak or 
 reud siaiidtr. Mr. C. then exclainicd, with a 
 
REMARKS, &c. ^41 
 
 kind of frothy sneering, peculiar to him- 
 self: ''R'bettson, an inhabitant of iLe Holy land, 
 where the holy league and covenant ^as, is re- 
 jected!' 
 
 Whether he intended, by such a sneer, to cast 
 contempt upon the Martyrs of Jpsus or not, I dare 
 not say. The remark, however, as having this 
 bearing, made my feelings recoil. 
 • After Mr, C. had then bandied the public for 
 some time, in the mo?t unorderly manner, and af- 
 ter fo me bfipiist frienflg had discovered their im- 
 p-itieiice to b'^ar up their sinking ship, by vocife- 
 rr^tinghire, and therf, throagh the assembly, rco<i 
 read\i called agau) to order, and observed that 
 hst some miglit suspect me for wishing to keep 
 something, that might have the semblance of rea- 
 son, and evidence, out of view, I would give Mr. 
 C. special privilege to read, from his socinian 
 friend, as nuich as he pleased; but I would advise 
 the audience to obtain, and readat their leisure, 
 John P, Campell's review of Robertson's History, 
 and also Cave's lives of t\>e Fathers, that hereby 
 they would find the^l^elves fortified against the 
 slanders aid misrepresentations of the author 
 now read. Upon this intimation Mr. C. proceeded 
 to read a f^vv,. but very few passages, from his 
 highly favorite historian. I am sorry to say, or 
 even -to think, but so it is, as fact would not ad- 
 mit of Mr. CampbelTs venting that strain of accu- 
 sation against me, which the cravings of his ve- 
 n.mous nature required, wherever he has the 
 slightest occasion to foist in my name, in his 
 rancorous publication, he has connected with it, 
 a forgery of his own, to make it appear, as he 
 thouo^ht, sufficiently black. 
 
 In the 124ih page, we have another instance of 
 W 
 
'M2 REMARKS, &c. 
 
 the same kind. — He there states, that Mr. F. at 
 the instance of Mr. Walker, wished the dtbate to 
 be closed i)y once speaking on eftch side. The 
 stateoient, is obviously intended to bias the pub- 
 lic, with the apprehension, that Mr. Walker was 
 exhausted or tired, with his part of the contro- 
 versy. Now if Mr. Walker will say, with Mr. C. 
 that he consulted me to the above efi[Vct; I will 
 then ae:ree to give a libel upon myself, in respect 
 to every instarxe, in which, I huve correced Mr. 
 Campbell's misrepresentations. No, No. There 
 ivas no such consiiliation on the part of Mr. W. 
 He was indeed opposed to coming to a close as 
 soon as he did. — But during the inttrmission of 
 which Mr. C. speaks, I mentioned to Mr. Walk- 
 er, that he must either choose arolhtr judge or 
 they mu^t adopt some measures', by which they 
 could draw to a close, that evening; my circum- 
 stances at home, being such, that I couki remain 
 no longer with them. The mea>^Ui'':s employed 
 to bring it to a close were altogether' of my own 
 projecting, and occasor.ed by family and congra- 
 tional circumstance.^. Instead of Mr. Walker giv- 
 ing out in the controversy, as Mr C. at difl'erent 
 times, fondly insinuiitcs; it was the decided opi- 
 nion, of all I heard speak of th^irperformance, 
 that Mr. Walker did much better, and Mr. Camp- 
 bell much worse, tlie second day, than the first, — 
 If Mr. Walker had cny inward fears, 1 have only 
 to say, I never heard bin), ncr any person for him, 
 express them. 
 
 Having thus far, proceeded to acquit my con- 
 science of an oblij^ation to the public, in the cause 
 of slandered truth, I commit and leave the 
 issue, in the hand of that God, who is in every 
 place, at all times, beholding the evil and the 
 good.— He is the God of truth; and I know he 
 
REMARKS Sf'c. 24S 
 
 will, in his own lime, reduce to silence every 
 lying lip. — Thet his will may be done in all things 
 pertaining to his own glory and the interests of 
 truth, is the sincere prayer of ycur ser\aiit for 
 Jesus' sake. 
 
 SAMUEL FINDLEY. 
 
A lu^TTE12l 
 
 TO 
 
 Dr. SAMUEL RALSTON, 
 
 Minister of the Gospel, in the Congregation cf 
 Mmgo creek and Williamsport. 
 
 BY JOHN WALKER, 
 
 Pastor of the associate Congregafion of Unity and 
 Mountpleasant, Ohio. 
 
 Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: 
 and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil' 
 which shall not break my head. Psal. 141. 5. 
 
246 A LETTER. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 While we agree on the subject of BaptisTn in ge-- 
 neral, I am sorry to find a difference of sentiment, 
 prevailing in any respect, on a subject so im- 
 portant. Baptists may be disposed to take the 
 same cdvantage of these disputations, that infidels 
 take of those disputes that divide the christian world, 
 i.e. to deriy the whole system. Baptists shou!d,how- 
 ever, rftmember that among themselves they are 
 not agreed, for besides all the different sects, that 
 are denominated baptist Mr. Campbell, one of 
 their late writers, has devised a plan lor the sup- 
 portof their hilling system, chiefly out of his ow'n 
 brain, a plan unknown to the ApovStles or their 
 successors — to Dr Gill or Mr. Booth. And while 
 his system possesses an authority no higher than 
 himself, yet it differs as much from other baptist 
 writer?, as if tlie propositions they defended had 
 been entirely different. 
 
 I;i defence of publick disputes, it appears 
 scarcely necessary that I should make any obser- 
 vations. Whatever were your sentimesits when 
 you first heard of the dispute, between Mr. Cann.p- 
 bell and myself, you certaiidy now justify our 
 conduct: you tiave not only disputed with Mr. 
 C. but when he made an attempt to reply, you 
 answered. Your dispute w^ith Mr. C. is still more 
 publick than mine wa«; the only difference is that 
 you disputed on paper, in ilie absence of your op- 
 ponent, while I contended in his presence. Our 
 mf-thods differ; yet sir, it mu^t be conced<°d that 
 by the method adopted by Mr. C. and myself, it 
 was most probable the subject would receive the 
 mo^t fair and full mvestigation. 
 
 A writer gives form to the ararument he oppo- 
 ses, but in disputation viva voce^ each side for 
 
A LETTER. 24T 
 
 themselves, forms the argument, and to it, in that 
 shape, the reply must be ^iven. This done ih 
 the presence ol' the publick, carnesa cotiviction 
 wUh it, which no paper can atfoid: where human 
 passions, or ill nature is mix^d with surh dispu- 
 tatlorjs, they are not only unprofitable, but df^r:id- 
 ing. But I can assure you, in our public dispute, 
 tliere was nothing even like wraih, and had his 
 book been a true portrait of that dispute, there 
 would have been no necessity for n e ever to 
 have addressed any thing to the public, on paper. 
 
 To the plan of disputing yotj have adopted, I 
 also give my consent. I now adopt the same, yet 
 would always prefer the formfT where if can be 
 obtained. T^ie great apostle of the Gentiles g've 
 me the example im Athens; Acts 17. 17. also with 
 Peter. Gal. 2. 19. To this plan also acceded our 
 reforming forefather.'*, such as Kf\ox, Luther, Cal- 
 vin, Zuinglius anrl others, and indeed some of 
 their opponents were but a small dcgiee sounder 
 in the faith than Mr. C. 
 
 I have a cloud of witnesses in my favor: I think 
 the church was much editifd, by the explicit, and 
 publick manner the reformers' defended truth. I 
 could wish the same atl<;mpts wer*^ irorc frequT.t. 
 For my own part, I am fuily rewa'nled for ail my 
 toil in that debate, not 0T)ly by the accession *to 
 the church, which succeeded if, but also by the 
 spirit of inquiry which it produced, which to 
 many, I hope, issued in ars understanding of the 
 truth. 
 
 Ditferent from our reforming predece?sor*5, we 
 afford error a rest too quiet an 1 peaceful in the 
 churchr we are not valimt for the truth upon the 
 earth. While peace is ihe general l.uigui»ge of 
 the church, we, coward-like, statid disarmed aod 
 
248 A LETTER. 
 
 witness the fidvance of error, and the con?equent 
 decny of truth. 
 
 I slialj row, pir, eiideavoiir briefly, jet plainly, 
 to state tlie lefidirg doctrines, in your letters, 
 Hbich I cannot snbscrib*'. 
 
 Tt e first of them is jour view of the covenant 
 of circumcitiion. You appear to deny that this 
 covenant was a dispensation of the covenant of 
 grace. You suppo^^e that n\y assumption of this 
 principle in the early etage of the debate, compell- 
 ed me to support it, through the [tublick disputa- 
 tion. But lean a?sure you, sir, that I assumed 
 no principle in any stage of the controversy but 
 tho«e which were the rus^ult of deliberate consid- 
 ertioM. I therefore again declare 
 
 That the covenant of circvmcision u^as a dispen- 
 saiion of ike covenant of grace. 
 
 When I find any of the blessings of the covenant 
 of grace, dispensed in the form of covenant, 1 
 thought myself justifiable in calling such dispen- 
 sation, a dispensation of the covenant of grnce, be- 
 cause the blessings di.-pens<d belong to that cov- 
 enant blune. There are no blessings in the cov- 
 enant of grace, but may be considered as the prop - 
 erty of the church. Now, sir, if I can prove tha t 
 any promise mtlde to Christ the Head, from all 
 eternity, in the covenant of grnce, "was reve;iled 
 in the covenant of circumcision, then it will fol- 
 low, that at least so far the covenant of circumcision, 
 was a dispensation of the covenant of grace. But 
 this is pr<ved,Psal. 89 35 36, 37. 0<xc have 
 I svAOM. by my holiness, thai I will i ol lie unto 
 D.ivid. Hi- £e«-d shall endure forever, ui.d his 
 throne as the sun before mc. It shall be eslab- 
 lishel A-rever ps the moon; and as a faithful wit- 
 ness m Heaven.' Bui tins proinibe is found in 
 
A LETTER. 24» 
 
 the covenant of circumcisign, Gen. 11. 9. 'And I 
 will establish my covenant between thee, and 
 Hie, and thy seed after thee, in their generalioas 
 for an evt-rlaating covenant." The persons to 
 ivhonri the promises refer are the santie, Abraham's 
 truesteA: These were oleo the seed of Christ. Gal. 
 S, 29. ^'If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
 seed." Where then is the absurdity of saying 
 that the one was a dispensation of the other, when 
 they dispense the san;e blessings, to the same 
 heirs. 
 
 You object 1st, 'As circumcission was the seal 
 *which God himself, affixed to that covenant, and as 
 'aseal, the moment it is affixed, gives the persons on 
 'whose belialf the covenant was made, all the advan- 
 'tage* therein contained: it follows by inevitable con- 
 'sequence, that if that covenant was the covenant of 
 'grace, then every circumcised person must be 
 'saved; and if baptism is come in the room of circum- 
 'cision, that every baptised person, must be saved 
 •also.' 
 
 1 reply, 1st, That you will certainly consider that 
 the Lord's s-upper is a seal of the cuvenaot of 
 grace: wid 3 on fiOw admit your dwn inferencer 'It 
 follows by inevitable cons( cjuetice,' that every per- 
 son cdmitte,* into the full ci nunuriion ot the Chuich, 
 must be iraved.' it is impossible for me to see any 
 difference in ihe premises. The conclusion must be 
 the same* 
 2nd. [ have shown.in the preceeiling work,tbat there 
 
 ^VVa'^ flie Doctor aware ct ti>i>. difficulty in his sys- 
 tem.? Or, will he deny that the Lord's supper is a 
 seal of the covenant of ^race. or in other Vurds, that 
 there are no seals to the rnvenant of grace.'^ The 
 J.ord's Pupper is as truly 'nffixed h\ God himself, as 
 circumcision or baptism: are till members in the full 
 fiomamnion of the church 'saved.^' 
 
250 A LETTER. 
 
 is a difference between affix-ng a seal to a covenant, 
 and discliai{>;ing the duties of »lie same. In baptism 
 or t'le Lord's supper, tb.e spal Is affixed, but by a life 
 of conformity to the law of God, we can alone dis- 
 charge tie duties of it. 
 
 3rd. The utmost that . can be inferred from the 
 circumstance of a person beinji; baptised, is, that they 
 are under the laws of Christ's lions*?, and entitled to 
 all its visible privileges. The simple truth appears 
 to be; that there js a visible relation existing 
 between Chri?t and all the members of the visi- 
 ble church, and that they are entitled to all the ex-. 
 tfrnal privileges of the church, so long as they 
 conform to her visible laws. 
 
 Y u, however, observe in the page Inst cited, 
 *'But what is on exu-rnal rehi'ion to a covenant } 
 Is it not in other word^ lo bf out of a cwenant?" 
 Permit me. sir, to answrr your query; T.iat to be 
 externally rehtied to a covenant, IS to be an ex- 
 ternal member of it; HJ^^^ not in othor words "to be 
 out of a covenant." Wh;,! i>* the church on earth, 
 if she is notd visible body, p^sse-m^ external pri- 
 vileges, and under a vi^ihlt, huv? In order that 
 any of tlese external benefit- should be, in reality, 
 pr- fitable, I grant th;.t it is necessaty they should 
 be inwf-nily lipp'ied, or in other words that there 
 sliould be soir»ethu)g more than an external rela- 
 tion — This forms a visible title to invisible ben- 
 efits. 
 
 W!iat inward or spiritual bles.-insid'T s the church 
 on e- rth enJMy. wliich is not first visible and ex- 
 ternal. Even fi ith, a spiritual gift by which we 
 enjoy all other?, come* by an exierual ordinance. 
 *^By hearing, ;^rd hesritg by the word ofG)d." 
 Ro'ir-. 10, 17. Hence v^herp tMs extornal dispjuy of 
 the gospei is not, we have no divine warraDt to b^- 
 
A LETTER. ^bl 
 
 lieve that spiritual blessings exist. The scripture 
 forbids the hope. Pr^v. 29 15. 
 
 Ten children may ha\ean equal right in a will; 
 five through profligfxy-may never inherit iuy part 
 of the estate, will 1 ai^sert, as you h;ive don*-, that 
 in "other words they wf-re without a covenai t" or 
 will} My assertion would be found coritraiy to the 
 fact: the instrument -igned by tb.e tesfitor would 
 pronounce me false • But the covenant, about 
 which we dispute, is diatheke a will or testament, 
 in which the external rights and privileges of the 
 heirs are the same: the legal reason why they do 
 not possess the inheritance willed, is because, 
 "they forsake their own mercies." The external 
 standing v{ iha ten virgii s, mentioned in Mat- 
 thew, 25. were the same. It wfis not until Christ 
 the Bridegroom, called them from lime, by death, 
 that the ditferenco nas discovered. 
 
 This doctrine, you have materially conceded; 
 for although you appear unwilling to admit that 
 the covenant of circumcision, vi^as an administra- 
 »ion of the covenant of grace; yet your conces- 
 tions cannot be ture, without admitting the truth 
 df my position, because, 
 
 1st. You call the covenant of circumcision an 
 ecclesiastical covenant. Now, sir, what is an ecle- 
 siastical covenant, but a covenant of the church? 
 and what else is the covenant of grace? Two 
 parties are necessary, to form a covenant. In 
 this, your ecclesiastical covenant, God must have 
 been one party, and the church tiie other. But 
 we have no account of any ctiier covenant in 
 which God and the church were parties, besides 
 the covenant of grace. The apostle Peter when 
 he refers to the covenant of circumcision certain- 
 ly, however, refers to it, as the covenant of grace. 
 
252 A LETTER. 
 
 "Ye are the childrt n of tliC prophets and of the 
 covenant which God made with our fathers, 
 saying unto Abrahr.ni, and in thy feed shSl hU 
 the kindreds nl' the e;\rth be ble^sf;d.'" Acts 3. 25. 
 This passage will eslah.liih the following things. 
 Ist. Thill all nations had an cquti! ii;ttre=t in 
 this covenant. 2nd. That Chritl was tlie alone 
 medium, tiirough which the blessings of tlie cove- 
 nant of circumcision were to be di!?pen^ed. The 
 apo^tlf. P-.uI so commeitts on the same passp.gf, 
 - Gnl. 8. 16. 'Now to Abraham & his seed \\ ere the 
 promises m.ade. Ht> saith not and to seeds, as 
 of many; but as of one, and to liiy seed vvldch is 
 Christ.' From the view taken of your fcclesias- 
 tical covenant by Peter and Paul, itise\id<:nt 
 they recognize Ctirist as its head; the peison, 
 ti)rough whom all its blessings are to be enjoyed; 
 and a covenant in Avhich all true believers have 
 an equal ir;terest. 1 think, sir, you and I under- 
 stand a cov(Miant of tLis di«cription to be the co- 
 venant of grace; if not, in what reirpect dees it 
 diff-r? 
 
 2r7ih You <:oncfde 'that it was a covenant gra- 
 ' ciousiy designed and wisely calculated, as a 
 ' mean to an end, to interest them in the blessings 
 * of the covenant of grace, consisting in pardon, 
 ' sanclitication and eternal life.', page 4, By tliis 
 you must mean, one of two things; either, 1st. 
 th.at this covenant prepared its sul)jec(s for re^- 
 )eceiving these spiritural blessings; or 2pd that 
 they were contained in the covenant of circum- 
 cision. If you believe the former; then your sen- 
 timent must he that G' d the Fatlicr did through 
 Christ, as federal Head, enter into two cove- 
 nants vith the church; the first of which was to 
 prepare them for the latter, the first contained 
 
A LETTER. 253 
 
 the means, the latter the end; the fir?t '\v?.s a^l- 
 culatfd to iatcre^^t ti.eni'in tl.e latter. But I do 
 not believe ihi^i novel theory to be your.^; v.-u 
 must then bei:eve tiial pudo;., ^-anct fic;;tio !, &z. 
 were dispensed in that covenant. It full. »' ^s, 
 that as the covenant of grac' alone, coiti.ii.tid 
 these blessings, the covenant of circunncijion, 
 was a dt.>ipet!sation of the covenant of iiace. 
 
 3rd. Yi>u concfdH, that it is 'undentabir, that 
 ' isif lilts were intri>duced into that churc; by cir- 
 'cumciiion.' T'l ' ciiuicii is a body h'-ly to 'he 
 L rd,— in inh^riianee prepared. Acts 20 28 Your 
 CO ice-sion implies, that by circumciriDn they 
 weie united to that body, of which Christ is the 
 Head. Col. 1. 18. But themome' t they were u'.it- 
 fcd to tfiis body, they were entitled to all the pre- 
 vil^'ise?! of It, as thfy becain<^ capable to receive 
 the.ri, and bound by i^ll their kAvs. The righteous- 
 ness of Christ, the foundation of all these privileg- 
 es, was -e:ded to Abraham by circumcisio!!. Rom. 
 4 1 1. But this righteousness and all the blessings 
 flowing from it, are tie blessings of the covenant 
 of grace. Therefore circumcision was a sign and 
 a seal of the blessings of the covenant of erace. 
 
 In a word, you concede that "the}- arfr- engraft- 
 ed into the good olive tree.' paa:e 13. le.iiiated 
 by this ordinance, among 'the ossembi} of saint?,' 
 among a 'chosen nation' a'chosen people.' pa^e 7. 
 If so, it cerifiinlv follows, that however ui'profi- 
 table their standintr be to themselves, yet they 
 are visible members of that body, possessing all 
 the external relation and privilfges, (hat saints 
 do, and must therefore by God, be df-alt with, as 
 'covenafit breakers,' which cw!i)d not br true, un- 
 less in some sense, they had been in the covC' 
 nant. 
 
254 A LETTER. 
 
 The passage jou chiefly urge forthe confirmatioE 
 of this jour opinion is,Ronj. 3. 2/ What advantage 
 hath the Jew, or whatprufit i^ there of circumci- 
 sion? much every Avay; chiefly, because that unto 
 them, \Tere committed the oracles of God.' Your 
 view of the passage is, that the oracles of God 
 'are said to be the chief advantage, which those 
 'who were interested in that covenant by circum- 
 'cision, derived from it; and until it is proved, 
 ' that the words, the oracles of God.' imply in 
 ' them, justification, sanctification aiid eternal life, 
 ' this single passage settles the point at once.' P. 
 14, oiote. 
 
 For the proper understanding of this passage 
 you will sufter a few observations. 
 
 1st. That by the 'oracles of God,' we are to un- 
 der>;tand the scriptures of tnilh, and that in Rom. 
 3. 2. we are chiefly to understand oid lestymcnt 
 scriptures, hecautie the'-e were given to the sub- 
 jects of circumcision first. 
 
 2nd. We are in a t^till more extensive sense, to 
 understand by these opficles, all the ordinances 
 warranted by the scriptures, together with all the 
 previleges they contained. These, the same a- 
 po5tle and in the same epistlf , declares to be the 
 peculiar privilege of the subjects of circumcision. 
 Rom 9. 4- 'Who are Isralites;' to whom perfain- 
 eth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, 
 and the giving of the law, and the service of God, 
 and the promises.' This, the old testament church 
 knew to be their peculiar previlege. Deut. 4. 8. 
 'And what nation is so great, that hath statutes 
 and Judgments so righteou-, as all this law, which 
 I set before you this day.' Now, sir, 'the church 
 of God i? one and indivisible.' Therefore all these 
 ordinances are, in every age of the world, the 
 
A LEin'ER. 255 
 
 special property of the church. This sentiment is 
 fully confirmed in Psalms, 98. 5. 6. 
 
 In what sense are we to understand the Scrip- 
 tures of truth? I answer, in no other sense, than 
 a dispensation of the covenant of grace. I consi- 
 der the scriptures to he the written testament of 
 Christ, sealed by his blood, as testator. Will you 
 say that Christ, as testator, sealed two wilk, one 
 an ecclesiastical will, the other the testament of 
 grace? The apostlr, therefore, in asserting that 
 it was a benefit arising from circumcision, that 
 unto them were committed the oracles of God; 
 which by the reasoning before, must have inti- 
 mated, that a djppensation of the covenant of 
 grace, was the peculiar privilege of the subjects 
 of circumcisio!!. 
 
 This, i['deed,you appear to concede in page 81. 
 'But the covenant of circumcision, secured only 
 ' the ordinances of religion, as the means of grace 
 * to the circumosed.' But what can any person 
 understand by the ordinances of religion, but a 
 dispensation of the blessings of the covenant of 
 grac^? Now, these ordinances belonged to the 
 covanant of circumcision; therefore the blessings 
 of the covenant of grace, were dispensed in the 
 covenant of circumcision, or in other words, the 
 covenant of circumcision was a dispensation of 
 the covenant of grace. 
 
 To the-e Israelites, the subjects of circumcision, 
 'pertained the promises.' Rom. 9. 4. In what co- 
 venant were these promises contained.'* I think 
 you will grant, that thfy were gospel promises, 
 and if so, you will notdetiy that they were promis- 
 es of the covenant of grace. It follows that the 
 covenant of circumcision, was a dispensation of 
 the covenant of grace. 
 
256 A LETTER. 
 
 But until it is proved, that the words, the 'ora- 
 cles of God' imply in them, jusu(ication,sanctif]ca- 
 tion and eternal life, this single pns-age settles 
 the point.' Now, sir, I would have su[)posed, 
 that little reasoning was necessary to prove to you, 
 that in the 'oracles of God,' justification &c. were 
 dispensed to nnen, and that he, who by a living 
 faith, received these oracles, received in them all 
 tiicse spiritual blessings. 
 
 Do you believe, that there is any outward dis- 
 pensation of the covenant of grace? If there is, 
 it must be the Scriptures of truth; the oracles of 
 God; the word preached, &c. why then deny 
 that ju'^tiftcAiioii, sanctification and eternal life, 
 are dispensed in these oracles? 
 
 Now, wliiit is your theory on the subject of the 
 covenant of circumcision? 
 
 1st. Thit the covenant of circumcision was an 
 ecclesiastical covenant; containing, no proraises, — 
 for had it pos essedany promises, and these have 
 bef^n ciaimeil by faith, still it could not have dis- 
 pe ised purdon or eternal life — it was not a dis- 
 pens'Uioii of the covenant of grace: it had none of 
 these ble^sina:? in it. 
 
 2iid. Tlieie are two covenants existing b.'itween 
 God and mm; one of which contains the means, 
 the otlier the end. But had the covenant of grace 
 been a perfect contract, then it would have con- 
 tained bjth mf'ans and end; it would have contain- 
 ed all the provisions, conditions, and mean'^, neces* 
 eary to put all its subjects into full possession of 
 all its blessings. And then one of two covenants 
 w^'Uld have been unnecessary, 
 
 3id. This ecclesiastical covenant, has but one 
 sign, or seal;thii w.is circumcision, and is now 
 baptism. All the things signified or sealed, arft 
 
A LETTER. 257 
 
 means — no Bpiritual blessings, — for this reason, 
 tliat a seal is a eecuiitj for the blessings contain- 
 ed in the covenant alone,, to which it is appended. 
 In a word, the covenant of circumcision was not 
 a gospel covenant; because the gospel is a dis- 
 pensation of the covenant of girace. It is fndeed 
 on this plan, difficult to say, what the covenant ©f 
 circumcision was; unless you say with me, that it 
 was a dispensation of the covenant of grace. 
 
 The SECOND POINT, in which I differ from the 
 sentiments you have expressed, on the s\ibject of 
 debate, between Mr. Campbell and myself, is that 
 which you declare to be the design of circumci- 
 sion and baptism. You say, 'I do not consider 
 * circumcisioD and baptism, as primarily designed, 
 'for the purpose of building up believers in holi- 
 *ness; but as ordinances designed. for the conver- 
 ' sioi) of sinners, of a certain character.' page 39. 
 This ^certain character^'' or qualification necessary 
 in order to admit adults to baptism, or parents who 
 desire iheir children admitted by this ordinance, 
 you declare to be 'a speculative faith, and sense 
 of guilt.' Your reader now perceives the reason 
 why you deny circumcision and b .ptism to be 
 seals of the coveiiant of gruce, because they inti- 
 mate no interest in Christ, but nre only means to 
 interest. It is a way to pus^es-s the blessings, 
 but is not a seal of possession. 
 
 I shall now give som?: reasons, why I cannot 
 subscribe the sentiments you have expressed on 
 this subject. 
 
 That the faith required of persons, ii' ord r to 
 
 their admission to this ord^r.aricf^, is not, ^s you 
 
 suppose, a «pecuhitive, bu a true-.i'd Tving faith 
 
 is evident, because no otaer kind of faiUi was, or 
 
 X 2 
 
258 A LETTER. 
 
 indeed could be,required by the divine law. It is, I 
 b' lieve, absurd to suppose that the law of God re- 
 qtiiris a faith, the very character of which is diso- 
 bedience. You will certainly concede,that the gos- 
 pel of Christ, pre§,ents to every person, where it 
 comes, all the ble^ings it contains. The hw of 
 pod requires every sinner to accept these bless- 
 ina;^;, and this it requires under the pains and pen- 
 ally of eternal death. But it cannot be supposed- 
 that a temporary, or speculative -faith, will an- 
 swer the Divine requisition, or will such faith de- 
 liver from the punishment due to uiibelief, why 
 then suppose that such faith can be a true pre-rc- 
 quisite, entitling us to any ordinance? 
 
 TiiCtrue state of a person, not possessing sav- 
 ing faith, is, that he is a child of wrath. From this 
 character, he is not delivered by 'speculative 
 faith,' or a 'sense of guilt.' In relation to the 
 gospel of Jesus, the whole duty of a sinner is 
 marked out by the divisie law. It requires him 
 to accept Christ as his baviour, and all the bless- 
 ings that centre in him. A sinner, feeling con- 
 virxed of the truth of the following assertions, 
 that Je?us Christ is the Saviour of sinners, that 
 the law requires him to accept of Christ, as his 
 Saviour: that he is a guilty sinner, that without 
 faith he must be damned, — is willing to make a 
 profession of these truths. Query, will he have 
 in consequence of this, his faith, any interest in 
 the covenant of grac^t, or a right to any of its 
 ble«sings? No sir, when the faith of the man ad- 
 vances no further, when he refuses to appropri- 
 ate the blessings^ that he need<», and to obey the 
 law which he is persuaded requires such appro- 
 priation, hia guilt is greatly increased; he knows 
 
A LET I ER. 255 
 
 his master's will, and does U not; he is entitled to 
 many stripes, hut not to any privileges. 
 
 For the establishment of your theory, you first 
 reason from the character given of the church. 
 'Abraham and all his servants were circumcised.' 
 'I would now ask, if you can believe, that all 
 'these, with all their countless offspring:, to the 
 ^coming of the Mesiah, were true believers.' P. 
 •40. I }»nswer that the former sysstem on this sub- 
 ject, does not require us to believe that they were 
 all united to Christ by faith. It only requires us 
 to bflieve, that it w.as thfir duty and the duty of 
 their seed, t!iat desire the ordinance of circumci- 
 sion for themselves or their children, to possess a 
 true and living faith. True holiness, vi^hich could 
 have no existence without saving faith, was re- 
 quired in the very introduction of the covenant 
 of circumcision. Gen. 17. 1. 'Walk before me, 
 and be thou perfect.' To that which was contain- 
 ed in the covenant of circumcisson, all its sub- 
 jects were bound, and of this they made a public 
 profe-^sion, when they were circumcised. In re- 
 ceiving this ordinance, they must therefore have 
 agreed, to walk before God perfectly; to receive 
 the Lord as their God A' mighty, v. 1. To re- 
 ceive the blessings of this covenant as everlast- 
 ing. V. 7. But because Abraham was required 
 io teach this covenant to all under his care, and 
 because the Head of the church recognized him 
 as a man, who would 'command his children and 
 his liousehold after him; Chap. 18. 19. There- 
 fore, to his household also, was extended the seal 
 of these privileges. If any of these w».'r.3 found 
 irreligious, they were like other apostates, 'cove- 
 nant breakers.' 
 
 Every parent presenting his child for baptism, 
 
260 ALFTTER. 
 
 is required as Abraham was, to walk before God 
 am] be perKC?, and to pos-ess that faith, by vvliich 
 alone, his obedience can be acceptable, and to 
 'commdiid hi« f;hi]dr.-n and his household after 
 him;' and in the vv^;y of engagm^? to these duties, 
 to recf^ive this ordin^^nce. 
 
 In the covenant of circumcision was contained 
 the three following things. 
 
 1st. The duties required. 
 
 2iid. The proaiis(!S statedi 
 
 3rd. The seal affixed. 
 
 In receiving the last, the subjects of that cove- 
 nant were bound by f lith, to receive the promises, 
 and essay the duties. I therefore reason, that 
 the obedience which God required in this and ev- 
 ery other covenant, in whicii he is a party, must 
 be rendered according to the true spirit arid in- 
 tention of his law, w^hich,you will acknowledge, 
 is by saving faith alone. In every case wtiere the 
 gospel presents a promise, the law requires the 
 ace. ptance of faith. But a promise was given to 
 Abr tham and to his seed, in the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision, b'^fnre he was circumcised, and he 
 possessed the faith required, proved in Rom. 4. 1 1. 
 But that which was (he moral duty of Abraham, 
 is also the duty of all desiiingto be, as he was, 
 initiated intotlte cluirch of Christ. It is their du- 
 ty first to lielicve the proms^s of the t^ospe!, by a 
 livinti faith. 2nd. T- prof'S- a determination 
 throuirh the grace of G >d pr tmised, to live a ho- 
 ly ii) :. 3rd. To receive b-ptism for themselves, 
 or uteir c! Idren. This is found to b;' the order 
 by which Abriham and his household were adiuit- 
 ted. 
 
 You reason from the letter or form of expr'^s- 
 sioD u-^td io Scripture. 'How opposite to wnat 
 
A LETTER, sai 
 
 * is said in the scriptures of Zion, of the church, 
 'and of Z'lon it shall be said this arid that nian 
 ' was born in her ' And Jerusalem, (another epi- 
 'thet of tlie church,) which is above ar\d is free^ 
 
 * is said to be the 'Mother of us all.' page 41.- 
 
 On the first of these text?, I observe, that yoU 
 would. certainly consider tlie promise equally ac- 
 complished, in the admission of tliose regenerated 
 before they are admitted into the church, that 
 you would of those converted after they become 
 members; if so, yeu cannot then draw any »rgu- 
 mentfri^m the passage, in favor of your hypothe- 
 sis. To give your opinion its full force upon the 
 •passage, it is; that the church receives honor a- 
 lone, from those who enroll themselves, among 
 her citizens, at a tinte when they are enemies to 
 God by wicked Morks; because they are ungene- 
 rnte sinners, or in otl.er woids, the way to seek 
 tlie face of Jacob, so as to honor him with their 
 birth, is to seek I im in that way which dishonors 
 his Lord; a sentimetit, you wculd as unwillingly 
 subscribe sis niysc If. I consider the true import 
 of the passage to be, that in a day of the reviving 
 of the church, converts of every tiation i-.nd toi.gue, 
 \\\]\ reckon it their true glory to become citizens 
 cl" Zion, and consider it as truly their native 
 kifi;^dom,-as if they had beeii born Jews, and had 
 Ab:aham fir a natural father. And with me a- 
 grees Molierus, who has e{iven a celebrated com- 
 mentary on the hook of Ps.dms. Of much the 
 sane import, is (le sf^conci passage you quote. 
 
 You reason t>om Rom. H. 20. 'Well, becctuse 
 of unbelief they were broken oft, and fhou stand- 
 esi by faith.' You ob'^erve on tliis passage: 'It 
 •felloes by fair fot'sjequeiice, that !he fitith by 
 ' \vhich the Jews stood, was a faith that conld be. 
 
2G2 A LETTER. 
 
 ' and was .lost; but tins is not the case with the 
 * faith of God's elect.' But permit me to obi^erve, 
 that tlie faith which they tbr-ook, was the same, 
 by whicli the Hew te?tament church stands; be- 
 cause 'unbelief is not the con'rary of a specula- 
 tive, but of a true friith,but they had substituted 
 unbelief for its contrary, and therefore were bro- 
 ken off. It follows that they once stood by the 
 same faith, in which we now stand. Would it 
 not be absurd to '^a.y that the church, at any period, 
 stood by a speculative fhith.? h it not the sume, 
 as saying, that she once stood by unbelief? 
 
 I believe, sir, that if the wl^ole Jewisli nation 
 had possessed a speculative faith, &, had expres- 
 sed the same as the centurian, who c -mmanded 
 the bnnd of murderers that killed Christ did, 
 their true situation would have been no beiter 
 than It Wijs, they would still have been broken 
 olf. 
 
 It follows, that the Jewish Church lost true 
 and living faith. Although no individual, ihat 
 possessed this^ faith, ever lost it, yet the Jewish 
 nation lost their church character; they ceased to 
 be a body under Christ, the hiad; and such of 
 tjjeir members, as had a true and hving faith, 
 were the branches, by which itie church continu- 
 ed, and amouii whom, the New-Testament bran-^ 
 ches were giafted. 
 
 In your examination of that faith" ar;d repen- 
 terce, which you suppose were required in the'iT 
 adaiission to briplism, you tirst reason from Acts, 
 2. 36. "Tl^en Peter said unto them, repent and 
 bf- b:iptise-a, every orse of you, in the r.ame of Je- 
 sus Christ, for the remission of sins, & \e shall re- 
 ceive the gift of the Holv Ghost." A? to the vari- 
 ous meanings you have given us, of ihc word re- 
 
A LETTER 263 
 
 penfance, I have no piuticular objections: but the 
 re.aso;<.3 you ofF.r, vvny this word, m the passage, 
 is not to be unaert-tood as evangehcal reperjtance, 
 do not satisJy me: because you suppose that we 
 can only infer fsom the declarntion of" Peter, that 
 he required ft change of loind. "Pefer sHys, met- 
 anoesate, rUwn^e your minds, with respect to this 
 Je^us of Nazareth, w'lom yc have coni^idtred as 
 an impostor, and cr\icified as such, and as an evi- 
 dence that your change of rnuid is rtal, 'be bap- 
 tized, every one of you.' That something more 
 than a simple change of mind, was required by 
 the Apostle, is evident, from the influence that 
 the sermon he had just preacbed, hiul upon them; 
 Hhtry were pricked in their heart.' This ititimated 
 a deep, piercing wcund, that the teruioi" had pro- 
 duced m their consciences; strona' legal coiivictlon, 
 it wf.s evident that they wert afraid, that ihe men, 
 whom they had crucified ard slain, would »gain 
 apfear as their awtul Jwdg>^. to t?b:e veiiireaiice 
 or. their wicked conduct, v. 37. "Now whet! they 
 had heard this, they were pricked in their heart, 
 and said unto Peter, and to the rpst of the Apostles, 
 men and brethern, what shall we do?"' according 
 to your view of the subject, Peter's answer impli- 
 , ed nothing more than that which they had alrea- 
 dy expressed — Nay, he required even less; it was 
 only, 'change your mirds.' 
 
 I also object to the construction you give the 
 words used by Peter: "For the remission of sins." 
 'This baptism is' for the remission of sins,' 'or a 
 'mean appointed by him, that you rrtfey receive 
 Hhe remission of your sins.' P. 43. Savins fath 
 is the proper mean of Justification, or tl-.e remis- 
 sion of sins; by this act we claim the rightt-c^us- 
 ness of Christ, the alone ground of Pardon. The 
 
1264 A LETTER. 
 
 Scripture has established the connexion and order 
 of means, and end u. list work of coi '. f r.-ior. R m. 
 10. 17: 'Faitti cometii bv hCJui .t^. and ht-aring 
 by the word of God.' Cl;ap. 3. 28, ''Tht rtfore we 
 ccriclude. th.t a ma.: is jusiilifd by taith.' Re- 
 pentance IP not, in Scrip! ure, d cl^tred to be a 
 Hi" a: ol ihe 'reirii>^siou of sni,' but le;^-al repen- 
 tance is produ( ed by ih' coMirtncr; i pparaiion, and 
 evatjgGhc'.l rej, enlance, b} thespeeial a, I'arations 
 of ih-e Sp;rit (.i God; tie turmer prtcet ihiig, aiid 
 the 1. Iter tollown-g, justification, nnd iiisttad (f 
 btii.g a mean, is a piojiir cont^equtfice of ii. 
 
 On the view )( u ha\e takeri of this passage, 1 
 conctde, th.ai 'baptism is a budge cf disciple-; ip 
 lo C. rist.' But does sprculativ*^ fs>ith, or if^-al 
 repentance consiiiute a ninn, & disciph if Ciirisl? 
 If s-o, n can only bi a budge of h\[)Ocrisy. ^ 
 
 I al<o cuncedi the truth ol liie reasm yi.u give, 
 why Pet( r nqnrtd thtm ti be baptise.;; 'as ao 
 eviiie ce thiit \our change of mitid .s resl. be fif.p- 
 tij^ed, every (lie ofvou, in tie name cl Chri.-l.' 
 But, Sir, ii^ lenal repenti^nce acconipaiied with a 
 sptr'cul.i'ive fa-lh, "b rrai charige of mind,' in the 
 eyes of God? !- it doI a repentanci-, which ntcds 
 "to be rep' nted of? 
 
 In a word, my view of (he pas-=age is, that tlie 
 Apo-tle. used the vvoidr. Meperit, eviry oi e of 
 you,' to ii timate the insufficiency of that lepen- 
 tanee, whch they lipd alieadj manifested, by 
 \Th;<'-h tl ey vvrre pricked to the iieart; r.nd there- 
 fore !0V\ requires from them a leptntarce. en- 
 tirely distinct in its nature, fin evanjieiic;;! repen^ 
 tancc: becsuse r. repent:.rce, built upon the for- 
 rher, would be 'like the morning eh ud and early 
 deu ;' it would 'pass juvay.' The spirit of his lan- 
 guage, then is, having a true hold of the righte- 
 
A LETTER. 265 
 
 ousness of Christ, the Lord, whom *ye have cruci- 
 fied and slain,' and possessing a Godly sorrow for 
 the sin of crucifying bim, come forward, and give 
 an evidence of the sincerity of these, your exer- 
 cises, by enlisting under his banner, by claiming 
 a gospel security, for obtaining the blessings he 
 has purchased, by your receiving the ordinance 
 of baptism, and thereby, evidence to the world,that 
 you have claimed his pardoning mercy, manifested 
 in the forgiveness of your sins. 
 
 You argue, that the faith required, was only a 
 speculative faith. 
 
 1st. From acts 8. 12, 18. 'But when they be- 
 lieved Philip, preaching the things concerning 
 the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
 (vhrist, tliey were baptized, both men and women; 
 then Simon himself believed also: and when he 
 was baptized, &c. What was the faith these per- 
 ■^ons prefes.^ed to have? I answer, it was a living, 
 and not a speculative faith. That any of them 
 possesed a true faith, 1 cannot say, but that they 
 made a profession of this faith, is the thing in ques- 
 tion, and that which I shall endeavour to prove. 
 
 It is evident first from the case of bimon Ma- 
 gus. The faith which he had, we percieve was 
 not real; It is evident from the character given of 
 him by Peter, that he acted hypocritically, when 
 he made the profession of his faith. 'Thy heart 
 is not right in the sight of God.' He professed to 
 be, that which he was not. He was among those 
 of whom the Psalmist speaks. 'Nevertheless 
 they did flatter him with their mouth, and fhey 
 lied to him with their tongues; for their heart 
 was not right with him; neither were they sted- 
 fast in his covenant.' Psal. 78. 36, 37. But if 
 Simon Magus had professed nothing, but a spec- 
 Y 
 
266 A LETTER. 
 
 ulative faith, Philip might have address^ him in 
 the stile of Peter at the time he offered " himself a 
 candidate for 'baptism, he might then have told 
 ^him that hi^ heurt was not rigat with God.' Be- 
 cause his fiiith was only speculative. Na}*, Phi- 
 lip might then have declared, 'I perceive that thou 
 a-rt in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of in- 
 iquity, the state in which every sinner is, who 
 possesses nothing, but a speculative faith. Thus 
 according to your view, the ministers were not 
 deceived in the character of Simon Magus, he pro- 
 fessed the faitii wfiich in fact he possessed — a 
 speculative faith He was no hypocrite — his 
 profession and faith agreed, whic!» I think, how- 
 ever, is very different from llie history given of 
 him in the scripture. 
 
 The faith of the other persons admitted by Phi- 
 lip, may be judge 1, by the subject of Philip's ser- 
 mon; it was the 'kingdom of God' In which, it 
 is evident, that he so displayed the privileges of 
 this kingdom, as that they were willingto enroll 
 themselves among her citizens. But did Phil if » 
 preach that they should only yield in historical 
 faith. No, lie must have tauglit that the King of 
 this kingdom, was the Lord their righteousness.' 
 VVhen they professed to believe, they certainly 
 declared by their profession, that they accepted 
 him as their king, and his kingdom as their rest. 
 If their hearts corresponded with their profession, 
 you will agree with me, that their faith was sav- 
 ing. 
 
 That the time, which they had to judge of the 
 sincerity of their faith, was very short, I grant; 
 yet the spirit of God at that time, wrought with 
 niucVi greater power, than it does at present, and 
 therefore, a shorter time for judgement was suffici- 
 
A LETTER 261 
 
 em at that time, than at the present. They were 
 however, sometimes deceived, and so are ytm and 
 F, even when we have a previous knowledge 
 of persons for years. 
 
 You suppose that it is impossible for us to file 
 the cases of the Eunuch, and Lydia as exceptions 
 to the theory you have given. Because, you say 
 in case of the Eunuch, either h€ was a true be- 
 liever before, and then it does not lie in contro- 
 • versy — or that the statement given does not neces- 
 sarily suppose saving faith; and 'import^ nothing' 
 more than sincerity.' pBge 45. But sir, I hope 
 that a plain view of the statement will convince 
 you" to tlie contrary. Act 8. 36, 37. 'And the 
 Eunuch said., ?ee, here is water, what dolh hinder 
 me to be baptized? And Philip said, if thou bc- 
 licVest with all thine heart thou mayest,' The 
 pre-requisite here required for admission to bap- 
 tism, was believing with all the heart, this was 
 the moral requisition, less than this either express- 
 ed or implied, could not be required. — Christ de* 
 manded the same, although not mentioned as a 
 pre-requisite to baptism. Luke 10. 27. 'Thou 
 f halt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, 
 and with all thy s'oul, and with all thy strength, 
 end with all thy mind.' It is in this way alone, 
 that this command of God is to be obeyed. 'That 
 ■we should believe on the name of his son Jesus 
 Christ.' L' John 3. 23. Now sir, how was the Eu- 
 nuch required to believe.'* 'With all thy heart,' i. e. 
 with your whole soul accept Jesus a« the Lord 
 your righteousness. Who will say with you, that 
 this command only required speculative faith .-^ 
 
 Whatever n/ay be reasoned from the language 
 of the Eunuch's reply, this must be evident, that 
 Philip received it as an ariswer to his pre-requi- 
 
268 A LETTER. 
 
 ^te; and that he hereby declared that Jesus was 
 the son ofGodjthat he accepted him as his divine 
 Saviour, and declared his willingness to make a 
 public profession of his name, by receiving the 
 the sacriment of baptism. But if Philip only re- 
 quired speculative faith, and this the only faith 
 pos£es?ed, then this was another admission like 
 Simon Magus — they both had speculative faith; it 
 was all, according to your opinion Philip required 
 of either. 
 
 The same observations will apply to all the oth- 
 er cases you mention, such as Saul oi Tarsus, the 
 jailor &c. whether any or all of these persons were 
 converted prior to their baptism, I cannot deter- 
 mine, but liie question is what kind of faith was 
 required cf them before their admission to bap- 
 tism? I shall conclude this subject, by pimply 
 stating n fc'.v further arguments in favor of the 
 position I have espoused. 
 
 ARGUMENT, FIRST. 
 
 If God never required any faith but a living 
 faith,, then a speculative faith is net a moral pre- 
 requisite to baptism. 
 
 But the iormer is true, and therefore the latter. 
 
 The argument is proved, Heb. 11. 6. 'But 
 without faith it is impossible to please him.' To 
 say that God would in any case require specula- 
 tive faith, is to say that he lepuires that which 
 would displease him. 
 
 ARGL'MEI^T, SECOND. 
 
 Tf the moral law demands perfect obedience, 
 
A LETTER. 269 
 
 then it never did require in any case speculative 
 faith. 
 
 But the former is true, and therefore the latter. 
 
 I suppose you will not deny any of the terms of 
 this syllogism. But the conclusion is equally true 
 and fair, because the divine lavi^ cannot require 
 any obedirnce shortof that which pleases God — If 
 t)ie law requires saving faith we cannot obey its 
 commands by yielding speculative faitl). — 
 
 What object is to be gained by planting dead 
 trees in a garden, — trees that possess no living 
 principle? — You may water and dung about them 
 they decay the more speedily. Yet sir, you would 
 allow the keepers of Christ's vineyard to fill it 
 with such vines — people having only a dead 
 faith. 
 
 Is this not a speedy meihod to corrupt t!ic 
 church of Christ. — To till it with those that hate 
 liim, all unbelievers are haters of Christ — their* 
 character is not changed by possessing a specula- 
 tive faith. 
 
 Christ has appointed ordinances to prepare the 
 sinner for enterino" into the church, let these be 
 faitlifully used. When they appear to have gam- 
 ed their object, then let the person be admitted 
 by baptism into the churc'i. 
 
 The THIRD and only point of disagreement that 
 f shall now mention is the view yon have given 
 vis of the baptism of John, as you have not rea- 
 soned any on this point, lint rather appears to take 
 it for an assertion which none would cantra'.lic!; 
 I rather thought it, at least, my duty to notice it, 
 lest you might suppose, that I was among the 
 number of them, tfiat believed that the baptism 
 of John was not christian bapti-m. You asterf, 
 *that admitting that it could be incoiitrovel'iiblv 
 
270 A LETTER. 
 
 'proved, tliat John's baptism was administered by 
 immersion, yet it would not thence follow that 
 'christian baptism, was to be administtred in tlie 
 *same manner. John's baptism belonged not to 
 'the christian, but to the Jewish dispensation of 
 grace,' pace 58. 
 
 " Upon this I intend to make but a very few ob- 
 sevvulions, in 1 have already exceeded the usual 
 bounds of a letter. 
 
 Those who deny John's baptism to be christian 
 baptism, objecl ; 1st. That it was instituted un- 
 der the old Old Testament dispensation, 1 an- 
 swer, so also was the Lord's supper. The death 
 of Ciirist was the close of the former dispensa- 
 tion Every precept of the cerimonial law, had 
 its full force, until all its typical rites had their 
 accomplishnient in the sacrifice of the great an- 
 titype; but prior to this event, the Lord's supper 
 was instituted. Althoui^h it was indeed shortly 
 belorc the close of that dispensation, yet it is suf- 
 ficient that it was instituted before the death of 
 Christ, it was instituted under the Old Testament 
 dispensation; and therefore according to your ag- 
 sertion cannot be a New Testament ordinance^ 
 
 3nd. It is objected, that it was in existence be- 
 fore that circumcision ceased to be an ordinance 
 of the church, and therefore could not come in 
 the room of circumcision. I answer, tljat all or- 
 dinances exist in the church, according to" the 
 will of her head and Lord. He may, or may 
 not appoint seals according to his righteous plea- 
 sure. 
 
 I conclude, that for a short season, three seals 
 existed to the covenant of grace, and this 
 concession implies no more, than that the church 
 having for a long pegod of time, been accustom- 
 
A LETTER. 27 ^ 
 
 ed to circumcision, as the initiating seal of tlie 
 covenant of grace, were gradually introduced to 
 the ordinances of the New Testannent, tlie present 
 dispensation gradually appeared; the darkness of 
 that dispensation, by the appearing of the son of 
 rii^hteousness, was by degrees diminished, but 
 before their dispensation was closed, our ordi- 
 nances," which were to take the place of theirs, 
 made their appearance. Thus while our fathers 
 had their own ordinances, they had the pleasure 
 of seeing ours. 
 
 This hypothesis, I suppose, is generally sup- 
 ported by those who fear to admit premises, from 
 which the baptist may draw conclusions unfavour- 
 able to pedo-biiptism. Lest Mr. Campbell might 
 have supposed that 1 intended to have taken the 
 same advantage, I publicly intimated in an early 
 stage of debate, that I believed John's baptism to 
 be christian bapti«m,and feared no conclusion my 
 opponent could draw from my assersion. 
 
 3rd. It is objected, that those baptised with the 
 baptism of John, were re-baptised by Paul. Tiiis 
 objection is founded on Acts, 19. 3, 4, 5. 'And he 
 said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? 
 and they said, unto Jolin's baptism. Then said 
 Paul, John verily baptised with the baptism of re- 
 pentance, saying unto the People, that they should 
 believe on him that should come after him, that is 
 on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they 
 were baptised in the name of ttie Lord Jesus.' Let 
 it be observed on this passage, 
 
 1st. That by the Holy Ghost, in the passage, we 
 are not to understand the saving operation of 
 the Holy Spirit, but the miraculous outpourings of 
 the Spirit, which commenced on the day of pentl- 
 cost, and continued lor some time in the Church; 
 
272 A LETTER. 
 
 because tlie person of the Holy Spirit, and l.i^ sa- 
 ving operations, were taught in the Old-Testa- 
 merit, to which these converts hM acce*?. 
 
 2nd. That Paul ghews tbem ihe naiure of John's 
 hripijsm, that in that ordinance, they had been 
 taught the nature of true repertnnce, the charac- 
 ter of Christ Jesus, and the necessity of faith in 
 his5 name. 
 
 ord. When Paul had shewn th^ nature of John's 
 baptism, he t!ien intimates to the<e people, that 
 when the hearers of John h,ad uriderstond this, his 
 docuine, they made a public profession of the 
 fjiith by r<ceivirig his br.ptism, and here he is not 
 speaking paiiicularly of the-e whom he lioiv ad- 
 dressed, bu! of the hearers of John in general. 
 
 4ih. That the Apostle, firding tliat these peo- 
 p'ft h:id received by faith, Jesu^ Christ preached to 
 t'tu ni by John, and having made a public pro- 
 fession of their faiih, by receiving baptism from 
 John, he now lays his hands upon them, that lliey 
 might receive the miraculous outpourings of the 
 Holy vSpirit. 
 
 I have now given you the view of Beza, and 
 some ofthebest commentators upon the passage; & 
 I tliink upon due reHccfion, you will agree that 
 these persons were fiot rt'-baptised. Indeed, the 
 same reason that would render it gecesgary to 
 re-baptise these person?, would also require the 
 re-baptism of the eleven Apostles, and many oth- 
 ers, who had no other than John's baptism. 
 
 That the baptism of John was Christian baptism, 
 will fp'pearfrom a few observations. 
 
 1st. That if the baptism of John, was not 
 Ciiristian bn.ptism, then neither Christ nor his 
 disciples, received christian baptism. — Christ did 
 not, he was baptized with the baptism of John 
 
A LETTER. 273 
 
 alon'S, this will, indeed dishonor the New Testa- 
 ment church, seeing thatChrist was regularly in- 
 itiated a member of the Old-Testament church by 
 circumcision, but never was initialed a member 
 of the New Testament by baptism. The eleven 
 Apostles were never, according to this doctrine, 
 initiated, by biiptism, meinbers of the New Testa- 
 ment church — they were unbaptized ministers of 
 Christ — a doctrine, which, I think none should as- 
 sert- 
 
 2nd. For the samfi reason, tliat the baptism of 
 John could not be christian baptism, becaus(.' it was 
 under the former dispensation. Th^ baptism of 
 the disciples, before the dcfttli of Christ, could 
 not be christian, not one of the 120 disciples by 
 this, had received chri.^tian baptism. 
 
 3rd. The lanafiiage of John intimatrd that his 
 baptism was christian. 'He flint ^er-t me to bap- 
 tise.' Had it been any vi the Jewish washings, he 
 wDuld have no special commission, tjie levitical 
 law would have .aiarked iiis duty. 11' the wash- 
 ing by Johr, had bflonged to the Jewish purga- 
 tions, we should have heard his baptism, announ- 
 ced at Mouftt Sinia, or from (lie tabernacle in the 
 wilderness; but his intimation, tl;at he bad a dis- 
 tinct commission from any of his predecessors, de- 
 clares that he had particular duties to discharge, 
 not belonging to that dispensation. 
 
 Thus, sir, 1 have taken a very brief view of the 
 baptism ofJohn,ofthe faith required as prerequi- 
 site to baptism, and of the covenant of grace, as 
 administerad in the covenant of circumcision. 
 
 While I have objected to some things in your 
 letters, do not suppose that I disapprove of them 
 altogether. No sir, 1 believe you have given suf- 
 fieient and unanswerable reasons, why the view 
 
274 A LETTER. 
 
 of bt^ptists on the subject of baptism, should be 
 refused, and 1 well believe that Mr. Campbf'll a- 
 grees with me in thi^, for had he believed timt 
 your arguments could have been ans\yered, he 
 would not have filled his stri(;tures vvit'j satyre, 
 but witi' replies, so fur as you havw espoused the 
 cause of truth. I wish you success and peace i;: 
 the Lord. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 JOHN WALKER. 
 Jim. \4th, 1324 
 
 FlJflS. 
 
ERRATJl. 
 
 We have only corrected such mistakes as particu- 
 larly effect tiia sense/ such as are evident, may be 
 corrected by the reader. 
 
 Page 5, Line 3. omit infant. P. 25, L, 16, for re- 
 volution, read resolution, p. 28 L. 34 for longevi- 
 ty r. emigration. P. 51. L, 3, for 3. r.,5. P. 52, L. 
 IS, for m«v r. cannot. P. 52, note, for Inothi seauton 
 r. Gaothi seauton^ know thyself. P. 56, L. 8 for trans- 
 lation r. transaction. P. 57. L. 34 for appeared r. 
 appended. P, 64 Ir 12. omit not. P. 89, L. 10 for 
 Srd, read 2nd. P. 115 L. 17, for covenani", r. 
 iNFEREKCE. P. 117 L. 6, for adopted r. adapted. 
 P. 118 L. 22, for indeed r. instead. • P. 120 L. 9 for 
 interest r. intent. L. 14. for interest r. intent. P. 131, 
 L. 9, for rational r. national. P. 169 L. 8 for in' 
 stitiitions r. instructions. P. 186 L. 23 [or letters r. 
 inference. P. 251 L. 23 for tnre r. true. P. 253 
 L. 12 for prepared r. purchased. P. 264 L. 8 for 
 apparation t. operation. L. 9 for apparation r. op- 
 eration. 
 
I*. 
 
: r: 
 
 
 7;^ ^-