UC-NRLF 
 
 ' m 
 
}f 
 
 
 £*- 
 
 -90 
 
 REESE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Received. ^J^a9jSdf^..iS8^£- 
 
 Zs~/z° 
 
 •&- 
 
 Accessions No. d o_ /_&?___ Shelf No. 
 
 C¥- 
 
 *o 
 
/ 
 

NEW LIGHT 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 ■ 
 
 PRESENTED IN THREE PARTS, VIZ. 
 
 I. Believers proved to be the only proper subjects of Chris- 
 tian Baptism. 
 
 II. The different modes of administering this ordinance in use 
 
 among the Churches shown to be valid. 
 
 III. Open Communion with all Evangelical Christians illus- 
 trated and defended. 
 
 35Y JABEZ £HAt>WICK, A. M. 
 
 Of Genoa, Cayuga County, N. F. 
 
 TT] 
 
 Sixaoal^ 
 
 PRINTED BY MACK & ANDRUS. 
 
 1832. 
 
/& 
 
CONTENTS* 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Believers proved to be the only proper subjects of Christian 
 Baptism. 
 
 CHAPTER /.—Containing the argument from the apostolick commission for the 
 baptism of believers only. 
 
 CHAP. II.— The baptism of John shown to be distinct from Christian baptism, 
 and only preparatory to it ; yet it reflects light upon the present question, as 
 it was applied to believers only. 
 
 CHAP. in. — christian baptiom *hn\vn to have been instituted by Christ during 
 his life and personal ministry. 
 
 CHAP. IV. — The various attempts to include infants in the apostolick commis- 
 sion for baptism, considered and refuted. 
 
 CHAP. V.— -Circumcision shown to be of perpetual obligation to the Jews, and 
 hence baptism cannot be considered as a substitute. 
 
 CHAP. VL—The fact that the kingdom of heaven was set up, or the New Tes- 
 tament dispensation introduced during Christ's life and personal ministry, par- 
 ticularly illustrated and proved. 
 
 CHAP. VII.— The memorable passage, Acts ii. 38—41, particularly examined. 
 
 CHAP. VIII— -The three instances of the baptism of a household, recorded Acts 
 xvi. 14, 15, 33, and I. Cor. i. 16, particularly examined. 
 
 CHAP. IX.— The right of believers only to baptism confirmed by the constitu- 
 tion of the apostolick churches. 
 
 CHAP. X.— Containing an examination of Mark x. 13—16, Rom. xi. 16, 17, and 
 I. Cor. vii. 14. 
 
 CHAP. XL— The nature of positive institutions illustrated and established. 
 
 CHAP. XII. — The Abrahamick covenant, though a gracious covenant, or a dis- 
 pensation of the covenant of grace ; yet, shown to be distinct from the cove- 
 nant of grace itself. 
 
 CHAP. XIII. — The argument for the baptism of infants, grounded on the interest 
 which they are supposed to have in the promise of the Abrahamick covenant, 
 considered and refuted. 
 
CHAP. XIV.— The inconsistency between the belief and practice of Pedobap- 
 tists, respecting the church-membership of infants, exposed. 
 
 CHAP. XV. Containing additional evidence that there is such a change in the 
 constitution of the church, under the gospel, as excludes the membership of 
 
 CHAP. XVI.— The argument in favour of infant baptism, from ecclesiastical 
 history, examined, and shown to be insufficient and inconclusive. 
 
 C 'HAP. XVII— Containing remarks on female communion, and the change o* 
 the Sabbath. a - 
 
 PART II, 
 
 The different modes of administering the ordinance of baptism 
 in use among the churches showu to be valid. 
 
 CHAP. I— Containing an examination of the Greek word, baptizo. 
 
 CHAP. //.—-Containing an exa ination of; the Greek word, low, as used to de- 
 note the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 CHAP. III. — The figurative import of baptism examined, 
 
 CHAP. 1 v.— -The circumstances attending the administration of baptism con- 
 sidered. 
 
 CHAP. V. — Containing an examination of the argument in favour of immersion 
 from ecclesiastical history. 
 
 CHAP. F/.— Concluding arguments in favour of the validity of all modes of 
 baptism. 
 
 PART TIL 
 
 Open communion with all evangelical Christians illustrated and 
 defended. 
 
 CHAP. I — The subject explained. 
 
 CHAP II. — Containing the nrgumont for open communion founded on tli$ 
 Christian ex, erience and character. 
 
 CHAP. Ill Containing the argument for open communion based upon the prin- 
 ciple that the mode of baptism is not essential. 
 
 CHAP. IV. — Containing the argument for open communion based upon the right 
 and privilege of private judgement. 
 
 CHAP. V. — Containing the argument for open communion based upon the con- 
 sideration that, although baptism was manifestly intended to precede, in the 
 order of nature, the commemoration of Christ's death in the ordinance of the 
 supper, i does not appear that we have a warrant to insist upon it as m in 
 dispensable prerequisite, in all cases. 
 
INTRODUCTION.. 
 
 The question, who are to be baptized, has ree ived, and 
 continues to receive, different answers. Some affirm that be- 
 lievers in Jesus are the only proper subjects of this ordinance ; 
 others insist that not only believers, but their infant children, 
 or households, are proper subjects. 
 
 It is obvious, that the one or the other of these opinions, and of 
 the respective practices founded thereon, must U* wrong. Ei- 
 ther the former class fail, in part, to do what Christ bus solemn- 
 ly required to be done ; or the latter go beyond his order, and 
 baptize multitudes who do not come within the compass of 
 their commission. 
 
 Taking unauthorized ground, whether it be done by the one, or 
 the other, materially alters the course prescribed by our Lord, 
 and deranges the order which belongs to his kingdom. 
 
 Not that I would represent the errour. in either case, as fatal. 
 There are doubtless Christians among both Baptists and Pe- 
 dobaptists. Nevertheless, the errour of the one, 01 of the other., 
 is extremely hurtful, and ought to be relinquished. 
 
 The subject of Christian baptism is one of great practical im- 
 portance. This is evinced by many considerations: some of 
 which are the following, viz : its being a positive institution, and 
 one of the two Christian sacraments, or New Testament ordinan- 
 ces ; its being a tadge of discipleship, and a door of entrance into 
 the visible church ; its forming, of course, a dividing line be- 
 tween the visible kingdom of Christ and the world; its being 
 a bond of union among Christian professors ; and its laying the 
 baptized under peculiar obligations to a holv life. There is, al- 
 so, a peculiar prominence given to this ordinance in all the 
 New Testament records. * 
 
 It is therefore, as above stated, a subject of great practical 
 importance. The authority and glory of Christ" ad the good 
 of Zion, are seriously affected by thenianner in which this sub- 
 ject is viewed and treated. 
 
 The duty and proper employment of Christians is to obey 
 the precepts of Christ, their Lord and Master. « Ye are mv 
 
 I* 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 friends," said he, " if ye do whatsoever I command you. m 
 Again ; " he that hath my commandments and keepeth them, 
 he it is that loveth me." To each of his disciples, he says, " fol- 
 low me." Moreover, we are particularly cautioned and warn- 
 ed not ct to take from," nor " add to his words." It, therefore, 
 becomes every one, and especially, every minister of the gos- 
 pel, to make himself acquainted with the mind of Christ con- 
 cerning this matter, and to do the thing, and the only thing. 
 which he has enjoined. 
 
 Christ certainly intended that infants should, or should not 
 be baptized. And he has either commanded that they should 
 be baptized, or he has not. If the former be the fact, we ought 
 to know it: and if the latter, we ought to know it, and act ac- 
 cordingly. 
 
 Moreover, whatever be the will of Christ in relation to tins 
 point, it is reasonable to suppose that it is so plainly revealed, 
 that the humble and honest inquirer may discover it. It \fbuld 
 be a reflection upon him and upon his word, to say that his will 
 cannot be gathered from what is written. 
 
 He has, surely, not left this matter in uncertainty. He has 
 not intrusted the business of legislating thereon, either to his 
 church, or to his ministers He is Lord over his own hou^e 
 and kingdom* The Father testified from the cloud of glory, 
 u This is my beloved son, hear him." No one, therefore, who 
 is not inspired by his spirit, has a right ta make laws to bind 
 the consciences of men, or, in any measure, to lessen, or en- 
 large his appointments. 
 
 If we admit the scriptures to be a sufficient and infallible 
 rule of faith and practice, we must, (to be consistent,) allow 
 that they contain clear and satisfactory light upon this subject. 
 Consequently, if> we err, it is because we do not thoroughly ex- 
 amine and understand the scriptures, and the fault is our own* 
 
 Christians ought to be more thoroughly awake to this subject. 
 
 Much, indeed, has been said and written on it. But so long 
 as errour prevails, and the followers of Jesus are divided, and 
 the church marred and lent asunder; the subject should still 
 excite a deep and prayerful interest, and lead to a candid and la- 
 borious investigation: not with a view to gain the mastery ; but 
 to find out the real will of Jesus. How shall errour be rooted 
 up, and the deplorable evils which exist in relation to this sub- 
 ject be removed, except by honest inquiry, and diligent re- 
 search ? and by a willing submission to the testimony of the 
 scriptures ? 
 
 In this investigation, it is of high importance to be willing to 
 receive light from any instrument whom the Lord may raise 
 up for that purpose— i. e. from any one whom the Lord may 
 
INTRODUCTION 7 
 
 assist to give a right construction of his word, and to point 
 out the good old way which had been forsaken. God often rai* 
 ses up men to expound his word, and correct prevailing er- 
 rours, from quarters which would have been least expected. 
 
 No one should reject the light which may be reflected upon 
 the subject, through pride of opinion, or partiality to his own 
 sect, or order ; because it does not proceed from them, or come 
 in the way of his choosing. But when, upon due examination, 
 the doctrine dvanced is found to be verily true, it should b« 
 embraced, from whatever quarter t comes. 
 
 Believing that I have obtained new light upon this subject, 
 not by means of any new revelation, but from the holy scriptures, 
 I s' icit the attention of the publick to what I have to say, al- 
 though I am conscious of my unworthiness. Though I might 
 have been the last irom whom any thing could have been • e;s> 
 pected that would elucidate this subject ; yet the Lord can work 
 by just such means. And his name alone be praised for the 
 knowledge which I tiust he has given me. 
 
 It will be seen, at once, that if the scheme here proposed and 
 adv; cated be correct, viz that believers are the only proper 
 subjects of baptism, but the mode of administration is not es- 
 sential, its adoption will tend to remove a mighty wall of sepa- 
 ration which has long existed between two great bodies of evan- 
 gelical christians, the Baptists and Pedobabtists. Each of 
 these bodies must yield something to the other : The Pedo- 
 baptists must give up the baptism of infants, and the Baptists 
 must give up the principle that immersion is the only valid 
 baptism; and then the separating wall is removed. they can, 
 then, without any embarrassment, come around the table of. 
 their common Lord. 
 
 This is the line on which, I am persuaded, they ought and 
 ?)v:st eventually meet. For both belong to Christ, and the form 
 of baptism used by each is valid ; therefore the one ought not 
 to say to the other, you may not eat with me at the table of Je- 
 sus ; but both ought to sit down together end celebrate his dy- 
 ing love. It highly becomes these sections of the church to 
 give up their respective errours, and to receive each other in 
 the Lord, as Christ hath received them, to the glory of God. 
 
 While I am constrained, for reasons hereafter stated, to take 
 the ground of anti-pedobaptism, I cannot insist on immersion 
 as the only valid mode of baptism ; and hence exclude all from 
 communion who have not been immersed. My stopping here, 
 I am sensible, exposes me to censure from the Baptists, as my 
 giving up infant baptism does from the Pedobaptists. 1 have 
 not the satisfaction to please either, although I extend the hanoJ 
 of charitv to both* 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 But I am neither to believe, nor to write, to please men. My 
 object should be, and is, to elicit and defend the truth ; and to 
 his own master each of us must stand, or fall. 
 
 The propositions which I shall undertake to illustrate and de- 
 fend, are these three, viz : 
 
 I. Believers are the only proper subjects of Christian Bap- 
 tism. 
 
 II The different modes of administering this ordinance in 
 use among the churches, are valid. 
 
 III. Open communion with all evangelical Christians, is a 
 duty and privilege. 
 
 Follow me patiently, dear reader, in the defence of these 
 propositions, and judge of my arguments and illustrations in the 
 light of the holy scriptures, and pray that you may be enlighten- 
 ed to know the Redeemer's will. 
 
„ V" ©in™ 'A 
 foSIVEBSITT: 
 
 BELIEVERS PROVED TO BE THE ONLY PROPER SUBJECTS OF 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Containing the argument from the apostolick commission for ilif 
 baptism oj believers only. 
 
 The final commission which our Lord gave to his apostle^ 
 as recited by Matthew, Chap, xxviii, 19, 20, is in these words: 
 " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded you : and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end 
 of the world." 
 
 He had, previously, sent them to preach the kingdom of God 
 to the cities and towns of Israel. And he had also, previously, 
 made many disciples, whom the apostles, by his order, baptized. 
 
 But, now, they were bidden to go and make disciples of all 
 nations^ and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and 
 Spirit. 
 
 This commission, unquestionably, extends to ail ordinary 
 ministers^ and contains the warrant for the administration of 
 baptism 
 
 And the plain import of it is, that they were first to teach 
 and then baptize such as should believe their doctrine. There 
 is no order to baptize any till they were taught. And the 
 qualification which was to piecede baptism manifestly implies 
 something more than simply being taught, viz. a cordial reception 
 of the word. It is plain from the passage itself, (especially as 
 it stands in the Greek) and from what precedes and follows 
 m the gospel records, that our Lord did not mean that hj$, 
 
10 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ministers should baptize promiscuously, after having announced 
 their message, without any regard to the effect produced. They 
 were commissioned to teach the nations with a view to their 
 conversion, and. when converted, they were to be baptized. Hence 
 the following words, which describe the scene, in part, that 
 passed on the day of pentecost, under the sermon of Peter, 
 Furnish a plain comment on this commission : " Repent and be 
 baptized every one of you," &c. " Then they that gladly re- 
 ceived his word were baptized " 
 
 But the tense >f this commission is more clear and definite 
 as it stands in the original Greek. The Greek word u matheu- 
 sate," rendered in English, " teach," signifies to disciple, or to 
 make disciples. Thi* rendering, no one, who can construe 
 Greek, will dispute. It is universally admitted by the learned 
 on both sides The commission, then, runs thus: "Go and 
 make disciples of all nations, baptizing them," i. e. the disciples 
 whom they should make by teaching and preaching the gospel ; 
 or, they were to baptize the nations when disc pled. Nothing 
 can be plainer than that they were to- make disciples of the 
 nations first, and then baptize them. The order to baptize ex- 
 tends no further than to the disciples made by teaching. We 
 cannot apply baptism to other subjects without altering and en* 
 larging tlie commission, which we have no right to do> 
 
 It is a plain matter of fact, that infants are not named in this 
 commission, as proper subjects of baptism, upon the faith of 
 their parents, nor is there any thing said that implies that they 
 have a right to this ordinance. The order was to baptize disci* 
 pies, or believers ; and here it terminates. Yes, my brethren, 
 it positively terminates here There is not a syllable pertain* 
 ing to the baptism of any besides disciples. 
 
 The apostles, in their former commission, had been limited to 
 the nation of Israel ; but now they were direc ed to go and dis- 
 ciple all notions ; i.e. to make converts of them, through the 
 attending power of the Holy Ghost ; and then they were to in- 
 itiate them into the visible kingdom of Jesus by baptism. Hence 
 the evangelist Mark, in reciting this commission, uses these 
 words: chap. xv. 15, 16. " Go ye into all the world, and preach 
 the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
 This wording of the commission is equally definite with the 
 other ; showing thn proper subjects of baptism to be believers 
 only. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." — 
 This contains authority for the baptism of none but believers. 
 To say, as Pedobaptists generally do, that it relates merely to, 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 11 
 
 -adults, and, therefore, does not affect the case of infants, is at 
 once to admit, that it contains no authority for infant baptism. 
 
 But if infant baptism be a duty, we certainly have a tight to 
 look for the expression of Christ's will in relation thereto, in 
 the commission which he gave to baptize. And the fact that it 
 is not contained, either in the final commission or in any pre- 
 vious commission which he gave his disciples for baptism, goes 
 very far, (to say th« least,) to show that the practice is wrong. 
 Unless something very explicit in favour of the baptism of infants 
 can be found elsewhere, (which, however, is not the case,) we 
 ought to conclude at once, that it is not the will of Christ that 
 they should be baptized. It would be so perfectly natural for 
 the Lord Jesus, as the New Testament lawgiver, when appoint- 
 ing this ordinance, to determine the proper subjects of it, that 
 if infants were intended to be baptized, we must reasonably con- 
 clude, tney would have been mentioned in this commission. It 
 is unaccountable that they are not mentioned, if indeed they 
 are to be baptized. To say that the principle was settled be- 
 fore, in the practice of circumcision is not relieving the difficul- 
 ty ; because, as I shall show, the principle was not settled 
 therein ; and even if it had been, it would have been reasona- 
 ble to expect a recognition thereof in this commission. So im- 
 portant an article would not have been omitted. 
 
 Especially, have we a right to look for the expression of 
 Christ's will in this commission, if he intended infants should be 
 baptized, as this is a positive institution, which, of course, is not 
 based upon a previous moral fitness in the thing itself, but 
 rests wholly on his will and pleasure; and hence does not ad- 
 mit of inference and analogy like moral precepts The com- 
 mission, in this case, is the very instrument which must be 
 expected to contain the rule of administration. 
 
 If Christ had not instituted baptism, we could not have infer- 
 red the duty of practising it from any moral precept contained 
 in the Old Testament, or inculcated by himself, nor from any 
 ancient custom, or rite, whatever. Whether there should be 
 such an ordinance, depended wholly upon his will ; and of 
 course, it depended wholly upon his will how far this rite should 
 be applied. It is therefore but just and reasonable to conclude 
 that, if he meant it should be applied to infants, he would have 
 given instructions to that effect. And his not having done so, 
 naturally leads us to conclude that he did not intend it should be 
 applied to them. To induce a belief that they are proper sub- 
 jects of this ordinance, when the commission authorizes merely 
 the baptism of disciples, or professed believers, there must be 
 something positive produced from some other part of scripture ; 
 
12 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 a iC thus saith the Lord" which will indubitably settle the ques^ 
 tion But this cannot be done, as I shall hereafter show 
 
 Instead ot there being any thing elsewhere in the New Testa- 
 ment in favour of infant baptism, the construction which I have 
 given of the commission is confirmed by the previous history of 
 baptism, during the ministry of John, his predecessor; and dur- 
 ing his own publick ministry ; and by the subsequent history of 
 this ordinance during the ministry of the apostles. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Baptism of John shown to be distinct from Christian Bap- 
 tism, and only preparatory to it ; yet that it reflects light upon the 
 present question as it was applied to believers only. 
 
 It is abundantly manifest that the introductory baptism of 
 John was limited to adult professors of repentance and faith' 
 in the coming Messiah. I do not recollect ever to have heard 
 of one, who seriously maintained that John baptized infants. 
 It appears to be universally conceded, that he baptized only such 
 as became his disciples by professing the repentance which he 
 preached, and declaring their belief that the long-expected Mes- 
 siah was about to make his appearance among them. 
 
 He came to " make ready a people prepared for the Lord ^ 
 to announce his approach ; and to be the inspired and honour- 
 ed instrument of pointing him out to the people. 
 
 Therefore, although there are good reasons for believing 
 that his baptism was not Christian baptism itself; but merely 
 an introductory rite, which commenced, and ended, with him ; 
 yet as an example of adult baptism merely, it reflects light up- 
 on the present question. The practice of making an open and 
 pub lick distinction among the members of the Jewish Church, 
 and of admitting select individuals from among those who were 
 capable of being taught to a sacred and divinely appointed rite ; 
 and that with an express view of making " ready a people for 
 the Lord," commenced with him ; and this was known to the 
 apostles, and would naturally have a bearing upon the subject 
 of Christian baptism. It was an indication that this also be- 
 longed to select individuals, and was designed to make, or distin- 
 guish those who were called out of the world to be the acknowl- 
 edged people of Christ. His baptism being confined to adults 
 who professed repentance, not only served to lead the way to 
 the ready understanding and reception of believers' baptism as 
 instituted by Christ ; but it occasioned an additional necessity 
 for the express mention of infants, if he had intended the ordi- 
 nance should be applied to them. 
 
 While the baptism of John, however, manifestly favours the 
 doctrine now advocated, as above stated j the following reasons 
 
 2 
 
14 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 will show that it was distinct from the baptism instituted by 
 Christ. J 
 
 1. It is evident that the kingdom of heaven had not actually 
 come when John commenced his ministry and baptism ; but 
 what he said and did was mer ly preparatory thereto. There- 
 fore, his baptism could not have been Christian baptism itself. 
 
 2. John u baptized the people unto repentance, saying that 
 they should believe on him that should come after him." And 
 although this was Jesus, as the event proved, he did not, ia 
 general, direct them to his very person. His commission had 
 nearly expired before he pointed out Jesus as the Messiah whom 
 they had been taught to expect Therefore, to baptize them 
 upon a belief that the Messiah was coming, and to baptize them 
 upon a belief that Jesus was the very person, were manifestly 
 different things, \lany of the Jews believed that the Messiah 
 was speedily coming, who rejected the claims of Jesus of Naz- 
 areth. And this might have been the case with some of John's 
 disciples. Doubtless, those of them that were real converts, 
 acknowledged Jesus when they came to know his claims, be- 
 cause their hearts were previously prepared therefor by divine 
 grace. But it is probable that many of his disciples were not 
 true converts, although they professed repentance ; and these, 
 like other impenitent Jews, probably did not acknowledge Je- 
 sus to be the Messiah whom they had been expecting. Their 
 being the disciples of John, evidently did not, as a matter of 
 course, make them the disciples of Jesus Christ. Hence, the 
 baptism of the former was distinct from that of the latter, and 
 merely introductory to it. 
 
 3. That these baptisms were distinct, is manifest from the 
 fact that some of John's disciples were re-baptized as the dis- 
 ciples of Christ. Of this we have an account in the xix 
 chap, of Acts, verses 1 — 5. " And it came to pass, that while 
 Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper 
 coasts came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, he said 
 unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? 
 And they said, we have not so much as heard whether there be 
 any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what, then, were 
 ye baptized ? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said 
 Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, 
 saying unto the people that they should believe on him that 
 should come after him, i. e. on Christ Jesus. When they 
 heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 
 Various attempts have been made to show that these disciples 
 tcere not re-baptized. But the word itself plainly shows that they 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 15 
 
 were; and this would not have been necessary, nor consistent, 
 if John's baptism and Christ's had been the same. 
 
 These considerations appear to me sufficient to show that 
 John's baptism was not Christian baptism ; but merely intro- 
 ductoiy thereto: yet in the ways before mentioned, it reflect- 
 ed light upon the present question. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 17 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 "Christian Baptism shown to have been instituted by Christ during 
 his life and personal ministry. 
 
 Some time after John had entered upon his ministry, and 
 had baptized many to repentance, our Lord Jesus Christ pub- 
 lick ly entered upon his ; and to do honour to John as his fore- 
 runner, and set an example of ready submission to all the ap- 
 pointments of God, though he was without sin, he came for- 
 ward, and was baptized of him in the river of Jordau ; and was 
 then and there publickly and solemnly declared, not only by 
 John himself, who was raised up and inspired for that purpose ; 
 but by the visible descent of the Holy Ghost, and an audible 
 voice from the Father in heaven, to be the Son of God, and the 
 Saviour of mankind. 
 
 Whereupon, after being forty days tempted of the devil, he 
 commenced his publick ministry, and instituted a baptism of 
 his own. It was not only his province to baptize with the 
 Holy Ghost and with fire, but he introduced a baptism with 
 water, as a badge of discipleship, and a significant emblem of 
 the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 And in this practice, instituted during his own life and min- 
 istry, we find the origin of Christian baptism. It did not com- 
 mence with the ministry of John, as many have maintained : 
 %or was it delayed till after the resurrection of Christ, as many 
 others have maintained : but it commenced during his- own life 
 and personal ministry. It is strange that this important point 
 has been so generally overlooked. 
 
 Tracing the publick history of our Lord, especially as it is 
 related by the evangelist John, we find that he first collected 
 several disciples at the river of Jordan, near the place where he 
 had been baptized. Then, he departed with them into Galli- 
 lee, where he performed the miracle of turning water into wine 
 at a wedding, and c * manifested his glory ;" and where he 
 gained some accession to the number of his disciples. From 
 thence, after a short time, he went up to Jerusalem, where he 
 aeld the memorable conference with Nicodemus, and said, 
 
 2* 
 
1 8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, lie cannofc 
 enter into the kingdom of God." 
 
 Leaving the city of Jerusalem, he came into the country of 
 Judea, where we are informed that " he tarried and baptized." 
 This is the first express mention which is made of his having 
 introduced baptism ; though it is probable that the disciples 
 which he had previously made were baptized. The record of 
 this fact is in John iii. 22. "After these things came Jesus 
 and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried 
 with them and baptized," Here, then, we have unequivocal 
 testimony of the fact that Jesus, soon after he entered upon his 
 publick ministry, practised baptism. Intimations of this fact 
 are given before, particularly in what he said to Nicodemus, 
 and by his having collected a band of disciples. So that he 
 probably commenced baptizing immediately upon his beginning 
 to make disciples. But the fact of his having baptized, is not 
 expressly asserted till now. Whatever may be thought of his 
 previous practice, he certainly administered baptism, or caused 
 it to be administered, at the time and place here alluded to. 
 Mention of this fact is again made in verses 25 and 26 of this 
 chapter. " Then there arose a question among some of John's 
 disciples and the Jews, about purifying ; and they came to John 
 and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jor- 
 dan, to whom thou bearest witness, (he same baptizeth, and all 
 men come to him." There is another express mention of this 
 fact, chap. iv. 1, 2, 3. " When, therefore, the Lord knew how 
 the pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more dis- 
 ciples than John, (though Jesus baptized not himself, but his 
 disciples,) he left Judea, and departed again into Gallilee." 
 
 Here, therefore, there are three express passages in support oi 
 the fact that Jesus, during his life and personal ministry on 
 earth, and at, or near the commencement of his publick course, 
 did introduce and practise, to a very considerable extent, the 
 ordinance of baptism And from the last of the three, we have 
 the very information which we should naturally expect in such 
 a case, respecting the subjects to whom it was applied. They 
 were disciples, and them only. The people w<-re first made 
 disciples, and then baptized. Mark the words, for they are 
 highly emphatical and instructive : "Jesus made and baptized 
 more disciples than John." lie did not fast baptize them, and 
 then make disciples of them ; but he made disciples of them 
 first, and then baptized them. There is no mention made cf 
 parents, who, after being baptized themselves, brought their 
 children to baptism likewise, nor any encouragement given for 
 them to do so. There is an admirable simplicity and plainness 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 19 
 
 in the narrative, informing us who were baptized, viz. those 
 who Jirst became the disciples of Christ. Infants are not in- 
 eluded in the record, nor is there the least intimation that they 
 were baptized, or were ever intended to be. 
 
 But, if Christ had intended this ordinance for them, he surely 
 would have mentioned them as proper subjects, and the sacred 
 and impartial historian would have inserted the fact that they 
 were baptized. 
 
 It is exceedingly evident that the baptism performed by 
 Christ during his publick ministry, like that of his predecessor, 
 was adult believers' baptism only. And I believe it is conceded 
 that it was such on all hands. 
 
 If, theu, it shall appear that it was Christian baptism itself — 
 the very same ordinance that was to be continued in the church, 
 this will afford strong and convincing proof that infants ought not 
 to be baptized. 
 
 Many, I know, deny that it was Christian baptism, and la- 
 bour, in that way, to avoid the argument which it furnishes for 
 believers' baptism only. 
 
 But when the subject is impartially examined, it will be evi- 
 dent that it was ni) other than Christian baptism, the very same 
 that is contained in the last apostolick commission. For it was 
 a baptism which Christ himself instituted. And if it were not 
 properly Christian, or New Testament baptism, then he must 
 have introduced two distinct baptisms — one before, and the 
 other after his death. But where is the proof of any such thing ? 
 Or what is there any where said that implies it ? There is 
 evidently no proof that he appointed two distinct baptisms in 
 the order contained in the final commission to baptize in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 For aught that appears, this might have been the same form in 
 which baptism was previously administeied. The perfect si- 
 lence of the scriptures is not sufficient proof that it was not. 
 
 But even if the name of the Trinity was not called in the 
 baptism performed during our Lord's life, this will not mate- 
 rially affect the sameness of this, and the baptism used subse- 
 quently ; so long as the disciples, or converts, were baptized in 
 the name of Christ, or by his authority ; seeing he is very God 
 as well as man, and had all power in heaven and in earth com- 
 mitted unto him. The difference in the form of administra- 
 tion, (allowing such difference to have existed,) did not, un- 
 der the circumstances of the case, make the baptisms distinct. 
 
 Again ; if it be said they were distinct because the seal of 
 the Abrahamick covenant was not changed from circumcision to 
 baptism, till the death and resurrection of Christ — I would: 
 
20 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 reply, that there is no evidence that the seal of that covenant 
 tvas ever changed from circumcision to baptism. The notion 
 that baptism is a substitute for circumcision is a gross mistake, 
 which I trust I shall fully show before I have done. 
 
 If it be further said, that these baptisms must have been dis- 
 tinct, because the ceremonial law was not disannulled till the 
 death of Christ ; and, therefore,. the New Testament dispensa- 
 tion, to which Christian baptism belongs, did not commence till 
 after that event, and of course, that this ordinance could not 
 have been introduced before : I would reply, that the premises 
 do not wan-ant the conclusion. The ceremonial law was, 
 indeed, obligatory till the death of Christ. But the new cove- 
 nant, or New Testament, might notwithstanding, have been pre- 
 viously introduced, and in successful operation, as well as the 
 Abrahymick, which was undeniably in operation, during the 
 whole time that the ceremonial law was obligatory. Besides, 
 gospel baptism might as well be appointed before the death of 
 Christ as the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Moreover, neither circumcision nor baptism belonged to the 
 ceremonial law. The former was not of Moses, but of the fa- 
 thers ; and the latter was of Christ, the New Testament law- 
 giver. 
 
 It is evident, also, that two or more dispensations of the cov- 
 enant of grace may exist, and be in operation at the same time, 
 without any interference, or conjusion. 
 
 And further, it is capable of the clearest proof, that the New 
 Testament dispensation did continence during our Lord's life 
 and personal ministry. 
 
 So that this objection to the baptisms in question being the 
 same, i? unfounded. 
 
 If it could be conclusively shown that any who were bap- 
 tized by Christ, or by his order, during his lite, were baptized 
 again after his death, this would be an argument of some force 
 that they w r ere distinct baptisms. But it cannot. There is no ac- 
 count, or any intimation, that any of the disciples made and bap- 
 tized before his death,: were re-baptized after it. It is evident, 
 therefore, that the baptism instituted in his life-time, w T as the 
 same as the one practised after his death and resurrection. 
 
 In addition to the above reasons, I would remark that the 
 institution of the other New Testament ordinance, viz. the 
 Lord's Supper, and the admission of the twelve to it, before his 
 death, plainly imply that New Testament baptism was also in 
 use prior to that event. If it were not, the disciples ate of the 
 supper before they received gospel baptism ; and before the* 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISI^ 
 
 were regularly introduced into the gospel kingdom ; which can- 
 not be reasonably admitted. Vv /*>! ^^'tipfels' 
 
 xVgain • Are we to suppose thai our blessed Lord did nothing 
 effectually during his life and publick ministry as to Ms impor- 
 tant subject^ but that all he did was to be done over again?-— 
 This would be a gross reflection upon his character and ministry. 
 
 He made, as we have seen, and baptized many disciples dur- 
 ing his publick ministry ; and yet it is pretended that this was 
 not) in reality, Christian baptism, but altogether a distinct thing. 
 What baptism was it, then ? Was it a continuance of John's 
 baptism ? Then the disciples so baptized were John's disciples, 
 and not his. But the Bible says they were his. Therefore his 
 baptism was not the same as John's. Again : Will it be said 
 that it was merely a Jewish washing, and not a gospel ordi- 
 nance ? Whose, then, were the disciples which were made 
 and baptized ? Were they the disciples of Moses, or of the 
 Pharisees, or of the Jewish High Priest ? They must have 
 been the disciples of the one to whom they were baptized. — 
 Christ evidently would not have made them disciples to himself, 
 and baptized them Xo another. If, therefore, they were his own 
 disciples, and baptized unto him, this was, to all intents, Chris- 
 tian baptism— & New Testament ordinance — the very same men- 
 tioned in the commission which has been considered. The 
 words of this commission do not imply the introduction of a new 
 ordinance ; but only the extension of an ordinance already in 
 being, to " all nations," as well as to the Jews, or to belitvers 
 from among all nations. 
 
 It being now satisfactorily shown that Christian baptism was 
 instituted during the life and personal ministry of Christ ; and 
 that when thus instituted and practised, it was believers' baptism 
 only, or limited expressly to those who became Christ's disciples ; 
 this serves very much to settle this controversy, and to show 
 that the sense of the final commission for baptism is what I have 
 stated — an order to baptize believers only. 
 
 We will now trace the history of baptism subsequent to the 
 death and resurrection of Christ ; in doing whjch we shall find 
 various injunctions and examples in support of the baptism of 
 believers ; but none in favour of the baptism of infants on the 
 faith of their parents. ' 
 
 Peter said, Acts ii. 38, 41, to the awakened multitude on the 
 day of pentecost, u Repent and be baptized every one of you in 
 the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. Then they 
 that gladly received his word were baptized." Repentance is 
 here expressly required before baptism, and it is required of every 
 one of them. They were considered and treated as converts,-- 
 
22 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 There is no mention made whatever of any infants being bap- 
 tized, or added to the church. And I can hardly think any so- 
 ber Christian will maintain that there were any infants among 
 the three thousand then baptized and added to the company of 
 disciples. It is perfectly obvious that they were adult believ- 
 ers, or such as were baptized on their own faith ; and those 
 subsequently added were of the same character. For we 
 are expressly told that the " Lord added to the church daily such 
 as should be saved" or " the saved,' 7 as it might have been ren- 
 dered. 
 
 The next account of baptism recorded in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, is that of the Samaritans who were converted under 
 the preaching ot Philip. Acts, viii. 6. " But when they be- 
 lieved Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of 
 God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both 
 7nen and women. 77 Here, again, there is no mention made of 
 any infants. But if infants had been baptized too, would it not 
 have been recorded ? It is certainly reasonable to suppose that 
 it would. 
 
 In the same chapter, there is also an account of the baptism 
 of the Ethiopian Eunuch. The condition required of him was, 
 " if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." And 
 the profession made by him was, " I believe that Jesus Christ 
 was the Son of God,*? So that here was the baptism of a be- 
 liever. The next instance recorded is that of Saul, Acts, ix. 
 18, who was also a believer at the time. Then in Acts, x. 48, 
 we have a history of the baptism of Cornelius and his friends, 
 who were Gentiles ; and the reason assigned therefor is, that 
 " they had received the Holy Ghost as well as the believing 
 Jews." u They spake with tongues and magnified God ;" or, 
 in other words, they were believers in Jesus. The record is per- 
 fectly silent as to the subject of baptizing infants. 
 
 In the next place, we read of the baptism of the households 
 of Lydia and the jailer, Acts, xvi. 15, 33. But the record in 
 either of these cases does not imply that there were any infants 
 baptized on the faith of their parents. The former household 
 are, in verse 40, characterized as brethren. And of the latter 
 it is expressly said, verse 34, that the jailer " rejoiced, believ- 
 ing in God with all his house." There is, therefore, no evi- 
 dence here that any were baptized but believers. 
 
 But as great stress is laid by Pedobaptists upon these instant 
 ces, and that of the household of Stephanas, I intend, in another 
 place, to give each a more particular consideration. 
 
 The next account of baptism is that of the Corinthians, Acts, 
 sviii. 8, " And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, he- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 23 
 
 lieved on the Lord with all his house ; and many of the Co- 
 rinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." Infants, you 
 see, are wholly left out of this record also. In I. Corinthians, 
 i. 16, Paul says, " I baptized also the household of Stephanas ;" 
 but he is careful, before he closes his Epistle, to give us their 
 character as a household of believers. See chap^ xvi. 15. " Ye 
 know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, 
 and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
 saints." 
 
 There is another account of baptism given in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, chap. xix. I — 5, which is that of the twelve disciples 
 at Ephesus, and already noticed ; which, of course, is only a 
 record of believers' baptism. 
 
 In Paul's Epistle to the Romans, chap. vi. 3, we find this 
 sentence : " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized 
 into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ?" And in his 
 Epistle to the Galatians, chap. iii. 27, we find the following 
 sentence, viz. " as many of you as have been baptized into 
 Jesus Christ have put on Christ." The phrases, " so many of 
 us," and " as many of you as," plainly mean " all that." — 
 Hence all that were baptized u were baptized into Christ's 
 death," and u put on Christ," which can import nothing less 
 than that they all made a profession of faith. Again, in Colos- 
 sians, ii. 12, he speaks of Christians being " buried with Christ 
 in baptism." 
 
 These are all the instances in which an express record is 
 made of the administration of Christian baptism in the New 
 Testament. And they are all examples of the baptism of be- 
 lievers only. There is not one solitary instance of the baptism 
 of an infant upon the parents' faith in the whole New Testa- 
 ment history. 
 
 But the instances of baptism recorded, are a practical com- 
 ment on the apostolick believers' commission. And these being 
 instances of believers' baptism only, show conclusively how the 
 Apostles understood the commission ; that the order to baptize 
 was limited to believers ; and that no subsequent order includ- 
 ing infants was given. / 
 How different from the preceding accounts is the record 
 -which Pedohaptists give of the administration of baptism ! 
 They are wont to state the baptism of so many adults, and so 
 many infants. Now if the Apostles had done the same, some • 
 thing might have been gathered from their practice, which 
 would have been to the purpose. But as they have not made 
 any such record ; but merely recorded the baptism of believ- 
 
24 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ers; it is plain that they baptized no other ; and that they did 
 not understand their Lord to order the baptism of any other. 
 
 And, here, it would seem that we might rest this part of the 
 subject. 
 
 But as the apostolick commission is confessedly of high im- 
 portance in this controversy, and as all appear to be sensible 
 that this is the proper place to look for the warrant to baptize 
 infants, if such warrant exists ; and as various attempts are 
 made to show that it does include such a warrant, or at least 
 that it contains nothing which militates against their baptism, it 
 is proper, for the sake of elucidating the truth, that these at- 
 tempts should be distinctly considered. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 'The various attempts to include Infants in the Apostolick Com- 
 mission for Baptism, considered and refuted. 
 
 1 . Some maintain that infants are included among the disci- 
 ples, and thac as they are not capable of being taught, they must 
 be made disciples by baptism, or be thereby brought into the 
 school of Christ. 
 
 But this is manifestly an errour ; for the words of the com- 
 mission do not imply, or intimate, that there are two ways of 
 making disciples, the one by teaching and the other by baptism. 
 There is only one way described of making them, and that is 
 by teaching, (the Holy Ghost accompanying the word,) and then 
 baptism is to follow as the consequence. The notion, that when 
 the head of a family becomes a disciple by teaching, his in- 
 fants, or his household, become disciples, of course, or that 
 they become such by being baptized, is wholly unfounded. 
 None are disciples but such as are converted by means of the 
 word. 
 
 It is not to be inferred that infants are to be made disciples 
 in a different way from that of adults, on account of their inca- 
 pacity to be taught. The words of the commission authorize 
 no such conclusion. 
 
 This notion is not only unauthorized and absurd, but it 
 plainly contradicts the sense of the commission. The very or- 
 der of the words implies, that the proper subjects of baptism 
 must become disciples before they are baptized. They are not 
 made disciples by being baptized, for the very reason that they 
 must become disciples first, and that they are baptized as disci- 
 ples ; not to make them such. Baptism is plainly stated as the con- 
 sequence of discipleship, and not that which precedes it as the thing 
 which constitutes discipleship. To talk of making disciples by 
 baptism, is grossly to pervert language. It is turning the order 
 of Christ into quite another thing from what his words make 
 it. To maintain that this commission means that such as 
 are capable of being taught should be made disciples by teach- 
 ing, and that such as are not capable of being taught should be 
 made disciples by baptism^ is positively changing the commis- 
 
 3 
 
26 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 sion from its plain and obvious meaning. It is astonishing that 
 men will take such liberty with the word of God ! 
 
 Besides ; if the incapacity of infants to be taught were 
 any argument for their baptism, it would be in favour of 
 the baptism of such only as are mere infants, and could not ap- 
 ply, at all, to the baptism of a whole household, provided it con- 
 tains any that have passed the strict line of infancy. And yet 
 we constantly hear of household baptism after the example' of 
 household circumcision. And many, and I believe most Pedo- 
 baptists, do apply baptism to children upon their parents' ac- 
 count, who cannot be considered as mere infants ; but are fully 
 capable of being taught themselves. And if they did not, iht 
 argument from household circumcision would be lost. It fre- 
 quently happens, that a parent does not believe till he has a 
 large number of children of diflerent ages, from the mere babe, 
 to children of twenty-one years of age and more, and yet at the ' 
 time, he is the only believer in the family. Now, it the house- 
 hold is to be baptized upon his faith, they must all be baptized, at 
 least all under age, together with the servants, whatever be their 
 age. And, yet, the ai gument under consideration is, that infants 
 must be baptized, and thereby be made the disciples of Christ, 
 because they are incapable of being taught ; otherwise they 
 should be discipled by teaching. The argument, therefore, from 
 household circumcision, and the one from the incapacity of infants, 
 are manifestly inconsistent with each other. Infant baptism and 
 household baptism cannot be defended on the same ground. Jf 
 the argument from the incapacity of infants has any weight, 
 it will exclude all of a family from baptism, except such as are so 
 young as to be incapable of being taught, and consequently all, 
 in general, over six years of age, and, frequently, all over four. 
 And it will wholly contradict the argument for household bap- 
 tism. Does it not hence appear, that errour is fated to run 
 crooked ? 
 
 Moreover ; to suppose that Christ intended infants should be 
 discipled merely by baptism, on account of their incapacity, is 
 making three sorts of disciples ; whereas the scriptures treat of 
 but two ; viz. those that are really converted, and those that are 
 visibly and professedly converted, but not really. They do not 
 any where describe a third class who are made disciples merely 
 by baptism, from which it is obvious that no such class exists. 
 
 It cannot be justly pretended that infants are not a third 
 class of disciples ; but are to be reckoned with those who give 
 credible evidence of being regenerated. For the children of 
 believers are as depraved as the children of unbelievers, and 
 tbey^give no more evidence of piety after they are baptized. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 27 
 
 merely upon that account, than before. If, therefore, they are 
 disciples, it is not because they are real converts, or because 
 they appear to be such ; consequently, they must, as I said, be 
 ,a third class, which the Bible knows nothing of. 
 
 2. It is plead that infants are included in this commission, 
 because they are a part of the nations, and Christ said, " go 
 teach" or disciple " all nations, baptizing them :" and there be- 
 ing no other way of discipling the nations as such, but by ma- 
 king disciples of infants by baptism, seeing they are incapable 
 of being taught, they must, of course, be included in the com- 
 mission in this sense 
 
 If this argument has any force, it will go to support the idea 
 of a national church, and of the indiscriminate application of 
 baptism ; which most of the orthodox would not relish. 
 
 But in fact, it ha3 no force. The order to make disciples of 
 all nations is, from its very nature, limited to such as are capa- 
 ble of being taught. It does not extend to mere infants and 
 idiots. 
 
 If the Lord had bid his Apostles go and teach all nations 
 the Hebrew language, common sense would lead us to restrict 
 the order to such as were capable of being taught it. It is just 
 as obvious that the order to make disciples of all nations is 
 limited to such as have the capacity of being taught the great 
 things of his kingdom. 
 
 There can be no doubt that infants are capable of being re- 
 newed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and of having the 
 principle of faith implanted in them, and consequently of being 
 saved, should they die in that age, through the merits of Christ. 
 
 But they are not capable of receiving gospel instruction, and 
 of making a credible profession of faith ; and therefore are not 
 capable of being discipled, according to the obvious tenour of 
 this commission. 
 
 And as they are not capable of giving evidence of grace so 
 as to be numbered among the brethren ; so they are not capable 
 of doing the duties of church members, nor of enjoying the 
 external privileges of the church. Hence it is abundantly evi- 
 dent that they were not intended to be included among the , 
 proper subjects of Christian baptism, 
 
 3. It is plead that infants "are included in this commission, 
 because the Lord Jesus was a Jew, and spake to those that 
 were Jews ; and that if the order had been, go teach all nations, 
 circumcising them, the duty of circumcising children upon their 
 parents' account, would have been considered as implied therein, 
 provided nothing more had been added: and consequently, as 
 baptism takes the place of circumcision under the New Testa- 
 
 1 
 
28 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 merit dispensation, they must naturally have understood him ftp 
 include infants in this commission* 
 
 In reply, I would remark, that if no new dispensation had 
 been introduced, and no other instructions had been given than 
 those contained in the Abrahamiek covenant and the Mosaick 
 law, and our Lord had said as above represented, without adding 
 any thing more ; it is admitted that they would have naturally 
 inferred, that when the head of a family was taught and con- 
 verted, all his mates were to be circumcised as well as himself — 
 " all that were born in his house and bought with his money." 
 But they would not have inferred that his female children and 
 servants had any thing to do with this rite, because they were 
 not included in the original order for circumcision. 80 that 
 the above conclusion as to children in general, or of both sexes, 
 is not warranted by the premises, allowing them to be true. 
 Much more will the conclusion respecting the baptism of chil- 
 dren of both sexes appear to be unwarranted^ . when it shall be 
 made manifest that baptism is not a substitute for circumcision* 
 
 To evince how perfectly inconclusive this whole argument 
 is, as it respects even the baptism of male children and servants, 
 I would observe that our Lord had actually introduced a new 
 dispensation, and set up the kingdom of heaven, as foretold by the 
 prophet Daniel, by calling out from the body of the Jewish 
 nation, a company of disciples, and had taught expressly that 
 his kingdom was " not of this world" He had also given 
 various additional instructions to those contained in the Abra- 
 hamick covenant and the Mosaick law, and had come for the 
 purpose of annulling the ceremonial code delivered to Moses, 
 and of instituting a new order of things, and had actually intro- 
 duced two new rites, viz. baptism and the hordes supper, the 
 former of which had been applied, during his life, exclusively 
 to disciples, and the latter had been confessedly applied to such 
 merely ; therefore, it he had said, under these circumstances, Go 
 teach all nations, circumcising them, they would not have in- 
 ferred even the duty of circumcising the male children of 
 believers of all nations : much less the baptism not only oimale, 
 but female children, when he had never taught them that bap- 
 tism was a substitute for circumcision. And what is still further 
 unfortunate for this argument, is, that our Lord did not say to 
 his apostles, Go teach, or disciple all nations, circumcising them ; 
 but baptizing them. There is not a word, or hint, about circum- 
 cision in the whole commission, or of baptism's coming in the 
 room of it. 
 
 The ordinance of circumcision was never enjoined on any 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 29 
 
 but Abraham and his descendants, and such as were incorpora- 
 ted with them in their national capacity ; and to them it has 
 never been annulled, (which I shall show particularly in a 
 subsequent chapter.) Therefore, baptism cannot be a substi- 
 tute for that ordinance ; and so the argument from circumcision 
 is wholly lost. 
 
 4. It is plead that infants are included in this commission, 
 upon the ground that baptism is a seal of the same covenant of 
 which circumcision was, and appointed for the same purposes. 
 But this ground is wholly untenable, and the argument is good 
 for nothing. Where are we told that baptism is a seal of the 
 same covenant of which circumcision was ? or even a seal of 
 any covenant whatever ? Surely not in the Bible, although the 
 sentiment is constantly advanced as though it rested on the 
 highest scriptural authority. 
 
 Besides, as circumcision was never obligatory on the Gen- 
 tiles in their separate national capacity, and was never abroga- 
 ted to the Jews , but remains in full force to them, there can be 
 no ground to consider baptism as a substitute. As* the case is, 
 such a thing could not be. 
 
 It is capable of the clearest proof that circumcision was con- 
 tinued to the believing as well as to the unbelieving Jews 
 through the whole of the apostolick age, and not the least notice 
 is taken of baptism's being a substitute, when the circumstances 
 manifestly required that this notice should have been taken, if 
 such had been the fact. Therefore, it is perfectly unwarrant- 
 ed and preposterous to consider it a substitute for that rite. 
 
 Besides ; should it even be admitted that the seal of the Abra- 
 hamick covenant is changed from circumcision to baptism; noth- 
 ing could, hence, be conclusively argued, under all the circum- 
 stances, in favour of the baptism of infants. 
 
 The question will naturally arise, when was it changed ? 
 Was it changed during our Lord's personal ministry ? or not till 
 after his resurrection ? I believe it is generally maintained by 
 Pedobaptists that it was not changed until after his resurrection ; 
 and that the baptism which he appointed before was a differ- 
 ent thing, and not a seal of the covenant. But this opinion, as / 
 I have already shown, is unauthorized. It is certain that Christ 
 introduced a baptism during his life, and at or near the com- 
 mencement of his publick ministry. And we do not any where 
 learn that he afterwards introduced a different one. He cer- 
 tainly made and baptized disciples in his life- time; and these 
 were not baptized to John, nor to any other man ; but to him, as 
 his disciples. The record plainly says so. And those that 
 were baptized after his resurrection, were not baptized other* 
 
 3* 
 
30 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 wise than as his disciples. u As many of you, says Paul, as* 
 have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. " Those 
 who received baptism during our Lord's personal ministry were 
 as truly admitted into his kingdom as those that received it af- 
 terwards. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that these baptisms 
 were the same. 
 
 Consequently, if the seal of the Abrahamick covenant was 
 changed from circumcision to baptism, the change must have 
 taken place during our Lord y s life and personal ministry. 
 
 But the application of baptism, which is called by Pedobap- 
 tists the new seal, was then determined, by his will and order, 
 to belong only to believers of both sexes. He made disciples by 
 teaching before he baptized them. There is not a syllable in 
 favour of his baptizing any others. The argument, therefore, 
 from the change of the seals, if such change were admitted, is 
 inconclusive. The same change, whereby the new seal, as it 
 is called, is applied to females, limits the application of it to be- 
 lievers of both sexes. 
 
 All will be forced to admit that there is a change in the appli- 
 cation of the new seal, from that of the old ; inasmuch as it is 
 unquestionably applicable to females, whereas the former seal 
 was expressly limited to males. 
 
 If, therefore, this change might be made, and if it be allowed 
 that -this was suitable and proper, under the new dispensation ; 
 a still further change might likewise be made, so as to restrict 
 baptism to believers of both sexes, as best suited to the spiritual 
 nature of the gospel dispensation ; and this might be done with- 
 out destroying the idea of its being a seal of the same covenant. 
 Every one can see that it is not necessary to its being a seal of 
 the same covenant, that it should be applied to infants, any more 
 than that it should be limited to the male sex. If the lawgiver 
 could consistently make the latter alteration, and yet it be the 
 seal of the same covenant, he manifestly could the former. And 
 such a change as extends the application of gospel baptism to 
 females, and limits it to believers of both sexes, evidently befits 
 the present more spiritual dispensation and economy, wherein, 
 instead of taking one whole nation, as formerly, to be his people, 
 in distinction from Others, he takes believers from among all 
 nations. 
 
 And when we find that this ordinance was, in fact, thus 
 limited, during our Lord's personal ministry, it was evidently 
 not his pleasure that it should be applied to any but believers. 
 And, hence, it would have been perfectly unnatural for the 
 apostles to infer, under all the circumstances, that infants were 
 included in their final commission. And the subsequent 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 3 1 
 
 history of their transactions shows, as we have seen, that they 
 did not infer any such thing. 
 
 Therefore, nothing is materially gained to the cause of Pedo- 
 baptism, by admitting that the Abrahamick covenant is the one 
 which we are now under, and that the seal thereof is changed 
 as above. 
 
 But, in fact, the Abrahamick covenant is distinct from the 
 new covenant, and baptism is not a seal of either, or of any other 
 covenant. It is a simple ordinance of the New Testament, or 
 covenant, which is a different dispensation of the covenant of 
 grace, both from the Sinai and the Abrahamick dispensations. 
 The only seal of the new covenant is the blood of Christ. 
 
 Moreover, baptism is a positive institution, the nature and 
 use of which are, accordingly, to be determined by the words 
 which contain it — by the very authority on which it rests, as 
 signified therein, and not by inferences drawn from a previous 
 appointment. 
 
 There is, indeed, some similarity in the nature and use of the 
 two ordinances ; although the one does not answer all the pur- 
 poses of the other, and in some respects they serve different 
 purposes. Yet this similarity in certain respects will not de- 
 termine the extent to which baptism is to be applied. We are 
 restricted in this case by the appointment of the lawgiver, and 
 the known practice of his inspired apostles. And these deter- 
 mine that the ordinance belongs only to believers of both sexes. 
 
 That baptism does not answer all the purposes of circumci- 
 sion, must be obvious to any one who will candidly examine 
 the various items of the Abrahamick covenant. 
 
 Although one, or two, of the provisions of that covenant be- 
 long to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, it does not belong to 
 them as a whole. But circumcision had respect to it as a whole 7 
 confirming all its promises. Therefore baptism, which belongs 
 to Gentiles as well as Jews, cannot answer all the ends of cir- 
 cumcision, allowing that it does some of them. And this very 
 circumstance requires a difference in its application, and natu- 
 rally limits it to believers of both sexes. 
 
 It is perfectly clear that a different use was made, at first, of > 
 baptism, from that which was made of circumcision. It was 
 not applied to Jews in common, or promiscuously, like circum- 
 cision, nor to all the males of a man's house ; but to select 
 persons from among that circumcised people, and from among 
 their respective families — to such only as became Christians, or 
 believers in Jesus. Here, then, is a point in which there is a 
 dissimilarity in the nature and design of the two institutions, 
 We cannot therefore rightly infer the duty of infant baptism 
 
3l> CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 from any similarity which may exist in some other respects be- 
 tween them. 
 
 Thus, the various efforts which are made to make it appear 
 that infants are included in the commission for baptism, are 
 altogether ineffectual. It is plain, after all, that it is limited to 
 disciples , or believers. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 33 
 
 CHAPTER W 
 
 Circumcision shown to be of perpetual obligation to -the Jews, 
 and hence Baptism cannot be considered as a substitute. 
 
 It is a common opinion that the rite of circumcision- was 
 annulled, when the new dispensation was introduced, and that 
 baptism was appointed in its stead. But this opinion has been 
 adopted without scriptural authority. The notion that baptism 
 is a substitute for circumcision, is one of the strongest arguments 
 employed for the baptism of infants. If this notion therefore 
 shall appear to be unauthorized, it will tend very much to over- 
 throw that cause ; it will, in fact, subvert its main pillar. This, 
 then, is a point which deserves to be seriously <^:,sidered. 
 
 Some may start at the idea that circumcision was ntiper ab- 
 rogated to the Jews, and think it will lead to horrible conse- 
 quences. But let us patiently examine the matter. 
 
 Circumcision was certainly in full and approved use among 
 the Jews at the commencement of our Lord's ministry, when 
 baptism w^% first appointed : and yet no notice is taken of this 
 being a substitute for that ancient rite, or of its ever being 
 designed to be. 
 
 Circumcision continued, also, in approved use during the 
 whole of our Lord's ministry, in which he was continually 
 making and baptizing disciples. And it was in use when the 
 final commission was given to teach and baptize all nations ; and 
 yet all is silent on the subject of its abrogation, or discontinu- 
 ance, and of the appointment of baptism in its stead, as a seal 
 of the same covenant. 
 
 It was, moreover, in use on the memorable day of Pentecost ; 
 and yet Peter said, " Repent and be baptized, everyone of you. ' 
 in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins," without 
 saying a word about the new seaVs coming in the place of the 
 old : he never intimated that they were no longer to circumcise 
 their children. 
 
 It was in use when Peter had the vision respecting the call- 
 ing of the Gentiles, and actually went (being convinced and 
 overpowered by a miraculous vision, and by the express order 
 
34 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 of God) to Cornelius and his friends, for the purpose of in- 
 structing them in the things of the gospel; and yet there is- 
 not even a suggestion respecting the change of the seals, and the 
 discontinuance of circumcision to the Jews. 
 
 It was in use when the brethren went up from the church at 
 Antioch to Jerusalem, on the question about circumcising the 
 Gentiles, to inquire whether that church had given direction to 
 the teachers who came out from them to impose circumcision 
 and the Mosaick rites on the Gentiles ; which must have been 
 seventeen years after the conversion of Paul, as appears from 
 his epistle to the Galatians ; and yet there is not a word said 
 about the supposed substitution, or of the abolition of circumcision 
 among the Jews : when if any such thing had taken place, and 
 was known, the occasion required that it should be stated, and 
 the principle of substitution defended; and when the bare 
 statement of it would have for ever put to silence the question 
 respecting the circumcision of the Gentiles. 
 
 All which would have been required was to state that the 
 Lord Jesus had abrogated the rite of circumcision, and appoint- 
 ed baptism as a new seal of the ^ame covenant — a seal that was 
 common to all nations, and one which had actually been in use 
 a number of years, both amoug Jews and Gentiles ; and hence 
 that there was no nece&sity for circumcising the Gentiles ; yea, 
 that the idea was palpably absurd. Moreover, that it was both 
 unnecessary and absurd to continue circumcision among the Jews 
 themselves, seeing they were, from the very first, in possession 
 of the new seal. This, I say, would have been all which was 
 required to terminate this dispute and silence the Judaizers. 
 
 Or, at most, it would have been sufficient to say, that although 
 circumcision was permitted to the Jews, notwithstanding it had 
 become obsolete, on account of their prejudices and strenuous 
 adherence to their ancient usages ; and notwithstanding a new 
 seal or token of the covenant had been introduced ; it was per- 
 fectly unnecessary and unwarrantable to impose circumcision 
 on the Gentiles, who had never been under the Mosaick law, and 
 who, by the express appointment of Jesus Christ, were like- 
 wise in possession of the new seal. 
 
 Now 1 say that what is contained in the one or the other of 
 these statements, would have been amply sufficient to settle that 
 whole controversy at once, sand for ever. 
 
 And had the principle been true, that circumcision was disan- 
 nulled and baptism substituted in its room, the occasion imperi- 
 ously demanded such an explanation and disclosure. To neglect 
 this argument was not only to act inconsistently, and even dis- 
 honest 1 /, in keeping back a plain and important principle whicfc 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 3$ 
 
 most intimately respected the peace and welfare of the church ; 
 but, to lay aside the exercise of common sense. Who can sup- 
 pose, when so much interest was taken in the question, and 
 when so many insisted that the Gentiles should be circumcised 
 and keep the Jaw ; and when there was so much argument and 
 disputing in that venerable assembly of apostles, elders and 
 brethren, that & prof ound silence would have been observed re- 
 specting a principle, which, if true, would have put an immedi- 
 ate end to the controversy. An expert Pedobaptist would have 
 decided the cause in two minutes ; yea, in one; so that no one 
 could have had a face to urge the imposition of circumcision on 
 the Gentiles. 
 
 And yet no one appears to have thought of this overpower- 
 ing argument. No intimation is given that the supposed change 
 had taken place in the seals, and that circumcision was abolish- 
 ed to the Jews. Here, I say, in the very place, and on the very- 
 occasion, when this subject could not, from the nature of the 
 circumstances, have failed to be discussed and plainly stated, 
 if it had been real, not a tittle is uttered. What then is the le- 
 gitimate conclusion^ It is, that the sentiment that baptism had 
 taken the place of circumcision, and that circumcision was no 
 longer obligatory on the Jews, was not known, and was not true. 
 After the church at Jerusalem had expressly denied giving 
 the teachers in question any direction to impose circumcision 
 on the Gentiles, and much had been said in the council for and 
 against the measure, an inspired decree was delivered by the 
 apostles, in which the Gentiles were expressly exempted from 
 the practice of circumcision, and the ceremonial rites of the 
 law; which decree implies, at least, that the Jews considered 
 themselves bound to continue this institution. 
 
 It is conceded that they appear generally to have thought that 
 the rites of Moses were also obligatory ; which weie, in reality, 
 abrogated by the death of Christ, and therefore not binding, 
 although their use was tolerated for a season. This matter, 
 probably, was not fully cleared up, till Paul wrote the epistle 
 to the Hebrews, and till the first covenant u which waxed old 
 and was ready to vanish away," was completely broken in the 
 final destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the nation. 
 This circumstance, however, does not materially affect the 
 argument. 
 
 Their conceiving that the observance of the ancient' rites 
 appointed by Moses was necessary, as well as circumcision, is 
 no evidence that they knew any thing about this supposed 
 change in the seals; nor is it any evidence that circumcision 
 and these rites are to be placed on the same footing, so that if 
 
36 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 one was, in fact, abrogated, the other was also, although the use 
 of both was permitted for a season. For it is plain that the 
 abrogation of these rites did not annul circumcision ; because "it 
 was not of Moses ; but of the fathers." It was not a part of the 
 ceremonial law, although certain regulations were made by- 
 Moses relative to its observance. But it belonged to another 
 covenant " which the law could not disannul." The abroga- 
 tion of the law , therefore, did not abrogate this rite, as originally 
 instituted to Abraham, any more than the covenant to which it 
 belonged. The ceremonial law given by Moses might be done 
 away, and yet the covenant with Abraham continue., together 
 with its appointed token, to those for whom it was designed, viz. 
 the natural descendants of that patriarch. And such was the fact. 
 Therefore this rite, and the Mosaick ritual, were not placed on 
 a parallel footing. 
 
 Hence, the Jews' conceiving, for a time, that they were 
 bound to observe this law, after it had, in fact, ceased to be 
 obligatory, does not affect the subject of circumcision, which 
 belonged to another covenant, that has not, and cannot pass 
 away. Their misapprehension respecting the continuance of 
 the Mosaick rites, does not imply that they were under any 
 mistake as to the continuance of circumcision ; nor does it 
 serve to show that they knew any thing about a substitute for 
 that ordinance. But the total silence above noticed shows that 
 they did not. 
 
 Had they continued circumcision merely on the same princi- 
 ple with the rites of Moses, the second argument above stated 
 would have met the case in question, and perfectly silenced 
 the plea for the circumcision of the Gentiles. And they, surely, 
 would not have failed to employ it^ when it was so appropriate, 
 and so urgently required. 
 
 As to the Mosaick rites themselves, no one pretends that 
 there was a substitute appointed. They all, of course, termi- 
 nated, as types, in Christ, to whom they pointed, and in the 
 spirituality of his kingdom. Had there been a change, and 
 others appointed in their stead, the case would have, evidently, 
 required the mention of it. Its not being mentioned, is, of it- 
 self, a conclusive argument that no such thing existed. 
 
 80 in the other case, no mention being made of the change of 
 circumcision to baptism, when the occasion, in every view, 
 imperiously required it, shows that it was not a reality. 
 
 Nor do the following words of Paul, Gal. v. 2, 3, viz. " If 
 ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; for I testify 
 to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the 
 whole law," piesent any difficulty. For it is evident that he 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. J7 
 
 does not refer to the simple practice of circumcision ; but to the 
 perverted notion of it which was propagated by the Judaizing 
 teachers, viz. " That except they were circumcised and kept 
 the law, they could not be saved," It was this view of cir- 
 cumcision that he was opposing, and not the simple institution 
 as a token of God's covenant with Abraham. Hence he says, 
 " whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from 
 grace," i. e. from the scheme of grace. Certainly if they were 
 circumcised upon this principle/' Christ would profit them no- 
 thing .;" for grace and works could not be intermixed. 
 
 Yet circumcision might be continued on other grounds, and 
 was so continued by the purest and best Jewish believers. We 
 have already traced its continuance down to the period of the 
 council which sat at Jerusalem. And we shall be able to trace 
 it still farther. If, therefore, the mere practice of circumcis- 
 ion after the death of Christ rendered him unprofitable to the 
 circumcised, the whole multitude of believing as well as unbe- 
 lieving Jews, hereby excluded themselves from the benefits of 
 his atonement, and made themselves debtors to do the whole 
 law ; for they were all in this practice. But this cannot be. 
 Therefore, Paul unquestionably refers to the aforesaid corrupt- 
 ed view of this rite and the customs of Moses. 
 
 He himself allowed of simple circumcision to the Jews, 
 though he would not consent to have it imposed on the Gentiles. 
 He was, indeed, accused of opposing circumcision altogether : 
 but it was not so. This will clearly appear, together with the 
 continuance of circumcision among all the Jews, believing as 
 well as unbelieving, from Acts, xxi. 17 — 26. "And when we 
 were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And 
 the day following, Paul went in with us unto James ; and all 
 the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he 
 declared particularly what things God had wrought among the 
 Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glori- 
 fied the Lord, and said unto him, thou seest, brother, how many 
 thousands of Jews there are which believe ; and they are all 
 zealous of the law : and they are informed of thee, that thou 
 teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake / 
 Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, 
 neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore ? the 
 multitude must needs come together : for they will hear that 
 thou art come. Do therefore this that we say unto thee : we 
 have four men which have a vow on them ; them take, and 
 purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they 
 may shave their heads : and all may know that those things, 
 whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing ; but that 
 
 4 
 
38 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touch- 
 ing the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded 
 that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep them- 
 selves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from 
 things strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the 
 men, and the next day purifying himself with them, entered in- 
 to the temple, to signify the accomplishment ot the days of pu- 
 rification, until that an offering were made for every one of 
 them." 
 
 The date of this transaction must have been several years af- 
 ter the time of the aforementioned council ; and yet u the many 
 thousands of Jews which believed were all zealous of circumcis- 
 ion and the law of Moses. >* It is sometimes asked, did the belie-* 
 ving Jews continue to practise circumcision ? In this passage we 
 have a definite answer. They did, all of them. Even Paul did 
 not teach the believing Jews that were among the Gentiles that 
 they ought not to circumcise their children, as it had been report- 
 ed. Otherwise, his compliance with the measure proposed by 
 the brethren at Jerusalem to silence the clamour of the people, 
 was practising a lie. For the very object of this measure was 
 to counteract the report that he had so taught. And Paul's free- 
 ly consenting to this measure was a tull and publick declara- 
 tion that he had taught no such thing as was reported. He al- 
 lowed of circumcision to the Jews, let them live where they 
 would. 
 
 Here, again, when the circumstances of the case plainly de- 
 manded that the change of the seals, and the discontinuance of 
 circumcision to the Jews, (if such had been the fact,) should 
 have been noticed ; not a word is uttered, or an intimation gi- 
 ven. Nor is there any mention of this afterwards. 
 
 Instead of this, circumcision was strenuously practised " by 
 the many thousands of Jews which believed," as well as others, 
 long after the introduction of the Christian dispensation ; yea, 
 through the whole period of the New Testament history. They 
 were so precise in regard to this subject, that the report that a 
 single individual had set himself against the practice and the 
 prevailing customs, excited the indignation of the whole mul- 
 titude of Jews and exposed him to the fury of the populace. 
 
 Yea, there is nothing in the whole of the New Testament 
 records which contains any notice of baptism's taking the place 
 of circumcisi<m, or of circumcisions' 's being discontinued to the 
 Jews, or ever intended to be* But if such had been the fact, 
 this notice must certainly have been taken. 
 
 I am, therefore, warranted in saying, that the seal of the 
 Abrahamick covenant was never changed from circumcision to 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 39 
 
 baptism, and that circumcision was never abolished to the Jews, 
 but remains to this day in full force. 
 
 Especially will this appear, when we take into consideration 
 the perpetuity of the covenant to which it belonged, and the 
 order of God to Abraham that every man-child among his de- 
 scendants, without limitation, should be circumcised. 
 
 Great stress is often laid on the silence of the Jews respect- 
 ing the privileges of children, as though this could not have 
 been, if infants had not been baptized during the apostoiick age. 
 But from the above view of the case, this silence is easily ac- 
 counted tor, allowing that infants were not baptized* There was 
 no occasion to complain, seeing the Abrahamick covenant was 
 not abridged, nor their right to circumcise their children called 
 in question. Jf circumcision were ever a privilege, it was a 
 privilege to Jews still ; and upon Gentiles, in their separate na- 
 tional capacity, it had never been conferred. What ground, 
 therefore, existed for the Jews to complain ? Evidently none. 
 And we do not hear any complaint from the Gentiles, for they 
 did not, under all the circumstances, consider circumcision a 
 privilege to them. Believers among thr m were brought upon, 
 a level with believing Jews in point of spiritual privileges, 
 and this was enough. They had cause to be satisfied with their 
 circumstances in other respects. Hence we hear of no com- 
 plaint from any quarter. But this furnishes no argument what- 
 ever for infant baptism » 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM; 41 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The fact that the kingdom of heaven was set up, or the New Tes- 
 tament dispensation introduced during Christ's life and person- 
 al ministry, particularly illustrated andpioved. 
 
 It was predicted by the prophet Isaiah, that " a king should 
 reign and prosper" — that a " child should be born, and a son gi- 
 ven, who should be called the mighty God, the everlasting 
 Father, the prince of peace ; that the government should be 
 upon his shoulder, and that of his kingdom there should be no 
 end." 
 
 It was foretold by Daniel, that in the time of the fourth great 
 kingdom that should arise, i e. in the time of the Roman 
 monarchy, u the God of heaven would set up a kingdom which 
 should break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and 
 stand for ever " 
 
 The Lord Jesus Christ was the king thus promised, and his 
 New Testament church the kingdom which he should estab- 
 lish and reign over. 
 
 Moreover, the prophet Jeremiah foretold that God would 
 " make a new covenant with the house ot Israel and with the 
 house of Judah, not according to the Covenant which he made 
 with their fathers when they came out of Egypt," wherein he 
 engaged to u write his law in their hearts, and that he would be 
 their God, and they should be his people." This is the same 
 as the New Testament, of which Christ is the mediator. 
 
 This covenant evidently began to take effect during our 
 Lord's life and ministry. A very important change then began 
 to be effected in the constitution of the church ; and the kingdom ' 
 of heaven was then set i«p. A chosen people was called out 
 and separated from the publick mass, and brought under a pe- 
 culiar set of laws and regulations. And Christ then began to 
 claim and to exercise i in various respects, the prerogatives of 
 Zion's king; 
 
 The true rise of his kingdom was when he began to make dis- 
 ciples and baptize them* For he said that u except a man be born 
 of water and of the spirit^ he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 
 4* 
 
42 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 God-." No other period can be assigned for its rise which is so 
 reasonable and so consistent as this. 
 
 It is evidently not correct to fix on the day of Pentecost, as 
 some do, for the change of the dispensations and the rise of this 
 kingdom, because the Gospel Church was in existence before* 
 The three thousand converts were added unto them, i. e. the com- 
 pany of disciples previously formed, and many of whom were as- 
 sembled together on that great and notable occasion. There is 
 no record of any new church being formed on that day, nor of 
 any thing that inplies it ; and yet we immediately hear of a 
 " church" to which " the Lord added daily such as 'should be 
 saved." And this could not be the Jewish church; for these 
 converts were already members of that, and hence could not be 
 added. The church spoken of, was, indeed, composed of na- 
 tive Jews and proselytes. But it was manifestly distinct from 
 the body of the nation, or from the Jewish church as it had pre- 
 viously existed. It was a church which had arisen from among 
 that people, or the same church that formerly existed, brought 
 under a new constitution which retained the sound part and re- 
 jected the rest ; which circumstance shows that it was altoge- 
 ther distinct from the body of the nation. 
 
 And it could not have been then formed, because, as before 
 remarked, it was in existence previous to that day. There was 
 a body of disciples, or Christians, in being at the commence- 
 ment of that scene, prepared and authorized to receive mem- 
 bers. 
 
 And there is no mention made of this church being formed a 
 while previous to that day, yet subsequent to the resurrection of 
 Jesus. No one, it is presumed, will fix upon any part of this 
 interval as the time in which this church was formed. Besides, 
 it is evident that it was in being at the very time of the resurrec- 
 tion. Paul's declaration that " he was seen alive after his pas- 
 sion, of more than five hundred brethren at once," is satisfactory 
 proof of this. 
 
 Further : The administration of the Lord's Supper to the 
 twelve a little before his death, an ordinance which belongs ex- 
 clusively to the New Testament church, shows that it existed 
 then, and that the disciples were a part of it. And hence we 
 find that it was formed previous to the death of Christ. And so 
 we may proceed, step by step, till we come to the period when 
 he began to collect a company of baptized disciples ; when we 
 shall, undoubtedly, find the origin of that church, or kingdom, 
 which was like a grain of mustard seed that is very small at 
 first, but grows and becomes a tree ; or like the stone which, 
 in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, was cut out of the mountain with- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 43 
 
 out hands, and became a great mountain, and filled the whole 
 earth. 
 
 Our Lord's saying in Galilee, some time after he had made 
 and baptized disciples, " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is 
 at hand," forms no valid objection against this view of the sub- 
 ject Neither does his subsequently bidding the apostles to 
 preach the same doctrine in the places which they visited. For 
 no more is necessarily implied in this form of expression than 
 that the kingdom of God was just about to make its appearance 
 in these places, which would be perfectly consistent with the 
 idea that it had already been set up elsewhere. The word 
 " engike," rendered " at hand" is in another place rendered 
 " nigh." " Be ye sure of this, the kingdom of Cod is come 
 {engike) nigh unto you.' 7 There is, therefore, nothing in this 
 term which forbids the idea that our Lord's kingdom had al- 
 ready come, or that the New Testament church was already 
 formed in some other part of Judea. 
 
 Christ was, indeed, bom a king ; but he did not probably de- 
 clare himself as such, and openly commence the work of" order- 
 ing and establishing his kingdom," till the time of entering on 
 hispublick ministry, " after the baptism which John preached." 
 It was one part of John's office to proclaim his Messiahship, and 
 to point him out to the people. His real character and office 
 were also testified by a voice from heaven, at the time he was 
 baptized, saying, " This is my beloved Son, hear him." 
 
 Directly upon this, he asserted the prerogatives of the Re- 
 deemer and King of Zion ; performed various regal acts, ap- 
 pointed publick officers in his kingdom, and gave laws and in- 
 stitutions upon his own mediatorial authority, particularly bap- 
 tism, and afterwards the Lord's Supper. His style of speaking 
 was, " Verily, verily, I say unto you." Hence it is said, " he 
 spake with authority, and not as the scribes." 
 
 This all shows that his kingdom had come, and that the new 
 dispensation and the new constitution and organization of the 
 church which had been predicted, were actually introduced. 
 
 There was, manifestly, some great change in the state and con- 
 stitution of the church denoted by the setting up, or coming, of 
 the kingdom of heaven. No one can reasonably question this. 
 Yet many insist that the change did not take place till after the 
 death and resurrection of Christ. But what has been said 
 plainly shows that it took place before, even at, or near the com- 
 mencement of his publick ministry. 
 
 This being an important point, and one which, if substantia- 
 ted, will go far to settle this whole controversy ; I would re- 
 mark still further, that the words of Christ, Mathew,.xi, 11*12., 
 
14 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 furnish clear proof thereof. " Verily I say unto you* among 
 them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater^ 
 than John the Baptist ; notwithstanding he that is least in the 
 kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of 
 John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth 
 violence, and the violent take it by force." 
 
 It should be particularly observed, that, previous to his 
 making this declaration, he made and baptized many disciples; 
 and that some of the twelve, at least, wer^ administrators of this 
 ordinance ; (for "Jesus baptized not himself, but his disciples ;") 
 and this being a ministerial, or official act, it is clear that they 
 were, at th^ time, authorized ministers of the gospel. Christ 
 had already given them a commission, to some extent, to teach 
 and minister in his name. Not only this; but, previous to his 
 making this declaration, he had expressly called and appointed 
 the twelve to be apostles, and had sent them before his face into 
 the cities of Israel to preach the gospel of the kingdom, and 
 work miracles in his name. 
 
 He manifestly means, therefore, by " the least in the king- 
 dom of heaven," the least of the apostles. The least of them 
 was greater than John, because they acted immediately under his 
 mediatorial authority ; and were appointed to announce that he 
 had actually come ; and were endowed with greater light and 
 more eminent gifts for the perfecting of the church. Hence it 
 appears that the kingdom of heaven had actually come : other- 
 wise the apostles could not be in it, and not only in it, but 
 office- bearers therein of the highest description. 
 
 Moreover, the kingdom of heaven is here said to suffer vi- 
 olence from the days of John the baptist u until the time 
 that he spake these words, and " the violent took it by force." 
 Whatever be the meaning of these phrases, they show, conclu- 
 sively, that this kingdom had th*>n commenced The meaning 
 probably is, that it was eagerly sought, and the subjects of it 
 escaped for their lives to the ark of safety, and pressed their 
 way through all opposition and temptation. They were so im- 
 pressed with their spiritual need, and with the fulness and 
 mercy of Christ, that they were resolved to venture upon him, 
 and risk all consequences. They took the kingdom as it were 
 by force. At any rate, it could not have been taken in this 
 manner, if it had not existed. 
 
 The words " from the days of John the Baptist," plainly de- 
 note that this kingdom was set up either before, or at the close • 
 of his ministry. The real period of its rise appears to have 
 been a little before John finished his work. Christ entered 
 upon his publick ministry, and made and baptized disciples r . 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 45 
 
 while John was yet preaching and baptizing ; and the people 
 were eager to hear him and to become his disciples. All which 
 shows that the gospel kingdom was then introduced. 
 
 This fact is still further supported by the parallel passage in 
 Luke, xvi. 16. " The law and the prophets were until John : 
 since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man 
 pressethintoit" This declaration unquestionably proves the 
 previous introduction of this kingdom ; for every one can sec 
 that no one could press into it, if it had not then come. For 
 he is not speaking of the world of glory, but ot the kingdom 
 of God, as set up in this world, in the days of the gospel, agree- 
 ably to ancient prophecy. It is therefore clear that this king- 
 dom commenced a little before, or at the close of John's min- 
 istry. 
 
 Again: chap. xvi. 20, 21. "And when he was demanded 
 of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he 
 answered them and said, the kingdom of God cometh not with 
 observation. Neither shall they say, lo here, or lo there, for 
 behold, *he kingdom of God is within you," i. e. among you, 
 or in the midst of you. So the words might have been render- 
 ed. And this is obviously the true sense. He could not mean 
 that the kingdom of God was in the hearts of those proud, 
 unbelieving Pharisees ; but simply that it was among them, or 
 in the midst of them; although they perceived it not, inasmuch 
 as they had wholly mistaken its nature and end. It did not 
 appear in that external pomp and grandeur which they had 
 been expectiug The proof from this passage is decisive: 
 "The kingdom of God is among you, or in the midst of you." 
 The New Testament church, called the kingdom of God, was 
 certainly formed and established during the life of Christ ; and 
 it was no other than that select company of disciples which he 
 collected and baptized. 
 
 We have still further proof of this point, in the event of our 
 Lord's riding into Jerusalem upon an ass, attended by the mul- 
 titude of his disciples, in fulfilment of the prophesy of Zech- 
 ariah. " Shout, Zion, behold thy King cometh unto thee, 
 riding apon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." Here, 
 therefore, was both & King and a kingdom. 
 
 Again : When our Lord was arraigned before Pilate, he ac- 
 knowledged himself to be the King of the Jews, and, by way 
 of explanation, and for the prevention of all alarm as to his 
 claiming secular favour or honour, he said} "My kingdom is 
 not of this world.'' It was purely spiritual. He was there- 
 fore a.King before he suffered, and had a kingdom, which con 
 
46 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 sisted, at the time, of believing Jews, or of the company of Km 
 disciples. 
 
 The same might be shown still further from many of his par- 
 ables, which clearly represent his gospel kingdom as actually 
 set up, though, at first, very small, and by no means answering 
 the expectations of the carnally minded. 
 
 The circumstance also previously mentioned of : his adminis- 
 tering the Lord's Supper — an ordinance of this kingdom, to the 
 twelve, while yet with them, shows that this kingdom had 
 been already introduced. 
 
 It is of very great importance to understand this matter cor- 
 rectly. For if the change of the dispensations, aud the setting 
 up of the kingdom of heaven, or the New Testament church, 
 took place during our Lord's life and ministry, then the in- 
 structions which he then gave, and the practice which he then 
 introduced, will reflect much light upon the question at issue, 
 as well as upon the nature of this kingdom generally. 
 
 Many overlook and reject all which is said about Christ's ma- 
 king and baptizing disciples during his life, and all which was 
 done by the apostles undertheir first mission to the cities of Is- 
 rael, as having nothing to do with the proper subjects of bap- 
 tism, from the notion that the New Testament dispensation 
 was not introduced till after his death and resurrection ; yea, 
 not till the day of Pentecost, and that all which was done pre- 
 viously was under the law. 
 
 But this is a gross mistake. It is abundantlv manifest that 
 the new covenant, or new dispensation, was introduced during 
 our Lord's life, and at, or near the commencement of his pub- 
 lick ministiy. What, therefore, was then said and done by 
 him and his disciples, belongs to this very question, and goes 
 to settle it in favour of believers'* baptism only ; as no order was 
 given for the baptism of any others, and no others were, in fact, 
 baptized. 
 
 As the introduction of the Sinai dispensation did not inter- 
 fere with the Abrahamick; so the introduction of the New 
 Testament dispensation did not interfere with either. The 
 ceremonial code was indeed eventually disannulled, but there 
 was no necessity for this being done previous to the introduc- 
 tion of the new covenant dispensation. 
 
 The change, denoted by the setting up of the kingdom of 
 heaven, or by making a new covenant with the house of Israel 
 and Judah, appears to have been effected by degrees, till the 
 whole of the New Testament economy was settled. Existing 
 believers, or such as professed to be of this character, were 
 collected together by our Lord and formed into a separate com? 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 47 
 
 |>any, or society, from the nation at large, and were initiated 
 by baptism. And to this society he gave ministers, laws and 
 privileges, till his whole will was declared. And it continu- 
 ed to increase and spread. 
 
 Although it is often plead that no church essentially new has 
 been set up, all must admit that the form and constitution of the 
 church are greatly altered, i here certainly was a time when 
 the believers in Jesus began to be considered the J\ew Testament 
 Church, in distinction from the body of the Jewish nation, 
 whereas they had not been thus considered before ; whether it 
 be supposed that they were called out, and separated from the 
 great body of the nation aud its rulers ; or that the unbelieving- 
 part were cut off, or excommunicated, leaving the believing part 
 to subsist, and act, in a separate capacity. 
 
 And this change, or revolution, must have been the introduction 
 of the kingdom of heaven, which is spoken of in the scriptures, 
 both of the Old and JNew Testaments, with so much emphasis. 
 
 The question, therefore, now before us, is, when did this 
 change take place \ The true answer, as I have fully shown, 
 is, at or near the commencement of our Lord's publick ministry. 
 It is evident, also, that it consisted in calling out a believing 
 people from the body of the nation, rather than in a formal ex- 
 communication of the unbelieving part. This calling out of the 
 true Israel, and embodying them under the Messiah, prepared 
 the way for the ultimate breaking of the Sinai covenant with the 
 body of the nation, and their tinal rejection. 
 
 I admit that Christ has never had but one church in the 
 world, which has existed under different dispensations and con- 
 stitutions. 
 
 The Abrahamick church was the same that existed in the 
 days that were before the flood ; yea, from the first dawn of 
 mercy to our world ; yet it was under a very different constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 In like manner, the Christian church is the same as the 
 Abrahamick ; yet under a very different form and constitution, 
 one that is much more perfect ; and one that is intended to be 
 final, as to this world. 
 
 But although the church is now essentially the same as for- 
 merly, it is never styled the kingdom of heaven, until Christ, the 
 Lord, actually came down from heaven to reign in human na- 
 ture, and to give it its ultimate type and privileges. The 
 kingdom of God had not come before, in the sense which the 
 scriptures intend by this phrase. The church was before na- 
 tional, at least among the Jews, and was connected and identified 
 
18 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 with a worldly kingdom. But under the gospel, it is wholly 
 spiritual in its organization ; separate from all worldly associa- 
 tions ; and from all the laws and regulations of men ; and 
 placed under the mediatorial government of Christ. Yet it is 
 so formed and constituted as to live among any nation, and under 
 any form of civil government ; and the members, as citizens, 
 are expressly required to be subject to the powers that be. It 
 is under this new and final constitution and form, that it is called 
 the kingdom of God, or of heaven. 
 
 As when a new king commences his reign, he requires of his 
 subjects the oath of allegiance, and makes new laws and regu- 
 lations; so our Lord Jesus Christ, when he became incarnate, 
 and entered upon his mediatorial kingdom, by the consent and 
 appointment of the Father and the Spirit, commenced his reign 
 by calling his subjects to swear allegiance to him ; or, in other 
 words, by calling them openly to owu and submit to him as 
 their Saviour and King, and to receive a significant badge of this 
 acknowledgment and submission in baptism, by which they 
 might be openly and emphatically known and distinguished 
 from the rest of the people. 
 
 He gave also other institutions and laws, whereby his reign 
 is distinguished, and his kingdom perfected. 
 
 This kingdom is both spiritually and visibly diverse from all 
 others, as it was foretold that it should be. None have a right 
 of admission by virtue of their natural birth, as in other king- 
 doms, even in the Jewish kingdom ; but they must be called into 
 it by renewing grace; otherwise they have no right to enter. And 
 although men, having no access to the hearts of others, cannot 
 wholly exclude those of unsound minds, they ought not to re- 
 ceive any but such as give credible evidence of grace. The 
 members of the gospel church are, by profession, Christians and 
 brethren — a household of faith, a select, spiritual society. 
 
 Now, such a state of things having been actually introduced, 
 during our Lord's continuance on earth, the apostles would 
 naturally take this to be the rule of their procedure afterwards. 
 They would not depart from the precedent established, without 
 express instructions. There is great weight in this argument 
 from the early type of the Christian church, as a society of be- 
 lievers only, to show that infant baptism is wrong. As we 
 should naturally expect that Christ would settle the question 
 who were to belong to his kingdom, and who were to be bapti- 
 zed, in the very beginning of his reign ; so we find that he did, 
 and he gave no different instructions afterwards. All that has 
 been observed under this head goes to show that I have given 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 49 
 
 the true sense of the apostolick commission. Every attempt to 
 include infants fails. This commission must be altered and 
 amended, and the very nature of the gospel kingdom changed 
 from what we find it in the gospel records, to make out a war- 
 rant for infant baptism. But we have certainly no right to do 
 this. It is impiety and presumption to do it. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 51 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The memorable passage. Acts, ii. 38— 41 , particularly examined. 
 
 The practice of the apostles, acting under the immediate in- 
 spiralion of the Spirit, as well as the commission which they 
 received of the Lord Jesus, is naturally regarded as a proper 
 source of information in relation to the piesent question. 
 
 Hence great efforts are made by Fedobaptists to show that 
 the apostles did, in fact, practise the baptism of infants, and 
 consequently, that this shows how they understood their com- 
 mission. We frequently hear it asserted, in positive language, 
 that the apostles practised infant baptism. 
 
 If this could be clearly made out, I admit that the practice 
 would be correct. In that case, it would appear that Christ 
 gave them additional instructions to those contained in the afore- 
 said commission. 
 
 But it evidently cannot be made out. The apostles have 
 given no notice of having received additional instructions on 
 this point, which include infants ; neither are there any facts re- 
 corded which show that they did baptize them. But their 
 whole history, as we have in fact seen already, and shall see 
 more fully hereafter, goes to establish believers' baptism as the 
 only gospel baptism. 
 
 It is, indeed, argued from the passage referred to at the head 
 of this chapter, that the promise mentioned is that memorable 
 promise made to Abraham, that God would be a God to him 
 and to his seed after him ; that baptism is represented as a to- 
 ken, or seal, of this promise, as circumcision was previously; 
 and that the promise is to believers and their children as it al> 
 ways had been. So that here is a warrant for the baptism of 
 infants. 
 
 But a careful examination of the passage will show that this 
 construction is unwarranted and grossly erroneous. It reads 
 thus : " Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized 
 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- 
 sion of sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all 
 
*>2 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, 
 And with many oilier words did he testify and exhort, saying; 
 save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they 
 that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day 
 there were added unto them about three thousand souls." 
 
 The promise here referred to is evidently not the before- 
 mentioned promise to Abraham, but the promise of the Holy 
 Spirit, which is contained in the passage itself, and repeatedly 
 mentioned in the connexion, and which was contained in a 
 prophecy of Joel that respected that very reason, and was ex- 
 pressly quoted as then fulfilled. God had said by him, chap, 
 ii. 28, 32, Q( It shall come to pass in the last days, that I will pour 
 out ray Spirit upon all flesh — and whosoever shall call on the 
 name of the Lord shall be delivered." Christ had also said, 
 while he was with the apostles, John, vii. 38, 39, " He that 
 believeth on me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living 
 water. This spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on 
 him should receive : for the Holy Ghost was not yet given ; be- 
 cause that Jesus was not yet glorified." Also, chap, xiv. 16, 17* 
 " I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter 
 — even the Spirit of truth." And after his resurrectiob, he 
 bid them, Acts, i. 4, wait at Jerusalem " for the promise of the 
 Father, which, said he, ye have heard of me," alluding to the 
 above. 
 
 Accordingly, the apostle Peter reasoned on that occasion in 
 this plain and forcible manner, chap, ii, 33 : " Therefore, being 
 by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the 
 Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this 
 which ye now see and hear." 
 
 With this ever-blessed promise fully in view, which was 
 then actually j and most strikingly fulfilling, he said to the awa- 
 kened multitude, " Repent, and be baptized every one of you, 
 in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye 
 shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ; for the promise is un- 
 to you and to your children," &c. Now, from the whole re- 
 cord, and its connexion, what can be plainer than that he refer- 
 red to the promise of the Holy Spirit, which, in case they 
 should believe and be baptized, they should receive. He had 
 just been citing a prophecy in which this promise was contain- 
 ed, and had applied it expressly to that occasion. He had also 
 expressly referred to Christ's " being exalted," and to his hav- 
 ing received of the Father the promise of the Spirit," and had 
 consequently affirmed that " he had shed forth what they then 
 saw and heard." Moreover, the apostles and brethren, as di- 
 rected by Christ, had been patiently waiting for this very scene, 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 53 
 
 It is, therefore, exceedingly evident, that he did not refer to that 
 special and comprehensive promise made to Abraham and his 
 seed, but to the promise of the Holy Ghost in his sanctifying 
 and comforting influences, and to a certain extent, in his mi- 
 raculous influences, which was to them, and their children, 
 and to all that were afar off, even as many as the Lord should 
 call, precisely on the same condition of personal repentance 
 and submission to Christ. 
 
 The promise of the Spirit as a sanctifier and comforter, is 
 made expressly to all that believe. Hence Paul says, Eph. i. 
 13, " After that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy 
 Spirit of promise," And, Romans, viii. 9, u If any man have 
 not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." 
 
 Here, therefore, we see that there is a conspicuous promise 
 which belongs to all believers — oue which they are entitled to 
 immediately upon their believing and submitting to Christ, and 
 being baptized in his name. And in addition to this, many, in 
 that early age of the church, received the miraculous operations 
 of the Spirit. But these are not the most material things con- 
 tained in the promise. The great and peculiar blessing was 
 the gift of the Spirit to sanctify and comfort them — to illumine 
 their hearts and seal their forgiveness and redemption. And to 
 this the apostle manifestly refers— a promise made alike to pa- 
 rents and children and all others, both near and afar off, per- 
 sonally, upon their personally embracing the gospel. 
 
 It was one which perfectly suited the occasion — one that was 
 peculiar to all believers — and, therefore, one that tended taen- 
 force the direction given to those distressed and agonizing 
 sinners. 
 
 This, therefore, was not the aforesaid comprehensive pro- 
 mise to Abraham ; nor was it a promise that if the parents 
 would repent and be baptized, they should not only themselves 
 receive the Spirit and be saved, but their children likewise ; 
 or that their children should also repent and receive the Spirit 
 upon their account, or in consequence of their faith. But the 
 promise was to the children personally in the same sense that 
 it was to the parents ; and it was to the one, on the same con- 
 dition that it was to the other: and it was equally upon the 
 same condition to all that were afar off. Whoever repented 
 and submitted to Christ, should receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost — or the Holy Spirit of promise, as a sanctifier and com* 
 forter. 
 
 Hence, this declaration of Peter is no more a warrant for 
 baptizing the children of believers for their sake, than the chil- 
 dren of unbelievers. For there is nothing more promised here 
 to the former, than ta the latter— yea, nothing more than is 
 
 5* 
 
54 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 promised to all others— to mankind generally. The very same 
 promise, andonf/ie very same conditionals indiscriminately made. 
 Every repenting and believing sinner, whether parent or child* 
 male or female, bond or free, at home or afar off, shall receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost. This is the plain and obvious 
 sense of the passage. 
 
 Therefore, it does not give the least countenance to the prac- 
 tice of baptizing children upon the faith of their parents. We 
 might derive as good an argument from this passage for bapti- 
 zing all the ends of the earth upon the faith of the parents ad • 
 dressed by Peter, as their immediate children. For the pro- 
 mise is as positively said to be to all them that were afar off, 
 as to their children. If therefore this promise gave a right to 
 the baptism of the latter, upon the faith of their parents, it did 
 equally to the former. This consequence is unavoidable. And 
 hence it is, of itself, sufficient to overthrow the argument ;. 
 for an argument that proves too much, proves nothing. 
 
 Besides, the words to your children, include the adult as well 
 as the infant children ; so that the argument is precisely a* 
 strong for the baptism of the former, upon their parents' faith, 
 as of the latter. Here again it proves too much, and so de- 
 stroys itself. 
 
 How astonishing it is that men will build this practice upon 
 such a foundation ! Here is certainly nothing that intimates 
 that children were baptized on the faith of parents, or were 
 ever intended to be. Here is not even any thing more promis- 
 ed to believing parents respecting their children, (whatever 
 may be promised elsewhere,) than is promised to unbelieving 
 parents respecting theirs. The promise is to each personally^ 
 and to all of every rank, and every where, personally, whom 
 God shall call by the gospel, and on the same personal condi- 
 tion. Repentance, in every instance, as it respects parents, 
 children, or strangers, is before baptism. u Repent and be bap- 
 tized, every one of you." that this blessed doetrine had al- 
 ways been taught ! 
 
 Will any sober Christian come forward and say that there 
 were infants baptized on that occasion ? If any dare do it, 
 does it not manifestly become them to tell how great a propor- 
 tion of the three thousand were adults, and how great a pro- 
 portion were infants ? But the very attempt to designate the 
 number of each would confound any one. Yea, it would con- 
 found any one to attempt to make out that a single infant was 
 then baptized. And there is certainly no mention made of 
 the infants being brought another day. It is evident, there- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 55 
 
 fore, that this whole account — this memorable transaction — has 
 nothing at all to do with infant baptism. 
 
 The comprehensive promise to Abraham that God would be 
 his God did indeed include all spiritual blessings, and it inclu- 
 ded them to all his true seed, and therefore this particular pro- 
 mise was included that I have been treating of, and was emi- 
 nently fulfilled on the occasion referred to. But this is no evi- 
 dence that this was the promise particularly intended. The 
 blessing here specified by the apostle was also included in the 
 promise to our first parents, that " the^eed of the woman should 
 bruise the serpent's head." Also in the following promise of 
 God in the prophecy of Isaiah. " My righteousness shall be 
 forever, and my salvation from generation to generation." But 
 will any one say that either of these promises was the one par- 
 ticularly referred to by Peter; and, thence, undertake to draw 
 an argument for infant baptism ? This might as well be done, 
 as to say that the aforesaid promise to Abraham was referred 
 to, and thence to infer the duty of baptizing infants. 
 
 There are other promises besides that made to Abraham, and 
 reference may be had to these as well as to that, by the inspi- 
 red apostles on different occasions. To one of them, instead of 
 the promise to Abraham, which was sealed by circumcision, re- 
 ference is most certainly had in the present case, 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 57 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The three instances of the Baptism of a Household, recorded Acts? 
 xvi. 14, 15, 33, and I. Cor, i. IS, particularly examined. 
 
 Great stress being laid on the baptism of the households of 
 Lydia, the Jailer, and Stephanas, as so many examples of in- 
 fant or household baptism in the Pedobaptist sense of the 
 phrase, a particular examination of each is required. 
 
 I will begin with that of Lydia, Acts, xvi. 14, 15. " And a 
 certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of 
 Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us ; whose heart the 
 Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spo- 
 ken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her house- 
 hold^ she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be 
 faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. 
 And she constrained us. ' 
 
 To make out, from this instance, an apostolick example for 
 infant baptism, it must, in the first place, be made to appear 
 that Lydia's household contained infants, properly so called. 
 And in the second, that they were baptized on her faith. Un- 
 less both of these points are proved, it is not an example for 
 the baptism of infants, or unadult children. But neither has 
 ever been proved, and neither can be proved, for the proof 
 does not exist. 
 
 It is, moreover, necessary to the argument, to prove that 
 this household contained none hut infants, or unadult children ; 
 for there is precisely the same evidence that the whole house- 
 hold were baptized upon Lydia's faith, as that any of them 
 were. If it be admitted as possible, and even probable, that 
 there were others in the family besides infants, who were bap- 
 tized upon their own faith, the argument is lost. For the 
 main force of it lies in this, that there is no express mention 
 made of any one's faith except hers ; and yet there is a re- 
 cord of the baptism of the household in connexion with hers. 
 If, therefore, notwithstanding this manner of recording the bap- 
 tism of the household, it be admitted both possible and probable 
 that there were some in it that were adults, and were baptized 
 
58 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 on their own faith, it will follow that all might have been of 
 this description. If the w r ords do not necessarily exclude all 
 adults from the household who were baptized on their own 
 faith, they contain no solid argument for the baptism of any 
 upon the faith of Lydia. For if there were any adult belie- 
 vers, they might have all been such. And hence there is no 
 proof that she had any infants who received baptism upon her 
 account. 
 
 And, now, is there any thing, in fact, in this record, which 
 excludes the idea that there were adults in her family, who 
 were baptized on their own faith ? There evidently is not. 
 The word household is not limited to infants, as every one 
 knows. It contains the members of a family, be they adults, 
 or infants, or both. 
 
 The household of a man includes, not only his children, but 
 his wife and servants — all that compose his family. But when 
 the household of a woman is spoken of, it seems to be implied 
 that she has no husband. Nevertheless, she may have adults 
 in her family, as well as infants; or it may consist altogether of 
 adults. It may consist altogether of adult servants and board- 
 ers ; or it may consist of children that have arrived to adult 
 age ; or of these and some infants. From this known use of 
 the word, household, it will follow that Lydia's household 
 might have contained adults that were baptized on their own 
 faith. And if it might have contained adults of this descrip- 
 tion, it might have contained no other ; notwithstanding no 
 one's faith is expressly mentioned but hers. Yea, it is not only 
 possible, but probable, that she had adults in her family that 
 were capable of acting, and did act, for themselves, in this im- 
 portant concern. 
 
 This appears from her occupation and rank. It is most nat- 
 ural to conclude from the history, that her home was in the 
 city of Thyatira, three hundred miles distant ; and that she 
 was here on business merely — for the purpose of disposing of 
 her purple goods ; and, of course, she would be very likely 
 to have adult servants, or attendants. And if she actually had 
 small children, it is not probable that she brought them with 
 her upon such an undertaking. 
 
 There is, therefore, the highest probability that she had 
 adults in her household, who were bound to act for themselves, 
 and who were baptized upon their own faith. And if there 
 might have been such in her family, there might have been 
 no other. Yea, it is probable there were no other. The ar- 
 gument, therefore, is lost. 
 
 The words certainly do not, of necessity, imply that she had 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 59 
 
 infant children, and that they were baptized on her faith. 
 The most that any one can pretend to say is, that it is more 
 probable that she had, than that she had not. 
 
 But will this do, even allowing the statement to be correct, 
 to found so important a practice upon as that of infant baptism ? 
 Was the matter left to be determined by mere probability ? It 
 is unreasonable to conclude this. 
 
 But even this argument fails. For there is the greater pro- 
 bability that they were all believers, as above stated. This is 
 especially the case, when we connect the subsequent account, 
 related verse 40. " And they went out of the prison, (viz. Paul 
 and Silas,) and entered into the house of Lydia, and when they 
 had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed." 
 
 Now, who were these brethren ? Were they some of Paul's 
 company whom he had left there, or who had collected there 
 while he and Silas were cast into prison ? Or were they the 
 members of her household ? It is altogether most probable 
 that they were the latter, as we have no account that Paul left 
 any of his company there, provided he had any more with him 
 at the time than Silas. The phraseology also, better suits the 
 case of those who were taught than that of the teachers, and of 
 those that were resident there than of those that travelled with 
 the apostle. " When they had seen the brethren, they com- 
 forted them, and departed." These brethren, it appears, were 
 left behind; and of course, it is in no wise probable that they 
 were any of Paul's companions ; but there is every reason to 
 believe that they were the members of Lydia's household. 
 And their being called brethren, shows that they were converts 
 who were baptized on their own faith. At any rate, it is quite 
 as probable that these brethren composed her household, as that 
 it was composed of infants or unadult children. So that the 
 argument, even horn probability, to make the best of it, is lost, 
 
 If it be still alleged, that in most families there are infant 
 children, and that consequently it is most probable there were in 
 this, it may be replied, that many families contain no such chil- 
 dren, and that most families, under similar circumstances, do not 
 contain any. And this, with the additional mention of the 
 brethren that were in her house after the baptism, renders it de- 
 cidedly the most probable that she had no infant children in her 
 family on this occasion. Therefore the greatest probability is 
 still on the side of believers' baptism merely, even from this 
 very instance, which is unquestionably the most favourable of 
 the three to the cause of infant baptism. 
 
 This greater probability in favour of their all being believ- 
 ers is not materially lessened by the manner in which the bap- 
 
(30 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tism of the household is related. To give the argument from 
 hence any weight, the practice of infant baptism must be pre- 
 supposed* From the known practice of Pedobaptists, we 
 should, indeed, conclude from such a mode of expression, that 
 the household contained infants that were baptized upon her 
 account. But we should not conclude any such thing from the 
 known practice of anti-Pedobaptists. All that would be infer- 
 red in that case would be, that the whole family believed as well 
 as she, and were baptized on their own faith. There is evident- 
 ly nothing in this record, allowing the apostles to have practised 
 believers' baptism only, which is inconsistent with that practice, 
 or which conveys a different idea. The only force of the argu- 
 ment lies in presupposing that the apostles practised infant bap- 
 tism, which is the very thing to be proved. 
 
 Nor is there any thing to lessen the probability in favour of 
 this being a family of believers, in the words, u If ye have 
 judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and 
 abide there," without any express mention of the faith of the 
 household : because she spoke as the head of the family, whose 
 business it was to give the invitation. There was no necessity 
 for mentioning the faith of her household in this place. The 
 mode of expression is perfectly consistent either with the idea 
 that she had no infant children, or that she had. It is no proof 
 either/or or against the piety of the household. But the sub- 
 sequent account of there being brethren in her house, as I have 
 shown, is a plain intimation that her household were believers. 
 On the whole, therefore, there is nothing gained in favour of 
 the Pedobaptist cause on the ground of probability. 
 
 But even if there was as great a probability as the Pedobap- 
 tists suppose, that there were infants in this family ; yea, if it 
 were certain that there were ; this would not be satisfactory 
 proof that they were baptized on her account. We might meet 
 the Pedobaptists on their own ground, and say the record re- 
 spects merely the adult part ot the family, as the Lord had . 
 given no order for the baptism of any but adults. They gene- 
 rally say that the words of Christ in Mark, " He that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall 
 be damned ;" relate merely to adults, and do not touch the 
 case of infants ; that the very argument from these words which 
 would exclude them from baptism, would exclude them also 
 from salvation. Although I do not admit the justness of this 
 statement, yet they cannot complain, if we dispose of the other 
 case in the same way that they do of this. Certainly it might 
 be argued with as much propriety, and more, that the mention 
 of the baptism of the household only related to the adult part 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 61 
 
 and not to those who were too young to be instructed and to 
 profess faith. Seeing the commission to baptize expressly 
 mentions none but believers, it might be plead that the mention 
 of the baptism of a household means, of course, the adult part, 
 and no more. Therefore, the fact that there were infants in 
 her family, if ever so probable, and even if proved, would not 
 prove infant baptism. 
 
 And further ; if it were as probable as Pedobaptists suppose, 
 that there were infants in this household who were baptized 
 on Lydia's faith, this would not settle the point ; because this is 
 not the kind of proof required, especially in the case of a posi- 
 tive institution. To base such an institution upon mere proba- 
 bility, would open a field for inference and conjecture quite too 
 wide, and it would be a gross reflection upon the wisdom, ac- 
 curacy, and faithfulness of the New Testament lawgiver. What 
 if this probability, as some allege, were as three to one in favour 
 of the Pedobaptist view ; so long as it is mere probability, in a 
 case where an explicit warrant is required ; and so long as it is 
 admitted by these persons that the probability on the side of 
 there being none but adults who acted for themselves is as one 
 to three, i. e. one third as probable as the other, there is evi- 
 dently no warrant to consider this as an example of infant bap- 
 tism. If it be allowed that one family in three have no infant 
 children ; yea, if the proportion were stated to be still less ; it 
 will clearly follow, that this household might have been of that 
 description. And so the point is not proved that here were 
 infants baptized on Lydia's account. And when it is considered 
 that mere probability would not afford adequate proof, even if 
 it were ever so great, it is palpably unjust to consider this as 
 an example of infant baptism. I have even shown that the 
 argument, from probability itself, is in favour of the baptism of 
 believers only, from this very instance. 
 
 Moreover, it should be particularly observed that it does not 
 belong to me to prove that there were no infants in this family ; 
 or, if there were, that they were not baptized upon Lydia's ac- 
 count ; but to the Pedobaptists to prove that there were infants 
 in it, and that they received baptism on her account; neither ' 
 of which is capable of being done. And if, after all, it should 
 be said that as Pedobaptists cannot prove that there were infants 
 in it, so neither can I prove that there were not, then I would 
 say, that in that case, the passage is no proof either for or against 
 the point in debate ; and so it is left just where the apostolick 
 commission and history leave it, as I have already shown, in 
 favour of a warrant merely for the baptism of believers. 
 
 The next instance of the baptism of a household which I 
 
 6 
 
62 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 am to consider, is that of the jailer, recorded in this same chap- 
 ter, verses 31 — 34, " And they said, believe on the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they 
 spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in 
 his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and 
 washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straight- 
 way. And when he bad brought them into his house, he set 
 meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God, with all his 
 house." 
 
 Here, again, to make out an example of infant, or household 
 baptism, in the sense contended for, it must be shown that there 
 were infants in this family, and that they were baptized on the 
 jailer's account But is there any such thing asserted or fairly 
 implied ? Evidently not, but the contrary. 
 
 It is plainly asserted that " they spake unto him the word of 
 the Lord, and to all that were in his house," which shows that 
 there were none in the family but what were capable of being 
 taught. It is also said that " he rejoiced, believing in God, 
 with all his house," which is positive proof that the whole fami- 
 ly believed, and were converted to Christ. For if we connect 
 the clause — " with all his house," either with the word " re- 
 joiced," or with the word " believing," it denotes a similaiity 
 of character in the jailer and his family, produced by means of 
 the gospel. If we connect it with the latter word, then it is 
 affirmed that the whole house believed as well as himself. And 
 if we counect it with the former, then it will follow that the 
 whole house rejoiced as well as he, i. e. participated in the same 
 joy of faith and pardon of sin, which comes to the same thing. 
 
 I admit that both the words u rejoiced," and " believing," 
 are in the singular number in the original Greek ; and they are 
 likewise evidently so in our language. But what of that ? 
 Does it hence follow that he was the only one of the family 
 that " believed and rejoiced,'' or " rejoiced and believed ?" 
 Not at all. The clause, " with all his house," connected with 
 either of these terms, shows that the family were all brought in- 
 to the same state with himself, and were baptized on the same 
 ground of personal faith. 
 
 The Greek word, u panoiki," is correctly translated, " with 
 all his house." To render it, as some are inclined to do, u do- 
 mestically," or " in," or " through the whole house," is to de- 
 stroy all its beauty and force. What is it to rejoice, or believe 
 " domestically," or u in," or " through the whole house ?" 
 Does it mean that he went through every apartment rejoicing, 
 or believing, first through the lower rooms, then through the 
 chambers, and then through the cellar ? Is this all that the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 63 
 
 passage imports ? It is dishonourable to the spirit of inspiration 
 to allow it ; especially as this rendering is not only trivial and 
 absurd, but it confines the rejoicing, or believing, wholly to ihe 
 jailer himself; and heuce the passage makes no mention what- 
 ever of the effect produced on his family — it gives not the least 
 intimation that they were partakers, either of his faith or of his 
 joy, And yet it cannot be reasonably supposed but that some 
 good effect was produced on the family by such a miracle, and 
 by so remarkable an escape from suicide, and by such plain and 
 pungent preaching, accompanied by the power of the Holy 
 Ghost ; and it would have been natural to record this effect. 
 Yea, it is manifest that the inspired historian intended to 
 record it ; and the record is contained in the clause in ques- 
 tion. There is nothing else which mentions it. But the above 
 translation confines the import of it to the jailer himself and 
 to the building which he occupied, and therefore nothing can 
 be learnt therefrom as to the effect produced on his family. It 
 is evident, therefore, that this translation cannot be correct. 
 But, panoiki being a contraction of two words, one of which sig- 
 nifies all, and the other the house, or family , is rightly rendered, 
 " with all h*.s house," whereby the effect produced on his fami- 
 ly is related as well as on himself. 
 
 Besides, it is palpably inconsistent to speak of this as a re- 
 markable instance of the fulfilment of the promise which is 
 supposed to be contained in the Abrahamick covenant re- 
 specting children ; and yet confine the sense of the above term, 
 as in the rendering which I am opposing, and consequently, the 
 effect produced, to the jailer himself. 
 
 If we admit, as we evidently must, that the clause in question 
 is the true rendering of the Greek term, " panniki," and that 
 it is a brief recital of the effect produced on the jailer's family, 
 then 1 is nothing gained to the cause of infant baptism by con- 
 necting it with the word " rejoiced," and not with that of u be- 
 lieving." It will still be manifest that the whole family were 
 converted. In that case, it will read, that ' believing, or hav- 
 ing believed, in God, he rejoiced with all his house;" which 
 plainly imports that they believed and rejoiced too, or at least, 
 that they were partakers of the same joy which he experienced 7 , 
 that resulted from faith and a view of the pardoning mercy of 
 God ; and that they must have accepted the offer of salvation 
 as well as he. There is no intimation that he was filled with 
 one kind of joy and they with another. Surely the cause must 
 labour hard which requires the making of such a distinctian. 
 
 Especially is it manifest that the family participated with him 
 in the joy of faith, when he had been expressly told that they 
 
64 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 should be saved on the same condition which was proposed to 
 him, viz. faith in Christ, and when all the family had been in- 
 structed with a view to their personal salvation, and had all been 
 baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
 
 It is clear from these facts that the clause before us is intend- 
 ed to describe the effect produced on the whole family, as well 
 as on himself; and it was the same effect. And whether we 
 connect it as before observed with the word believing, or with 
 the word rejoiced, it amounts to the same thing, to a full and 
 positive declaration that the whole family believed on Jesus. 
 And that being the fact, they were undoubtedly baptized upon 
 their own faith, and not upon his. 
 
 Further: The phrases, " all his house," and " all his," in- 
 clude his wife, provided he had one, together with his domes- 
 ticks and attendants generally, as well as his children. And 
 there is manifestly as much evidence that he had a wife as that 
 he had children. Consequently, there is precisely the same 
 evidence that she was baptized upon his account as that they 
 were. If the household were baptized upon his faith, the in- 
 ference is unavoidable that his wife stood upon the same foot- 
 ing with the children and the servants, for she belonged to the 
 household ; and so it is as much the duty of every man to offer 
 his wife in baptism, as his children. He is bound, also, to offer 
 up all his servants, though they should equal the number that 
 belonged to Abraham. There is no stopping short of these 
 consequences, provided the argument for household baptism, 
 from this instance, be allowed to have any force. The extent, 
 therefore, to which it will carry us, shows of itself that it is un- 
 sound. 
 
 Again : If, as some pretend, there is a promise in this passage, 
 that if the jailer would believe, his household should believe 
 and be saved also, and if what transpired, (allowing the family 
 to have been converted,) was a remarkable fulfilment of this 
 gracious promise to the believing parent, it should be observed 
 that it included his wife and servants as well as his children. 
 So that the promise in the Abrahamick covenant, which is supr* 
 posed to be referred to by the apostle, secures the piety and sal- 
 vation of a man's wife and servants as well as his children, upon 
 his account, or as a consequence of his faith and keeping cove- 
 nant with God. But this is carrying the blessing further than 
 any one pretends — further than any one can bring a shadow of 
 proof, from the word of God, to support the sentiment. Yet 
 the consequence is unavoidable. To restrict the promise of 
 salvation to the children for the father's sake, when the wife 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 65 
 
 and servants belong as much to the family as the children, is 
 obviously unfair 
 
 But, in truth, when Paul and Silas said, " believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house," 
 there is no reason to believe they meant that the taith and sal- 
 vation of the family would certainly accompany his own faith, 
 or faithfulness. But the plain and obvious meaning is, that if 
 he would believe on Christ, he should himself be saved ; and 
 if they would believe, they also should be saved, or that he 
 should be saved on the condition stated, and that they should 
 be saved on the same condition. As the angel told Cornelius, 
 when directing him to send for Peter, that " he should tell him 
 words whereby he and his house should be saved," so Paul and 
 Silas told the jailer words whereby he and his house should be 
 saved, provided they would heartily receive and confide in them. 
 And this is all that the aforesaid promise imports. This must 
 he plain to every candid observer. The family did accordingly 
 believe for themselves, and were saved, as the word clearly as- 
 serts. 
 
 That this was a family of converts who were baptized upon 
 their own personal faith and profession, will be made still fur- 
 ther evident by comparing the phrases, " and to all that were in 
 his house ;" " he and all his ;" and, " believing in God with all 
 his house ;" with several other similar phrases, used elsewhere, 
 which evidently mean that the whole family spoken of believ- 
 ed. It is said, John, v. 53, of the nobleman whose son was 
 cured by our Lord?s simply saying at a distance from his house, 
 " thy son liveth," that " himself believed, and his whole house.'' 
 Again ; it is said, Acts, x. 2, of Cornelius, that he was u one that 
 feared God with all his house." And again ; it is said, Acts, xviii. 
 8, in the account given of Paul's success in preaching at Co- 
 rinth, that M Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed 
 on the Lord with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians 
 hearing, believed and were baptized." Now, will any dispute 
 that, in each of these instances, the whole family believed and 
 praised God ? How could the fact have been more clearly as- 
 serted ? And in the last of the three it is not only clear that 
 the whole family of Crispus believed, but that they were bap- 
 tized upon a personal profession, being included in the " many of 
 the Corinthians" that " hearing, believed and were baptized." 
 It is presumed no one will question that this family was baptized 
 upon their own account. It has never, I believe, been brought 
 as an instance of household baptism in the Pedobaptist sense. 
 
 If, therefore, it be received as a matter of fact that these 
 whole families believed, because the record plainly declares it, 
 
 6* , 
 
lib CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 why should it be called in question that the jailer's whole fam- 
 ily believed, when the fact is,as plainly asserted as in either of 
 the other cases? yea, asserted in the very same terms? It is 
 said of Crispus, that he believed in the Lord with all his house; 
 and of the jailer, that he " rejoiced, believing in God with all 
 his house." The phraseology in both cases is the very same. 
 The fact, then, of the conversion of the whole family, is as pos- 
 itively asserted in the latter case as in the former. If the words 
 used, with regard to the jailer's family, do not imply that the 
 whole of them believed, the same words used with regard to 
 the family of Crispus, do not imply that the whole of them be- 
 lieved. And if not, what other terms would have conveyed to 
 us the knowledge of the fact, provided it had been real ? Sure- 
 ly, no other terms could have been more explicit and positive. 
 So that if we may take the liberty to contradict such testimo- 
 ny as this, we might contradict, or evade, any other whatever. 
 Upon this principle, there is no language but what may be con- 
 strued, explained away, and evaded, to suit the fancies of men. 
 O, the amazing influence of tradition and prejudice, when so 
 artless, so explicit^ and so unequivocal a record of the conver- 
 sion of a whole family, in the same memorable night, and of 
 their consequent baptism, upon their own personal faith, 
 can be so twisted, shaped, and turned, as to be viewed 
 as an apostolick example of infant baptism ! How is it 
 that men of apparent candour, knowledge, and piety, can 
 be so attached to a preconceived opinion, as to overlook this 
 plain and demonstrative evidence of the conversion of this 
 entire family, and of their baptism on their own faith, and still 
 produce this as an apostolick example of the baptism of infants 
 upon the faith of their parent, or head. It is truly surprising 
 to see so many, in the face of all this light, still disposed to say 
 that the jailer was the only one that believed, and that his fam- 
 ily were baptized upon his faith! 
 
 But leaving them to answer to their own Master, I feel au- 
 thorized and constrained tasay that this instance does not afford 
 the least countenance to the practice of baptizing infants. It is 
 a plain recital of the triumph of divine grace in rescuing a poor 
 sinner from the very jaws of destruction, and in bringing him 
 and his whole family, in one blessed night, to embrace the Lord 
 Jesus Christ by faith, and joyfully to enter his gospel kingdom 
 by baptism. And every man can see this for himself. Nor 
 was it an unusual thing in that remarkable age, for whole fami- 
 lies to repent and believe the gospel together, as the instances 
 above cited will conclusively show. 
 
 If, therefore, after all which has been said, any will yet insist 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 67 
 
 that there is no evidence that the jailer's whole family believed 
 and were baptized on a personal profession of faith ; but that 
 the family were baptized on his account, we may well despair 
 of giving them conviction. 
 
 The third and only remaining instance of the baptism of a 
 household, which is on the records of the New Testament, is 
 contained in I. Cor. i. 16 : " And I baptized also the household 
 of Stephanas." 
 
 The same course requisite to make out an example of infant 
 baptism in either of the other cases, is requisite also in this ; 
 otherwise it gives no support to the practice. But here, also> 
 it cannot be proved that there were infants in the household, and 
 that they were baptized on the faith of Stephanas. Even if 
 there were infants in it, by taking Pedobaptist ground in anoth- 
 er case, as already stated, I might fairly dispose of the argument 
 for their baptism. 
 
 But there is no necessity for resorting to any such method ; 
 for the inspired apostle has given us the character of this fami- 
 ly as a family of believers in this very epistle, chap. xvi. 15. M I 
 beseech you, brethren, ye know the house of Stephanas, that it 
 is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted them- 
 selves to the ministry of the saints." This is so plain a decla- 
 ration that the household were all believers, that Doctor Guise, 
 a strong Pedobaptist, in his paraphrase on the New Testament, 
 consents to take it from the list of examples of infant baptism, 
 and admits that this family " were all adult believers, and so 
 were baptized upon their own personal profession of faith in 
 Christ."* 
 
 The Doctor undoubtedly states the fact as it is. For al- 
 though the baptism of this family is recorded in the first place 
 without making any particular mention either of their faith, or 
 of Stephanas' own ; yet their character is carefully given after- 
 wards. They were the first fruits, or converts, of Achaia. 
 There is no doubt then, that they were baptized on their own 
 faith. There is not the least intimation that Stephanas first be- 
 came a convert, and had his family baptized upon his account, 
 and that, some time afterward, they were converted, but the con- 
 trary. The date of their conversion was the same as his : they 
 became first fruits in the same sense that he did. The scrip- 
 tures no where speak of two kinds of first fruits. The apostle 
 could not have used more appropriate language to denote the 
 conversion of the whole family, than that they were the first 
 fruits, or the first disciples, made in that region, and that thev 
 had given evidence of their sincerity by ministering to the- 
 saints. 
 
68 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 The$e 9 then, are the only instances recorded in the scriptures of 
 the baptism of a whole household ; and the proof is full and clear 
 in the two last, at least, that they were families of believers ; 
 and in the remaining instance, viz. that of Lydia's household, 
 the proof falls very little short, if any, of being positive. To 
 say the least, there is decidedly the greatest probability, from 
 the record itself, leaving out all other considerations, in favour of 
 their all being believers. So that although it does not belong 
 to me to prove that there were not infants in thee families, but 
 that they consisted wholly of adult believers, but to the Pedo- 
 baptists to prove that there were infants in them, and that they 
 were baptized on the faith of their respective heads; yet I am 
 able to furnish such proof, clearly and decidedly in two cases out 
 of the three, and in the third it is nearly, if not quite, positive. 
 At any rate, the greatest probability is in favour of this being 
 a family of believers. So that it utterly fails of being an ex- 
 ample of infant baptism. 
 
 Even if I were not able to prove that there were no infants 
 in these families, so long as the Pedobaptists cannot prove that 
 there were, they are of no advantage to their cause. In that 
 case, they furnish no proof either for or against infant baptism. 
 And hence the matter is left just where the commission and all 
 the other recorded examples leave it, altogether in favour of be- 
 lievers' baptism, and that only. 
 
 I have now, therefore v evinced the assertion that the apostles 
 practised the baptism of infants to be utterly unfounded. The 
 three instances above examined furnish no evidence of any 
 such thing. And there are no other ; nor is there any thing else 
 which furnishes this evidence, as I shall still more fully make 
 to appear. The scriptures evidently guard against any infer- 
 ence being drawn from the facts and circumstances related, in 
 favour of this practice. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 60 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The right of believers only to baptism confirmed by the constitu- 
 tion of the Apostolick Churches, 
 
 It is abundantly evident that the churches formed by the 
 Apostles were societies of believers —select companies called out 
 of the world by means of the gospel, through the accompanying 
 power of the Holy Ghost ; and professing gospel obedience, 
 Hence the notion of infant-membership in the New Testament 
 church, is without foundation. The constitution of the primi- 
 tive churches forbids the idea of infants being horn in the churchy 
 or of their being admitted into it by baptism upon the faith of 
 their parents. This would make them, at once, to consist of 
 professed disciples and acknowledged unbelievers ; whereas the 
 scriptures represent them as a household of faith — select compa- 
 nies of Christians, or brethren in Christ, 
 
 I have already shown that our Lord collected and baptized a 
 company of disciples during his life, which was the origin of 
 the New Testament church. 
 
 There was a company of disciples, at least an hundred and 
 twenty, convened together at Jerusalem on the day of pente- 
 cost, to whom the three thousand were added on that day : and 
 these three thousand were such as were awakened under 
 Peter's sermon, and u gladly received his word." They were 
 converts, as all will allow ; such as appeared and professed to 
 be cordial believers in Jesus as the Messiah. And those which 
 were daily added to the church were " such as should be sa- 
 ved," or the saved, as the phrase might have been rendered, de- 
 noting that they were renewed persons, or at least, were so con- 
 sidered. And there is no mention of any other than believers 
 being added. 
 
 And thus things went on. We soon read that " many of 
 them which heard the word believed, and the number of the 
 men was about five thousand." Then we read of the " multi- 
 tude of them that believed, who were of one heart and of one 
 soul." Then again, that " believers were the more added to 
 the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." But no mea~ 
 
70 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tion is made, in all these accounts, of any infants being added 
 by baptism on their parents' account. 
 
 The history continues the same through the whole book of 
 Acts. The Samaritan church consisted of those " who believ- 
 ed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, 
 and the name of Jesus Christ," and who ** were baptized, both 
 men and women." The first Gentile church which was form- 
 ed by Peter at Cesarea, consisting of Cornelius and his house- 
 hold and friends, were such as " received the Holy Ghost," 
 " spake with tongues, and magnified God." The church at 
 Antioch, which was at first composed of Grecians, or Hellenist 
 Jews, i. e. of Jews who spoke the Greek language, consisted 
 of such as " believed and turned unto the Lord." They were 
 such as were cC added unto the Lord" — w disciples who were 
 called Christians first in that place." So the word of God ex- 
 pressly describes them. And there is no difference in the sub- 
 sequent accounts of the formation of churches. There is not 
 the least hint given of any being received but those who were 
 reputed believers. 
 
 And, in the epistles which were afterwards written to partic- 
 ular churches, and some to the church at large, the same cha- 
 racter is given of the members. They are described and ad- 
 dressed as societies of believers, or renewed persons. For ex- 
 ample, the inscription to the church of Rome is in these words : 
 " To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints." 
 To the church at Corinth it is this : " Unto the church of God 
 which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, 
 called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the 
 name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." To the 
 Ephesians he writes thus : " To the saints which are at Ephe- 
 sus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus." And to the Philippians 
 thus : u To all the saints which are at Philippi : I thank my 
 God upon every remembrance of you — for your fellowship in 
 the gospel from the first day until now — being confident of this 
 very thing that he which hath begun a good work in you will 
 perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." St. Peter inscribes 
 his first Epistle " to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, 
 Galatia, Capadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, elect, according to the 
 fore-knowledge of God the Father, through sauctification of 
 the Spirit, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 
 
 These inscriptions afford a correct sample of the manner in 
 which all the primitive churches were addressed. They were ex- 
 pressly written to, and described as Christian societies, not in the 
 modern lax sense of the phrase, but in a peculiar and restricted 
 sense, as societies of persons professing to be the children and 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 71 
 
 followers of Christ. They were considered as communities of 
 renewed persons, or such as professed to be renewed, and to be 
 subject to Christ. Hence apostates were described as " false 
 brethren, crept in unawares ;" or as persons who had fallen from 
 their Christian profession, and were thereby manifested not 
 to be of the company of the faithful, as they once appeared to 
 be. 
 
 There is not the least intimation of there having been ano- 
 ther sort of members, viz. unconverted children and infants, 
 who were admitted and baptized on their parents' account. 
 
 The members of which these churches were composed, were 
 full and complete members ; and if any did not adorn their pro- 
 fession, and could not be reclaimed, they were to be cast out of 
 the society of the faithful, as directed by Christ in the xviii. 
 chapter of Matthew. 
 
 It does not appear from any of these accounts, that the New 
 Testament church was considered as a school, or nursery, for 
 the unconverted children of believers ; but merely as a fold for 
 the sheep of Christ. 
 
 Children were, indeed, to be instructed, but not in the churchy 
 till they became believers. 
 
 It is true the Apostles, in their epistles, addressed both pa- 
 rents and children, (whence the duty of all parents and chil- 
 dren may be inferred,) but they addressed them as believers 
 and as brethren and sisters in the Lord. There were believing 
 parents and believing children in these chuiches, and their 
 being connected in this manner did not annihilate their natural 
 relations and duties. 
 
 Indeed, if it could be shown that in some cases, these ad- 
 dresses to parents and children include others besides belie- 
 vers, no serious difficulty would be created ; for the main drift 
 of these epistles would show that these churches were compo- 
 sed of none but reputed saints. 
 
 If the apostles, after addressing adult believers, or the pro- 
 fessing part of the churches, had addressed their children as 
 baptised, and as a distinct portion of them, and urged upon 
 them their baptismal obligations, as Pedobaptists are wont to 
 do, it would have given some support to the practice of infant 
 baptism. But there is nothing of this ; no, not even insomuch 
 as one of the epistles. 
 
 Now, if it had been the constant practice of the apostles to 
 baptize children and consider them members of the church, is 
 it not wholly unaccountable, that not one appropriate address is 
 made to them, as such. 
 
72 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Not only is there no address made in their epistles to the 
 children of believers as members of the church, or as being 
 within the pale of the church ; but there is none made to them 
 as children in covenant with their parents though not church 
 members, or as those to whom the covenant had a particular re- 
 spect Their baptismal obligations are never urged on this 
 ground. Had they been, it would have been an argument for 
 their baptism. But nothing of this do we find. No such bap- 
 tismal obligations are urged. The only obligations, founded on 
 baptism, that are ever described and enforced, are those which 
 pertained to adults — to those who had " put on Christ," or pro- 
 fessed the Christian faith. 
 
 There is, therefore, nothing in the constitution of the apos- 
 tolick churches which favours the baptism of infants; but eve- 
 ry thing to the contrary. The membership of infants, as such, 
 was not known in these churches ; nor was there such a thing 
 kuown as children being in covenant with their believing pa- 
 rents, except they were believers themselves. Infant baptism 
 being never based on either of these grounds; and there being 
 no hint given of any such thing being practised at all, and no 
 distinct addresses being made to unconverted children as mem- 
 bers of the church, or as children in covenant, in all the epis- 
 tles and records of the New Testament, it is evident that the 
 practice did not exist. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 73 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Containing an examination of Mark, x. 13 — 16, Romans* xi. 
 16, 17, and L Corinthians , vii. 14. 
 
 Mr object in this chapter, is to show that the principal select 
 passages which are adduced in support of infant baptism, do 
 not, when fairly construed, give it any countenance, but are 
 perfectly consistent with the view which has been given of the 
 apostolick commission and practice, and of the constitution of 
 the primitive churches. 
 
 I will first examine Mark, x. 13 — 16. M And they brought 
 young children unto him, that he should touch them ; and his 
 disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus 
 saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, suffer the 
 little children to come unto me, aud forbid them not : for of 
 such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoe- 
 ver shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he 
 shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put 
 his hands on them, and blessed them." 
 
 It will be observed that these children were not brought to 
 Christ for baptism, but for his blessing : and there is no record 
 made of his having baptized them, or of his having ordered them 
 to be baptized. 
 
 Besides, if he had been in the practice of baptizing infants, 
 and these little children had been brought to him to receive 
 baptism, it is not at all likely that the disciples would have re- 
 buked those that brought them. Their forbidding them to be 
 brought to him, shows conclusively, that they had not been ac- 
 customed to see infants baptized. / 
 
 Where, then, is the alleged proof from these words, in favour 
 of this practice ? Is it found in the compassion which Jesus 
 manifested towards these children ? This would be equally an 
 argument for the baptism of the children of the unbelieving Jews 
 as for that of the believing ; and for the baptism of all classes of 
 sinners without regard to age or character- for they are all the 
 objects of his compassion. He even wept over impenitent Je- 
 rusalem) " saying, how often would I have gathered thy chil- 
 
 7 
 
74 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 dren as a hen gathereth her brood under her wings, and ye 
 would not." It will not do, therefore, to base the practice upon 
 the compassion, tenderness, or kindness which he manifested 
 towards these children : nor ought we to excite the sympathies 
 of parents to induce them to perform what he has not required 
 at their hands. 
 
 Does the alleged proof of infant baptism, then, lie in the de- 
 claration, u for of such is the kingdom of God ?" It must be 
 here if any where. And hence the common argument is, that 
 here is a recognition of the membership of infants in the New 
 Testament church, the same as in the old ; and hence their 
 right to baptism is considered as following of course. 
 
 It will be obvious that none can avail themselves of this ar- 
 gument except such as believe thai infants are as fully members 
 of the church now as formerly. 
 
 But the argument from their church membership, if it proves 
 any thing, proves too much, ai.d hence overthrows itself. For 
 if it proves their right to baptism, it equally proves their right 
 to the Lord's Supper. Infants, as members of the Jewish 
 church, were admitted to the passover as well as to circumcision 
 — yea, females were also admitted to the former, whereas males 
 only were admitted to the latter. And it is universally allowed 
 by Pedobaptists that the LordPs Supper has come in the room of 
 the passover, as truly as baptism has in the room of circumcis- 
 ion. ' 
 
 Therefore, if infants are to be baptized because they are 
 members of the church, they must also be brought to the 
 Lord's Supper upon the same ground. The argument is pre- 
 cisely as strong in favour of the latter as in favour of the for- 
 mer. And there is evidently no consistency in bringing them 
 to the one ordinance ai.d debarring them from the other, when 
 the very same principle which leads to the one leads to the oth- 
 er also. Yoa, the argument for infant communion has addition- 
 al strength, inasmuch as females were admitted to the passover 
 because of their church membership ; whereas they were ex- 
 eluded from circumcision. 
 
 But only let this argument from the membership of infants 
 in the church have its full latitude and effect, and let infants be 
 brought to the Lord's Supper as well as to baptism, and its in- 
 conclusiveness would at once be discerned by all enlightened 
 evangelical Christians. The celebration of this ordinance in 
 that case, would cease to be peculiarly the communion of saints. 
 It would be a transaction common to believers and acknow- 
 ledged unbelievers, The principle that grace is a necessary 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 75 
 
 qualification for communion at the Lord's table would have to 
 be given up. 
 
 But the argument from the church membership of infants not 
 only destroys itself by proving too much — i. e. proviug the right 
 to the Lord's Supper as well as to baptism ; but it is otherwise 
 inconclusive. Their membership, if admitted to be as full as 
 it was originally in the Jewish church, would not, of itself, de- 
 termine tneir right to baptism. This is evident among various 
 other considerations, trom the fact that females were members 
 ot that church, and yei had no right to circumcision. Simple 
 membership , therefore, in the church, did not give this right. 
 And if it did not give the right to circumcision, it will not give 
 the right to baptism. 
 
 If it be said th-dt females were formerly included in the males, 
 it might be said, with equal propriety, that children are now in- 
 cluded in their parents, and heuce need not be baptized any 
 more than lemales Deeded to be circumcised. 
 
 If it be further said that the former seal was not applicable to 
 any but males, I migat replv, *hat notwithstanding the difference 
 of sex, temales might have had a mark in their rlesh as well as 
 males ; or if simpJe membership in the church gave them a 
 right to the seal of the covenant, some other seal might, and 
 doubtless would have been adopted, which might have been, 
 with the same propriety and convenience, applied to both sexes. 
 It is evident, therefore, that the right to circumcision was not 
 based upon mere membership in the church But that which 
 gave this right was the express order of God y the institution 6e- 
 ing positive. 
 
 In like manner, that which gives a right to baptism, is the 
 express order of God, the institution being disc positive. 
 
 If, therefore, it could be ever so clearly proved that the in- 
 fants of believers are members with their parents in the New 
 Testament church, this would not, of itself, establish their 
 right to baptism : yea, it would arloid no valid argument for 
 this practice. We should need a " Thus saith the Lord," as 
 in the other case. 
 
 But in truth, there is no evidence from the passage under 
 consideration, nor from any other quarter, that the membership 
 of infants is continued in the New Testament church; but 
 there is clear and abundant proof to the contrary, as we have 
 already seen, and shall more fully see hereafter. 
 
 When our Saviour said, " of such is the kingdom of God," 
 he might have meant that the subjects of this kingdom 
 are like little children in their temper and qualities. Accord- 
 ingly he adds j u Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not re- 
 
76 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ceive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter 
 therein," This exposition is adopted by many excellent & 
 vines. 
 
 But our Lord, more probably, meant that the kingdom of God 
 consists of little children as well as of adults ; i. e. some little 
 children belong to it as well as some adults. The expression 
 does not imply that all little children belong to it any more than 
 all adults. It does not imply that all the little children of be- 
 lieving Jews belonged to it any more than the general mass of 
 adult Jews. 
 
 It is manifest that the kingdom of God did not embosom the 
 adult members of that nation promiscuously, or as a body; but 
 select individuals of them only, who were called, by divine grace, 
 out of the world. The fact, therefore, that this kingdom con- 
 sisted of little children as well as of adults, did not imply that 
 it embosomed all little children, or even all the little children 
 of believers. 
 
 That grace then reigned in the hearts of some little children 
 as well as of some adults, and that it does now, there is ample 
 reason to believe : for it is written, " Out of the mouths of 
 babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise." As an emi- 
 nent fulfilment of this passage, little children followed Jesus 
 with the multitude, when he rode upon the ass into Jerusalem, 
 " crying, hosanna to the Son of David." 
 
 For aught appears, the children in question might have been 
 of this description — young believers — such as could heartily 
 and understandingly acknowledge Jesus to be their Saviour 
 and Lord. Or, if they were not already converted, they might 
 have been old enough to be instructed and brought to the 
 knowledge of the truth. There is nothing in the terms " little 
 children," which necessarily conveys the idea of mere in- 
 fancy. 
 
 Indeed, if they were mere babes, the passage may be easily 
 explained without admitting the membership of infants in the 
 gospel church. 
 
 But the probability is that they were children of some size, 
 like the little children which belong to the Sabbath schools in 
 these days — old enough to be benefited by instruction. The 
 terms used may be very properly so applied and understood. 
 
 The word " e pais," from which " ta paidia," (little chil- 
 dren,) is made in the accusative case plural, is expressly ap- 
 plied, Luke, viii. 54, to the daughter of Jairus> who was about 
 twelve years of age. It is there rendered " damsel J* but the 
 strict meaning of it is little child. It is a word frequently used 
 to denote a little child. So that in the scripture sense of this 
 
J/ V v OF THE ' 
 
 CHRISTIE BAPTJSM^j JJ J y £ jjg J T ^ 
 
 term a little child may be twelve years of %• r§T e ^°^t V 
 brought to Christ might have been as old as this damsel. The 
 word " brephous" is also rendered " a child," II. Tim. iii. 15, 
 and applied to Timothy at an age sufficient to know the holy 
 scriptures ; and thereiore it is not restricted to a mere infant as 
 to age. Hence, when Luke calls the children that were 
 brought to Christ, chap, xviii. 15, " ta brephe," (infants) they 
 might, nevertheless, have been of a sufficient age to be instruct- 
 ed and converted by means of the gospel. 
 
 The English terms, infants and little children, are used with a 
 good deal of latitude, even to denote p11 in a state of miuority. 
 
 Therefore, for augh/ appears, as I said, these children might 
 have been old enough to be instructed, and understanding^- to 
 say, " Hosanna to the son of David " 
 
 Besides, the position in which our Lord is represented as re- 
 ceiving them, shows that they were not mere babes. " He took 
 them up in his arms, put his hands on them, and blessed them." 
 But if they were mere babes which were taken into his arms 
 as we are wont to take such children, it would not have been 
 convenient, as everyone can see, to a put his hands on them." 
 Therefore no more is meant by his u taking them up in his 
 arms," than receiving them between his knees and putting his 
 arms affectionately around them ; and then, placing his hands 
 upon their heads, as Jacob did his upon the heads of the sons of 
 Joseph, he blessed them ; which was the thing for which they 
 were brought to him. This is a circumstance which corrobo- 
 rates the opinion that they were children of sufficient age to be 
 instructed. 
 
 It might, therefore, with the strictest propriety be said} "of 
 such is the kingdom of God," i. e. " the kingdom of God" con- 
 sists of such little children as these as well as of adults : espe- 
 cially if they were young believers already. But if they, were 
 not already converted, they were capable of complying with the 
 gospel offer, and hence it was improper to forbid them to come 
 to Christ. 
 
 In either case, those parents did well in» bringing them to 
 Jesus for his blessing, in hope that he would instruct them and 
 save them. 
 
 It was very customary with the Jews- to bring their children 
 to persons of eminent gifts, learning and piety, to receive their 
 benediction. The above transaction seems to have been in 
 compliance with this custom. And their bt lieving that Jesus 
 was the Messiah, was an additional reason for bringing their,- 
 children to him to be blessed. 
 
 If, therefore, we understand by the kingdom cf God r the 
 
 7* 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 visible gospel church, it might be truly said that " of such is 
 this kingdom." Some are called in very early life, and give 
 credible evidence of piety. And children of the size above 
 described are manifestly entitled to gospel instruction, at least 
 with a view to their conversion. 
 
 The phrase does not imply that all little children, not all the 
 children of believers, belong to the kingdom of God ; but, 
 merely, that some of them do. The kingdom of God consists 
 of little children as well as of adults. This is all the passage 
 affirms. And as it does not include all adults, neither does it 
 all little children. Many of them grow up in habits of sin, and 
 never give any evidence of piety. 
 
 But the passage presents no particular difficulty, allowing, 
 these children to have been mere infants. For the kingdom of 
 God may be taken in its highest and most perfect sense to mean 
 the kingdom of glory ; and it is unquestionably true that this 
 consists of infants as well as of adults. Although mere infants 
 cannot exhibit that evidence of piety and make that confession 
 which is required to enter the visible church, they may be 
 sanctified and become meet subjects of the invisible church. 
 The mercy of God may reach them as well as others. Yea, 
 there is reason to hope that it does reach all who die in mere 
 infancy, and that they are admitted into the world of glory. 
 
 Nevertheless, nothing more is asserted in this passage, than 
 that some little children are of the kingdom, or belong to the 
 kingdom of God. The words " of such," do not imply u all 
 such," It may be said with reference to adults, " of such is 
 the kingdom of God." But here every one can see the phrase 
 does not mean u all such." This kingdom does, indeed, con- 
 sist of adults: but not of all adults — all are not heirs of glory . 
 So it consists of Gentiles as well as Jews, but not of all of eith- 
 er. In like manner it consists of infants, but not of all of them, 
 i. e. the words do not imply that it includes them all ; and the 
 subsequent lives of many show that it does not, though it may 
 include such as are taken away in their infancy. 
 
 On the whole, therefore, there is no proof from this passage 
 that infant membership is continued in the gospel church as it 
 was formerly in the Jewish church. None come in by birth, or 
 by the profession of their parents ; but every man upon his own 
 faith and profession. 
 
 Bui even if this passage did contain proof of the continu- 
 ance of infant membership, the same as in the Jewish churchy 
 their baptism would not follow as a thing of course, as I have 
 already shown. It would be required that the will of Christ 
 should be expressed to that effect, whereas it is not 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 79" 
 
 But though the argument from the supposed membership of 
 infauts fails, it may still be plead that this passage contains 
 special encouragement to bring little children to Christ, and 
 hence, as a natural consequence, that they should be offered in 
 baptism. 
 
 I would reply to this statement, that we undoubtedly have 
 encouragement to bring our children to Christ for his blessing ; 
 but this is no more a warrant to bring them to baptism than 
 to the Lord's Supper. Will any pretend that this is a warrant 
 lor bringing children to the Lord's table upon their parents^ 
 faith ? They might as well do it as to infer their right to bap- 
 tism. There is not a word about baptism. These children 
 were brought wholly for another purpose. Can we not bring 
 our children for a blessing, without offering them in baptism, 
 which we are no where required to do ? It we could not bring 
 them for a blessing without baptism, we could not bring them 
 to be blessed but once, unless we would have baptism continual- 
 ly repeated. But it is our duty to bring then? daily to Christ 
 that they may be blessed. This subject, therefore, has no con- 
 nexion with infant baptism. It fails, in every view of it, to au- 
 thorize this practice. 
 
 I will next examine Romans, xi. 16, 17. " For if the first 
 fruit be holy, the lump is also holy : and if the root be holy, so 
 are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, 
 and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among 
 them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the ol- 
 ive tree." 
 
 I here freely admit that the olive tree is intended to represent; 
 the church, and that the Christian church is a continuation of 
 the Abrahamick ; but at the sametime I maintain that it is under 
 anew covenant and constitution — under new laws and regulations , 
 and that these are such as exclude all but believers , or professed 
 believers; so that the unbelieving children of believers have no 
 place in it. The church now may be essentially the same as 
 formerly ; and yet there may be a new arrangement with regard 
 to membership. It may no longer be perpetuated by natural^ 
 generation, but the members may all stand by faith. " Because 
 of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith." 
 
 Pedobaptists suppose that here is a relative or federal holiness 
 attributed to the natural seed of believers, and that as a holy 
 seed, they should be baptized. Also, that the root and fatness 
 of the olive tree mean the blessings and privileges of the Abra- 
 hamick church, from which they infer that believing Gentiles 
 inherit the same privileges for their children which Abraham 
 did for his ; and consequently, that these must include the right: 
 
80 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 of applying to them what is termed the new seal of the cove- 
 nant, and of claiming the promise, provided they are faithful, 
 that God will be their God. 
 
 As to the first particular, I would observe,, that although the 
 nation of Israel are in a sense called holy, it will appear, on care- 
 ful examination, that this is not the subject here treated of; and 
 therefore the passage will give no countenance to the notion of 
 a relative holiness now in the children of believers. 
 
 The apostle is here speaking of area/ holiness, both in the 
 root and in the branches. He is describing the real heirs of 
 promise — the spiritual Israel. The argument runs thus : If the 
 root be holy, so are the branches ; i. e if Abraham, who is here 
 referred to as th« root, were a true believer, and a pattern for all 
 his children, who, together with himself, are to inherit the bless- 
 ing, then they must be holy too ; they must have the same cha- 
 racter. The lump is like the first fruit. Hence the holiness 
 spoken of in the branches, is a real holiness, the same as in the 
 root and the first fruit. 
 
 The seed embraced in the promise to Abraham, were not 
 " those of the circumcision only, but those who were also of 
 the faith of Abraham." Something more than carnal descent 
 was necessary to constitute them heirs of Abraham's blessing. 
 To be " Abraham's children," they " must do the works of 
 Abraham." 
 
 Rightly to understand this passage, we must take into consi- 
 deration the whole scope of the apostle. He had been obviat- 
 ing an objection, arising from God's having cast off the major 
 part of the Jewish nation, notwithstanding his covenant with 
 Abraham respecting his posterity, showing that merely be- 
 cause the Jews were the descendants of that patriarch, they were 
 not all children in the sense of the promise. God's promising 
 to be the God of Abraham's seed in their generations, did not 
 imply that he would be the God of them a//, but only of an 
 elect seed. Hence it is said, " But in Isaac shall thy seed be 
 called ;" i. e. as the apostle reasons, " they that are the children 
 of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children 
 of the promise are counted for the seed." "The children of the 
 promise" are the pious, which God would call in the succes- 
 sive generations of his posterity, the Isaacs which he would 
 multiply to an indefinite extent. And these were always the 
 objects of his love and care. 
 
 Therefore he had not cast away his true people, although even 
 a majority of the Jews were rejected. " God hath not cast 
 away his people which he foreknew j" says the apostle, "fori: 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 81 
 
 also am Israelite," &c. " The election hath obtained it, and 
 the rest were blinded." 
 
 This interpretation of the promise solves every difficulty re- 
 specting God's dealings with that people. And the view which 
 is here given of the case is only further illustrated and extend- 
 ed in the passage under examination. 
 
 The 16th verse should be taken in connexion with the 7th; 
 for what comes between, is rather a digression, though it 
 pertains, in some degree, to the main subject treated of. The 
 argument then will be this, viz. " The election hath obtained 
 it, and the rest were blinded." The heirs of promise were ex- 
 pressly designed to be a holy people : God said he would u mul- 
 tiply Abraham," i. e. literally and spiritually y the latter was the 
 highest and most important sense ; i. e. he engaged that he would 
 multiply persons of his character as the stars of heaven. 
 Hence for any to be included in the promise as heirs of the fame 
 blessing with him, they must have the same character — they 
 must likewise be holy — not federally or relatively holy, but re- 
 ally holy. " For if theirs* fruit be holy," i. e. if Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob, were truly holy me/*, u the lump is also holy y" 
 i. e. the whole body of the seed included in the promise, is holy 
 too, and that in the same sense y as the whole lump of dough, or 
 the whole harvest was holy in the same sense that the first fruit 
 was. 
 
 Again : And if the root be holy, i. e. if Abraham the father 
 of the Jewish nation be holy, so are the branches, viz. the 
 branches included in the promise — the seed that should be called 
 and blessed with faithful Abraham. It was manifestly intend- 
 ed that the same holiness should descend from generation to ge- 
 neration to give a right to the promise. " Abraham's children" 
 must and " would do the works of Abraham." " If the root 
 be holy, so are the branches, viz. the approved branches— the 
 real heirs y for they were not all Israel which were of Israel ; 
 neither because they were the seed of Abraham were they all 
 children." 
 
 The apostle adds : " And if some of the branches be bro- 
 ken off." " The branches," in this clause, mean not the holy ' 
 branches, but the mere u natural branches" — those that u were 
 of the circumcision only" 
 
 The olive tree, previous to this breaking off of some of the 
 branches, included the nation, all of the posterity of Abra- 
 ham in the line of Isaac and Jacob. God, then, separated one 
 whole nation in distinction from all other nations, to be his peo- 
 ple, and thus connected church and state together ; so that chil - 
 
82 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 dren were then born in the church, because they were born oy 
 the nation which God had thus separated to be his people. 
 
 But he has now placed the same church under a new cove- 
 nant or constitution whereby the sound part is retained, i. e. 
 the believers, and the residue is c?4 off or rejected. The church 
 is no longer perpetuated by natural descent, or in a national ca- 
 pacity as before, but consists of select individuals that are born 
 of the Spirit, or of such as profess and appear to be born of the 
 Spirit. 
 
 Hence the branches that are said to be broken off, are the 
 mere u natural branches" — u children according to the flesh," 
 
 This construction does, indeed, make the apostle speak of 
 two sorts of branches in these two verses. But it is evidently 
 as proper to understand him to speak of two sorts of branches 
 in these connected verses, as to understand him to speak of two 
 kinds of holiness in a single verse, viz. the 1 6th, as the Pedo- 
 baptist interpretation maintains, viz. area/ holiness and a fed- 
 cral holiness. For there were " children of the stock of Abra- 
 ham, who were not of his faith; and such were broken off; 
 while the rest, the believers, remained ; and with those that re- 
 mained, believing Gentiles were graffedin. The church, or the 
 olive tree, under the new constitution, is composed of belie- 
 ving Jews and Gentiles, and of no other. It being no longer 
 national in its character, infants are no longer members by birth, 
 nor are they considered, feder a lly, a holy deed. But the church 
 is a select company, called out of the world 
 
 Some of the branches were broken off, and some remained. 
 Now the question is, viho remained. The Pedobaptists say, be- 
 lievers and their infant children. But where is the proof of 
 this? It is, surely, not contained in this chapter; but the 
 contrary is manifestly implied. The words u because of unbe- 
 lief they were broken off," show that ail unbelievers^ whether 
 old or young, were broken off, and that none but believers 
 were retained. And all mankind are divided into these two 
 classes. Although mere infants cannot be said openly to reject 
 the gospel, they are depraved by nature, and cannot be reckon- 
 ed among the friends of Christ ; but must be included in the 
 class of unbelievers. No one can consistently say they are in- 
 cluded among believers, and that they M stand by faith." 
 
 I do not deny that some of them have the principle of faith, 
 or that they are born of the Spirit, and sanctified, as it were r 
 from the womb. And, consequently, should they die in in- 
 fancy, they are prepared to join the blood-washed throng in 
 heaven. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 83 
 
 Still they are not born into the world with the principle of 
 faith ; otherwise they would not need to be horn again. 
 
 Therefore, merely as infants, or by virtue of their being born 
 of pious parents, they are not members of the household of faith. 
 Consequently, they cannot be considered as standing by birth, 
 in the good olive, seeing that all who lemain therein stand by 
 faith. 
 
 It is evident that, although some infants are sanctified in that 
 early age, (and perhaps all who die before they come to years 
 of understanding,) multitudes are not sanctified, but grow up 
 in sin and unbelief. Therefore it would be highly absurd to 
 consider infants in common, or even the 'infants of believers, as 
 renewed unto holiness. And even those who are renewed 
 cannot give evidence thereof, nor can they undeistandiugly en- 
 joy any church privilege. It is not our province to judge the 
 heart, and hence the incapacity of infants to give a reason of 
 the Christian's hope, forbids their being received as disciples and 
 baptized. So far as the rule for baptism and church fellowship 
 is respected, they must be considered in unbelief. They ac- 
 tually are in unbelief unless born of the Spirit : and such of 
 them as may be born of the Spirit, cannot give us the evidence 
 thereof; and so we have no rule that reaches their case ; but 
 must leave them to the disposal of God. 
 
 The cutting off of the branches, so far as the invisible church 
 is respected, includes all who are unrenewed, of every age : 
 and as the visible church is respected, it includes all who are 
 not visibly and professedly renewed. Some may belong to the 
 former who do not belong to the latter; and some may belong 
 to the latter who do not belong to the former. The rule by 
 which we are to act will neither bring into the visible church 
 of God every true saint, nor exclude every one that is not a 
 true saint. The visible church, like the invisible, is a select 
 society, and there are certain qualifications necessary in those 
 that are received; but these qualifications maybe apparently, 
 yet not really possessed ; and so the church be deceived with 
 regard to some of her members. 
 
 It is no argument that the infants of believers should be reck- 
 oned with the household of faith, and baptized, on the ground 
 that some of them may be born of the Spirit ; because if ad- 
 mitted, it would be equally in favour of the baptism of the in- 
 fants of unbelievers ; for doubtless some of them are born of the 
 Spirit too. And certainly the former are no more capable of 
 manifesting a renewal than the latter. 
 
 Besides, if we were to say that the seed of believers are to 
 be considered really holy till they manifest the contrary by their 
 
34 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 conduct, and so base their union to the olive tree and their bap- 
 tism on this ground, the argument could not apply in favour of 
 household baptism, because it frequently happens that a house- 
 hold contains children who are old enough to be ranked deci- 
 dedly with unbelievers. And such are often baptized, too, up- 
 on the faith of parents. Here is an evident inconsistency : 
 for these children most clearly belong to the class of unbeliev- 
 ers who are cut off. 
 
 To remedy the whole difficulty, will it be said that the faith 
 by which the children stand is merely the faith of the parents, 
 and that the former are acknowledged to be unbelievers ? 
 
 In reply to this I would remark, that in no part of the account 
 given of the good olive is it said that parents stand by faith to- 
 gether with their unbelieving children ; but the privilege is limit- 
 ed to actual believers. " And thou standest by faith." 
 
 But it will be further plead that the apostle speaks of the be- 
 lieving Gentiles partaking of " the root and fatness of the olive 
 tree, by which must be meant the blessings and privileges of 
 the Abraharaick church, and consequently, as circumcision 
 was formerly applied to infants as a token of these blessings, so 
 baptism should be applied to them now. 
 
 This argument implies that baptism is a substitute for circum- 
 cision, which is not the case, as I have already shown. Be- 
 sides, it implies that females were circumcised as well as males, 
 which was not the case. It also implies that the children of 
 Jewish believers were continued in the gospel church, which 
 is taking for granted the very thing in dispute. If those chil- 
 dren were not considered as belonging to the good olive after the 
 breaking off before mentioned, as I have shown, then the root 
 and fatness of the tree, of which believing Gentiles partake, in 
 common with believing Jews, must mean something which both 
 inherit J or themselves, and not for their children, viz. justifica- 
 tion by faith and eternal life. " So then," says the apostle Paul, 
 in another place, " they that are of faith are blessed with faith- 
 ful Abraham." 
 
 I know we meet with the following words in the Abrahamick 
 covenant, viz. " To be a God unto thee and to thy seed af- 
 ter thee." But the seed here is not restricted to his immediate 
 children, as the argument for infant baptism implies; but em- 
 braces his remote posterity also : therefore, if the promise ap- 
 plies to each believing parent in the same sense that it did to 
 him, and baptism is to be administered to his seed on the same 
 principle that circumcision was to Abraham's, then not only his 
 immediate children, but his grand children and great grand chil- 
 dren, yea, all his succeeding posterity, must be baptized on his 
 account, or by virtue of God's covenant with him. And con- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 85 
 
 isequently the church would become completely national. It 
 is very manifest that the right of circumcision to Abraham's 
 seed, however remote, was based not upon the faith of successive 
 parents, but upon their descent from him, and God's order that 
 they should be circumcised in their generations. Therefore, 
 there would be no authority for requiring faith of each succes- 
 sive parent in the line, in order to the baptism of his children, 
 but the right of all would follow from the faith of the first. 
 Certainly, the seed included with Abraham embraced his re- 
 mote as well as immediate children ; although all of each gene- 
 ration were not heirs of his blessing ; but only such as the co- 
 venant should be established with, or such as should be effect- 
 ually called. Yet all the natural seed were to be circumcised. 
 Hence it will be seen, that if we insist that the covenant is es- 
 tablished with each believing parent in the same sense that it 
 was with him, and hence infer the duty of infant baptism, the 
 right to baptism belongs as much to his remote posterity as to 
 his immediate. And if this extent of the right is not maintain- 
 ed, the argument is lost; and Abraham's case must be confess- 
 ed to be peculiar, as it truly was. 
 
 It is abundantly manifest that parents in common do not 
 stand in the same relation to this covenant that Abraham did — 
 not even Jewish parents. God has not made such a promise to 
 each believer respecting his seed after him in their successive 
 generations as he did to that patriarch. His was a peculiar 
 case. He was the honoured father of the Jewish nation, which 
 God, by a free and sovereign act, separated from all other na- 
 tions. God promised not only that he would give him a nume- 
 rous natural posterity, but also a numerous spiritual posterity 
 from among them, and also from the Gentiles. And to this seed, 
 which he would call, by his grace, in their successive genera- 
 tions, he promised to be a God. This, therefore, gives a very 
 different view of the case from that which is presented by lim- 
 iting the term seed, to his immedi ate offspring ; and fully evinces 
 that he stood in a peculiar relation to the covenant made with 
 him, and that ordinary parents were not to be thus distinguish- 
 ed. Others are not fathers of the faithful in the sense that he , 
 was. But all believers, first among the Jews, and then 
 among the Gentiles, are the seed of Abraham, to whom the 
 promise was made, and is sure. Thus, as the apostle asserts, 
 " he was the father of circumcision to them who are not of 
 the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that 
 faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised." He was also the 
 father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcis* 
 
 8. 
 
ii6 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ed, inasmuch as he was the progenitor of Christ, and a consti- 
 tuted pattern of justifying faith. 
 
 But notice here, particularly, that he was not " the father of 
 circumcisi&n" to Gentile believers, as some very improperly 
 state, and hence ground an argument for infant baptism. The 
 Bible says no such thing, as every one, on careful exami- 
 nation, will see. He was simply " the father of all them that 
 believe though they be not circumcised." And this he was in 
 the two respects above named. 
 
 It cannot be made out that each succeeding believing parent 
 takes exactly the place of Abraham, or, in all important re- 
 spects ; and that he is an heir to all respecting his seed which 
 was promised to Abraham respecting bis. God does indeed 
 promise to each believer the blessing of a free justification 
 through faith in Christ, and engages to be his God ; and to 
 enjoy this, is what is intended by partaking of the root and 
 fatness of the olive tree. 
 
 God did undoubtedly promise blessings both temporal and 
 spiritual in this covenant, to Abraham and his seed indefinitely, 
 not only of the first generation, but of the tenth&nd the fortieth, 
 and beyond. He also promised the blessings of salvation to 
 the Gentiles indefinitely, to the end of the world. 
 
 But it will not hence follow, that each believer steps into 
 Abraham's shoes. Isaac and Jacob did, indeed, partly stand in 
 the same relation to their posterity that Abraham did ; yet there 
 was a difference in some respects in their cases. Every thing 
 was not promised to them that was promised to him. And as to 
 ordinary believers, there is a vast difference between their 
 standing and that of Abraham's. They are not Abraham, nor 
 a succession of Abrahams. Instead of being the fathers of the 
 faithful, they are the seed of faithful Abraham. They are all 
 included in the term seed, and therefore cannot stand in rela- 
 tion to the covenant as fathers. Abraham and his seed include 
 the whole. " For if ye be Christ's," says Paul, " then are ye 
 Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," viz. the 
 following : " In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be 
 blessed." Christ was the seed of Abraham, and hence, if we 
 are the children of Christ, we are the seed of Abraham, and 
 heirs of the same justifying righteousness. To be freely justi- 
 fied by faith, is to be heirs according to the promise, or to par- 
 take of the root and fatness of the olive tree. 
 
 It cannot be the meaning of the covenant made with Abra- 
 ham that all believers should partake of every thing promised to 
 him ; for it is certain that they were not all to be the natural 
 progenitors of Christ — that they were not all to have a nume- 
 rous posterity, and that kings were not to come out of them all 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM* 87 
 
 —that they were not all to be the fathers of many nations, and 
 that Gentile believers were not to have the land of Canaan for 
 their inheritance ; but these blessings were all engaged to him. 
 Therefore, partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 
 means something short of enjoying all those things which were 
 pioraised to Abraham. It is restricted to that great blessing of 
 justification and salvation by faith in Jesus tJhrist. 
 
 There will doubtless be a seed born to Christ, and conse- 
 quently to Abraham, in the successive generations of Gentiles 
 as well as Jews ; and so the covenant made with him will be 
 in operation to the end of the world, and be, in fact, what it was 
 termed, an everlasting covenant. 
 
 But while Abraham thus becomes " the father of many na- 
 tions," or " the heir of the world," by means of believers of 
 all nations being justified and blessed in his seed, i. e. in Christ 
 Jesus, it is evident that there were certain blessings promised 
 to him and his natural posterity, irt this covenant, which do not 
 belong to the Gentiles, (though the Gentiles may enjoy others 
 of equal amount,) and hence the covenant, as a whole, and cir- 
 cumcision as its appointed token, were peculiar to the nation of 
 Israel. 
 
 Circumcision, as I have before conclusively shown, was ne- 
 ver intended for the Gentiles, in their separate national capacity, 
 nor has it ever been abolished to the Jews. Some of the pe- 
 culiar blessings contained in this covenant, are yet to be further 
 fulfilled to the natural seed of Abraham, and hence they are 
 bound to continue the use of its seal. And they will, undoubt- 
 edly, continue a separate people, that God may abundantly ful- 
 fil what he promised and sealed to that patriarch. 
 
 But let not us Gentiles complain, neither let us boast. God's 
 peculiar goodness to Abraham's seed formerly, and his intended 
 goodness to them hereafter, ought not to excite our envy or our 
 murmurs : for he has a right to do what he will with his own. 
 Besides, although our lot, in certain respects, is plainly to be 
 distinguished from theirs, he hath dealt bountifully with us also, 
 in respect both of spiritual and temporal blessings. 
 
 As the work of grace was mainly carried on formerly, for' 
 many centuries, among the Jews, and they were first favour- 
 ed with the light of the gospel ; so it has latterly been mainly 
 carried on, for centuries, among the Gentiles. u Bliudness in 
 part, has happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be 
 come in." * 
 
 Moreover, we have a goodly portion of the earth, and abun- 
 dant supplies of temporal good things, although the Lord'has not 
 given us the land of Canaan. And in respect of spiritual pri~ 
 
SS CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 vileges, we stand on a level with the Jews. Yea, our spiritual 
 privileges, at present, are much greater than theirs, though it is 
 their own unbelief which excludes them. The gospel consti- 
 tution was designed, in this respect, to bring both on a level. 
 "Seeing it is one God which justifieth the circumcision by 
 faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." The Jew is not re- 
 commended to God by his circumcision, nor the Gentile by his 
 uncircumcision ; nor is either hindered from coming \o him by 
 his peculiar linea; descent or local condition. All are naturally 
 guilty before God, and must be justified by faith. All need the 
 new birth to enter the kingdom of heaven. " For in (. hrist 
 Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircum- 
 cision ; but a new creature." And " faith, which worketh by 
 love," is the only thing which justifies through the righteous- 
 ness ol our Lord Jesus Christ. " Where is boasting then ? 
 It is excluded. By what law? — of works? Nay, but by 
 the law of faith." 
 
 Here, then, we have a fair and full statement of what is 
 meant by M the root and fatness of the olive tree," and by be- 
 ing u heirs according to the promise." 
 
 The promise ot God is not to each believer and his seed af- 
 ter him,, in their successive generations, in the same extensive 
 and peculiar sense that it was to Abraham and his. For it must 
 be always carefully understood that Uie promise to him respect- 
 ing his seed was not limited to his immediate children, as the ar- 
 gument herefrom for infant baptism implies; but extended to 
 his remote posterity ; and hence it was the order of God that the 
 whole should be circumcised. The nation was, in God's own 
 time and way, to inherit the laud of Canaan, and some in each 
 successive generation were to be called by grace, and so a seed 
 like Abraham be preserved, which ultimately should be as nu- 
 merous as the stars of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore. 
 
 Now, to pretend that God promises all this to ordinary belie- 
 vers, and that each believing parent stands in the same relation 
 to that covenant which Abraham did, is to maintain what there 
 is no foundation for. The argument from the covenant made 
 with him, if it proves any thing, proves too much — vastly too 
 much; and therefore, according to an acknowledged rule of 
 logick, proves nothing. 
 
 It not only implies what is not true of other believers, and 
 what will not be pretended to belong to them, but it proves, so far 
 as it can be brought to bear at all upon the case, that all of a 
 man's posterity should be baptized upon his faith, however re- 
 mote; yea, that the Gentiles should be nationally baptized, as 
 the Jews were nationally circumcised. So that we should havq 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 89 
 
 national churches at once, enclosing, by their very constitution, 
 vast multitudes of unbelievers ; and there would be no longer 
 any distinction between the church and the world. 
 
 The extent, therefore, to which this argument will carry us, 
 shows its inconclusiveness. 
 
 On the whole, it is perfectly plain that Abraham's case was a 
 peculiar one in various respects ; and that God made a peculiar 
 covenant with him. And instead of claiming to stand in his 
 shoes, and of applying to ourselves and our seed all that was 
 promised to him and his, we ought to be satisfied with hav- 
 ing a place among the spiritual seed, and with being heirs, 
 through faith, of the same justification, adoption, and sanctifi- 
 cation, and of the same eternal glory which will be awarded to 
 them, and with the opportunity afforded for our children to 
 hear the same gospel, believe and be saved, and with the gene- 
 ral encouragement which attends the use of means and the ef- 
 fectual fervent prayer of the righteous. S he great and essential 
 blessing, which all sinners need, is common to Jews and Gtntiles ; 
 and to enjoy this is to be blessed with faithful Abraham, or to 
 inherit what is called in another place u the fulness of the bless- 
 big of the gospel of Christ." 
 
 I will now examine I. Corinthians, vii. 14. u For the unbe- 
 lieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving 
 wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children un- 
 clean ; but now are they holy." 
 
 Pedobaptists do not suppose that a real holiness is here attribu* 
 ted to the children of the believing parent ; but a relative or 
 federal holiness, which sort of holiness, to say the least, is very 
 difficult to be described. 
 
 But whatever it be, it belongs as much to the unbelieving pa- 
 rent as to the children. For it is said that " the unbelieving 
 husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
 sanctified by the husband." And to be •* sanctified" is to be 
 made holy. Here, therefore, is a holiness positively ascribed to 
 the unbelieving parent as well as to the children. Conse- 
 quently, if the latter are ta be baptized because they are 
 holy, the former must be baptized likewise, because he is' 
 sauctified. The argument is just as good for the baptism of 
 the unbelieving partner for the sake of the believing as for the 
 baptism of the unbelieving children. The right of the children to 
 thisordinauce is based upon the holiness which is here attribut- 
 ed to them. Who, therefore, can avoid seeing that the sancli- 
 fication attributed to the unbelieving parent gives him an e'qual 
 light thereto ? 
 
 It is argued that the children here are called holy, thoud 
 
 8* 
 
90 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 but one of the parents be a believer, in the same sense that the 
 children of the Jews were, and to illustrate the subject, refer- 
 ence is had to Ezra, ix. 2 : " For they have taken of their 
 daughters for themselves, and for their sons : so that the holy 
 seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands." 
 But it will be readily seen that the terms, u holy seed," 
 are here applied to adults — to such as were capable of marriage 
 — to fathers and sons together, which furnishes proof, among 
 many other passages, that seed means posterity, aud is here ap- 
 plied tathe posterity of Abraham, including adults as well as in- 
 fants. But while thtf passage does not meet the case, I admit 
 that the nation, including parents and children, is called a holy 
 nation ; because God had severed it from all others to be his 
 people, and had promised to preserve a truly holy seed among 
 it ; and because he had taken it, collectively, into covenant 
 with him at Sinai, which covenant, being conditional and not 
 absolute, was made with all the people, both, great and small, 
 and was transmitted to. generations then unborn. - Such of the 
 congregation as. were capable of acting, promised to obey it, and 
 the rest were bound by God's order to obey it when they became 
 capable. This, though founded, as well aa the Abrahamickc 
 on the covenant of grace, was distinct therefrom, as I shall have 
 occasion hereafter more fully to show. 
 
 That people, therefore, as a body, were called holy, either 
 because of their separation from other nations, or because 0$ 
 their having nationally entered into the covenant at Sinai, or 
 because of God's having always a remnant, at least, among 
 them that were truly holy ; or for all these reasons together. 
 And the children being a part of the nation, were considered, 
 in a sense, holy, together with their parents, though they were 5> 
 by nature, wholly depraved. 
 
 But agreeably to the prediction of the prophets, Jeremiah 
 and Zachariah, God has "broken the covenant which he made 
 with all the people," viz*, the Sinai covenant, and introduced 
 M a new covenant," which is made with only a part of them — 
 (i the remnant" which he has called, and will call by his grace. 
 And together with the breaking of this covenant, the whole of 
 the Mosaick ritual is disannulled, and the partition wall be- 
 tween Jews and Gentiles is broken, down. Consequently 
 the former relative national holiness of the Jews has ceased. 
 No man is henceforth to be called common or unclean, as the 
 J^ord expressly showed in Peter's vision of the " great sheet let 
 down from heaven," enclosing "all manner of four footed beasts 
 and creeping things, and fowls of the air," The notion that, 
 there is now ^relative, or federal holiness in the children of the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. . 91 
 
 believer, is without foundation ; and hence the argument Built 
 thereon is lost. 
 
 The true sense of this passage appears to be the following., 
 viz. Inasmuch as it was unlawful for the Jews to- marry wives 
 from among other nations, and as those who had done so were 
 expressly required, after the return from the Babylonish captiv- 
 ity, to put them away, together with the children that were 
 born of them, as being an illegal progeny ; this circumstance, 
 probably, induced a doubt among the Corinthians, or some part 
 of them, whether it were lawful for believers to continue in 
 marriage with their heathenish companions ; and they had, pro- 
 bably, proposed this matter to Paul in a letter, as a case of 
 conscience. Whereupon he decides, in case the unbelieving 
 partner chose to remain with the believing, that no separation 
 ought to take place The circumstance that one was a believer 
 and the other not, did not, by any means, nullify the marriage 
 covenant into which they had entered, or render it unlawful to 
 continue it. The case, though it might seem to resemble that 
 mentioned by Ezra, was not to be disposed of as that was, see- 
 ing the Gentiles were never under the ceremonial law, and see- 
 ing that law was now abolished to the Jews themselves. And 
 to make the case plain, and to render the lawfulness of the par- 
 ties continuing to cohabit manifest, he says, u the unbelieving 
 husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
 sanctified by the husband ; else were your children unclean ; 
 but now are they holy" — i. e the believing party's connexion 
 with the unbelieving, was pure and lawful, and consequently 
 the children were clean i whereas, if it were not lawful, they 
 would be illegitimate. 
 
 The unbeliever was sanctified to the use of the believer. 
 As it is written, " to the pure, all things are pure ;" and " every 
 creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused ; for it is 
 sanctified by the word of God and prayer." All those things 
 which God hath created, and all those institutions which he 
 hath appointed for man's benefit, are lawful, pure, and sancti- 
 fied to Christians. Among these institutions, marriage holds a 
 conspicuous place. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by 
 the wife, or is continued in the married state without defilement 
 or impropriety ; and vice versa. 
 
 This sanctification rather relates to the continuance of the 
 married relation under the circumstances stated, than to the 
 formation of it in the first place. There is nothing said which 
 implies that the marriage, at first, was illegal, and that people 
 cannot be legally married unless at least one of the parties is a 
 believer — nothing which implies that the children of parents. 
 
92 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 who are both unbelievers are bastards. The lawfulness of the 
 connexion, at first, is plainly admitted ; nobody appears to have 
 questioned it. The doubt which arose related to the continu- 
 ance of the marriage connexion after one of the parties became 
 a believer, and the other remained a heathen ; and the law- 
 fulness of its continuance is what the apostle intends to assert. 
 " Else," says he, or otherwise, u your children were unclean ; 
 but now are they holy." That is, if the continuance of mar- 
 riage under such circumstances were not pure and lawful, your 
 children would be impure, or illegitimate : but, as the case 
 actually is, they are pure and lawfully begotten. The connexion 
 of the parents being pure, the children are pure of course. 
 " Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled ;" and 
 this continues to be the case, though one of the parties has 
 embraced the gospel, and the other continues in heathenism, or 
 unbelief. 
 
 The Greek word " agioi," here evidently means the opposite 
 of unclean, i. e. clean Dr. M 'Knight, in his critical exposition 
 of the epistles, says that M agios" primarily signifies " that 
 which is clean, or free from defilement;" and, as evidence of 
 this, refers to Deut. xxiii. 11 : u i herefore shall thy camp be 
 holy, that he see no unclean thing." And M egiastai," he says, 
 means u cleansed from those defilements which render a thing 
 unfit for sacred use," or, " fitted for a particular use." If these 
 definitions are correct, (and no one will question that the doctor 
 was a great scholar,) the above construction is perfectly fair 
 and natural. The apostle does not mean that the children in 
 question are saints, as some render " agioi," or that they are 
 holy in the sense that the children of God are, or that professing 
 Christians are so denominated : but he uses the word in the 
 primary sense, to denote " that which is clean, or fee from 
 defilement," and means, merely, that the children are civilly 
 clean ; not spurious, but born of lawful marriage, according to 
 God's holy ordinance. The holiness thus attributed to the 
 children, answers precisely to the sanctification attributed to the 
 unbelieving partner ; and this can, certainly, mean no more 
 than that he is sanctified to the use of the believing, or that the 
 connexion in marriage is pure and lawful. 
 
 It should be particularly observed, that the children are not 
 said to be holy because the believing parent is sanctified ; but 
 because the unbelieving is. This circumstance decidedly favours 
 the above interpretation. The sanctification of the unbeliever 
 can be understood only in a civil, or legal sense. Consequently, 
 that holiness which flows from it, or is consequent upon it, can 
 only be understood in the same sense, so that the passage in - 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 93" 
 
 terprets itself. It does not give the most distant support to the 5 
 practice of infant baptism. 
 
 Besides ; the argument from this passage for that practice 
 may be overthrown on another ground, viz. if it have any 
 force, it will prove altogether too much : for it would unavoid- 
 ably lead to infant communion. If the children of the believer 
 are to be baptized because they are holy in the ecclesiastical 
 sense — because they belong to the holy congregation of the 
 Lord — they should also be brought to the Lord's supper, as the 
 children of the Jews were to the passover. It is palpably in- 
 consistent to baptize them upon the principle that they are 
 holy, and then reject them from the supper as unclean. It is 
 easy to see that the argument, if it proves any thing, proves too 
 much ; and therefore proves nothing, 
 
 I have now examined the principal select passages employed 
 on the side of Pedobaptism ; and there are no others of any 
 material weight. When the arguments from these are fairly 
 refuted, it would be unavailing to bring forward any others ; 
 and I think I may confidently say, they are fairly refuted. 
 This closes the examination of what is contained in the New 
 Testament in relation to the subject. 
 
 Hence, if we lay aside the prejudice of education, and sub- 
 mit to the plain decisions of inspiration, we must admit that 
 the doctrine of infant baptism is not contained in any part of 
 the New Testament records. There is neither precept nor ex- 
 ample for it, nor any thing else which fairly and necessarily 
 implies it. 
 
 I have carefully examined the commission for baptism, the 
 history of the institution, and the practice of the apostles; the 
 constitution of the primitive churches ; and all the select pas- 
 sages which are of any material consequence in the case ; and I 
 now deliberately and fearlessly assert, that there is no warrant 
 for the practice any where to be found. 
 
 Indeed, our Pedobaptist brethren are forced to confess that it 
 is no where to be found expressly, or in so many words. But 
 they infer it from certain statements and principles ; and even 
 from the silence of the New Testament Scriptures upon the , 
 subject, strange as it may seem. 
 
 But I have shown that we, not only, have no explicit war- 
 rant for the practice, (the very warrant required in a positive 
 institution,) but that there is no solid inferential proof in the 
 New Testament in its favour. On the other hand, every thing 
 is against it. The premises cannot be furnished from any part 
 of the New Testament, from which the conclusion can be fair- 
 ly and necessarily drawn that infants were, or should be bap- 
 
91 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tized. The more this part of the word of God is searched: 
 with the temper which becomes Christians, the more apparent 
 it will be that the ordinance of baptism is limited to believers. 
 
 I doubt not that many have believed and still believe the 
 contrary, who are sincerely devoted to Christ. At the same 
 time I must say, as a reasonable and dying man, that I do not 
 believe that the Saviour or his apostles taught any such thing. 
 No man can put his finger upon the passage that teaches it. 
 
 It would seem to me that enough has been said to convince 
 every impartial inquirer that the gospel does not teach this 
 doctrine. 
 
 But if it were true, is not the New Testament manifestly 
 the place to look for it ? Where should we expect to find a 
 New Testament ordinance, but in the .New Testament records ? 
 Where else should we expect to find instructions how to attend 
 upon, and to whom to apply a New Testament institution — a 
 positive law, resting solely on the will of Jesus ? Surely it 
 must be obvious to every sober, enlightened mind, that this is 
 the place to learn his pleasure upon the subject ; and yet we 
 find nothing but a warrant to baptize believers. We must, 
 therefore, conclude from this entire omission of the right of 
 infants, that he did not intend the ordinance for them. For to 
 infer a thing to be our duty merely because the New Testa- 
 ment is entirely silent about it, is the grossest inconsistency. 
 The principle would lead to very shocking consequences. 
 
 I know it will be said that the principle upon which this 
 practice rests was previously settled ; and, therefore, no new 
 instructions were needed ; and, hence, the silence of the Saviour 
 and his apostles is rather an argument in its favour. 
 
 Why do not our brethren argue thus in a similar case, viz : 
 that of the Lord's Supper, and say the principle upon which 
 infant communion rests was previously settled in the appoint- 
 ment of the passover ; and, therefore, no new instructions were 
 needed ; and, hence, that the entire silence ol the New Testa- 
 ment respecting their right to it, is rather an argument in sup- 
 port of it than against it. 
 
 But, in this case, the defect of such reasoning would be 
 easily seen. And if men would but open their eyes, it would 
 be seen also in the other case. 
 
 But, as unnatural as it is, to leave the New Testament and 
 repair to the Old to learn the nature and extent of a New 
 Testament positive law, I intend to examine thai also, with a 
 view still further to bring out the truth, and to take up the 
 stumbling blocks which men, and not the scriptures, have 
 thrown in the way. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 95 
 
 Bat, before we enter upon the examination of that part of 
 the word of God, let me exhort you to ponder well on what has 
 been already advanced. Give the arguments their due weight. 
 If it be a fact, as I have shown, that the New Testament does 
 not teach the doctrine of infant baptism, but simply the baptism 
 of believers, let this truth be realized, and let it have its due 
 weight in relation to the whole subject, and no more. 
 
 Here inquire, as sober, honest, reasonable men, whether such 
 an important concern would have been altogether omitted in 
 every part of the New Testament records, if it had been the 
 pleasure of Christ that infants should be baptized. Inquire 
 whether it be reasonable to maintain the doctrine, because God 
 once made a peculiar covenant with Abraham and ordered that 
 his males should be circumcised in their generations, when we 
 are no where told that baptism has come in the place of circum- 
 cision, or that circumcision was ever abolished to the natural 
 seed of Abraham ; when the apostles were perfectly silent 
 upon this subject, under circumstances which imperiously de- 
 manded the disclosure of the fact that baptism had succeeded 
 to circumcision, if it were indeed true, as when some were 
 making powerful efforts to impose circumcision and the Mosa- 
 ick rites on the Gentiles, and the apostles and elders, with the 
 whole church of Jerusalem, were convened to consider of the 
 matter. Inquire whether it be reasonable to suppose, after all 
 which Christ had said about the nature of the gospel kingdom, 
 and the importance of adhering strictly to his instructions ; and 
 after all the particularity which he observed in other matters, 
 that he would have left this concern entirely out, if it had been 
 his pleasure that infants should be baptized. Judge whether 
 this entire silence, under all the circumstances, amounts to a 
 warrant for the baptism of infants, or whether it amounts to a 
 plain prohibition. 
 
 I do not say these things to prejudice you against any light 
 which may yet be reflected upon the subject, but to prepare 
 you to judge of things as they are. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTiSM. 97 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 The Nature of Positive Institutions illustrated and established. 
 
 The main argument for the baptism of infants being founded 
 on the covenant which God made with Abraham, and professed- 
 ly exhibiting no other kind of proof than that which is derived 
 from inference and analogy, it becomes a question of very seri- 
 ous importance, whether inferential proof is admissible in the 
 case of a positive institution ; whether we are under the neces- 
 sity, or are at liberty to infer our duty in regard to one positive 
 institution, from the duty enjoined in another. 
 
 This, then, is a proper place to examine the nature of posi- 
 tive institutions. 
 
 There is manifestly a material difference between moral pre- 
 cepts and those which are positive. A few testimonies from 
 -eminent Pedobaptist authors may be here pertinently introduc- 
 ed. I shall insert them as they are quoted in Rev. Mr. Frey's 
 Essays on Baptism. Bishop Butler says : " Moral precepts are 
 precepts, the reason of which we see ; positive precepts are 
 precepts, the reason of which we do not see. Moral duties 
 arise out of the nature of the case itself, prior to external com- 
 mand ; positive duties do not arise out of the nature of the case, 
 but from external command ; nor would they be duties at all, 
 were it nol^for such command, received from him whose crea- 
 tures and subjects we are." 
 
 President Edwards says : " Positive precepts are the greatest 
 and most proper trial of our obedience ; because in them the 
 mere authority and will of the legislator is the sole ground of the 
 obligation, and nothing in the nature of the things themselves ; 
 and, therefore, they are the greatest trial of any person's respect 
 to that authority and will." 
 
 And Dr. Sherlock says : " What is matter of institution de- 
 pends wholly upon the divine will and pleasure ; and though 
 all men will grant that God and Christ have great reason for 
 their institutions, yet it is not the reason, but the authority which 
 makes the institution. Though we do not understand the rea- 
 sons of the institution, if we have the command we must obev ; 
 
 9 
 
98 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 and though we could fancy a great many reasons why there 
 should be such an institution, if no such institution appear, we 
 are free, and ought not to believe there is such an institution be- 
 cause we think there are reasons assigned why it should be." 
 
 The distinction noted by these authors between moral and 
 positive precepts, is manifestly correct and important. It is plain 
 to every observing mind. Therefore, from the very nature of 
 positive institutions, the aforesaid questions must be answered 
 in the negative. Inference and analogy, though allowed in the 
 case of a moral duty, are not in the case of a positive law. For 
 the very nature of a positive law implies that it is not based 
 upon any previous fitness in the thing itself, but solely on the 
 pleasure of the lawgiver. Heuce this pleasure must be signi- 
 fied in the law itself. And we have no right to supply any de- 
 ficiency which we may think we discover, by comparing it 
 with a previous positive institution, and reasoning therefrom ; 
 but we are expressly limited in our interpretation to the law 
 itself. The very enactment itself must contain the rule of duty. 
 
 This principle is the one which all Protestants proceed upon 
 when contending with the Roman Catholicks, in regard to 
 their peculiar rites and prerogatives. They very justly and for- 
 cibly plead, that nothing short of " an explicit grant, a positive 
 command, or a plain example in the New Testament, can prove 
 their divine origin. 
 
 The Non-Conformists also proceed upon the same principle 
 in their controversy with the Episcopalians in regard to the pe- 
 culiar claims of their Bishops, and the peculiar usages of their 
 church. They say, u produce your warrant for this, that, and 
 the other, from our only rule of faith and practice — a divine pre- 
 cept, or an apostolick example, relating to the point in dispute." 
 "Now, if this ground, which is taken with Papists and Epis- 
 copalians, be correct and scriptural, it ought to be taken with 
 Pedobaptists. Why should they, themselves, takfc it in the 
 other cases, and abandon it in this ? vSurely, we have as good 
 a right to demand a divine precept, or &n apostolick example, 
 for infant baptism, as Protestants in general, and Non-Con- 
 formists in particular, have to demand the one or the other, of 
 the Papists and Episcopalians, for their peculiar opinions and 
 practices. We do but take the very ground occupied by them 
 when we insist that the warrant for infant baptism, if it be a 
 dutv, must be contained in the institution for baptism, as deli- 
 vered by Christ and his apostles, or in some plain apostolick 
 example. In the controversy with the abovementioned orders, 
 all can see the inconsistency and danger of reasoning by way 
 of inference and analogy in regard to the subject of positive in- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 99 
 
 stitutions ; and yet the Pedobaptists build the whole super- 
 structure of infant baptism upon this very kind of reasoning. 
 They have confessedly nothing better. It is evident, there- 
 fore, that they are inconsistent with themselves. 
 
 In the one case, they unquestionably reason correctly, but 
 in the other incorrectly ; and here lies the inconsistency com- 
 plained of. Let the principles adopted and acted upon in rela- 
 tion to positive institutions in the abovementioned cases, be 
 adopted and acted upon in this ; and the plea that we have a 
 divine warraut for infant baptism would be for ever abandon- 
 ed. We should no longer be referred to the Abrahamick cove- 
 nant and circumcision for the due interpretation of our Saviour's 
 command for Christian baptism, but be limited by the command 
 itself, which, as I have abundantly shown, contains merely a 
 warrant tor the baptism of believers. 
 
 I might, therefore, justly set aside all which can be inferred 
 from the Abrahamick covenant, and the practice of circumcis- 
 ion, or from any thing else pertaining to the Old Testament 
 economy, as not being the kind of proof required in the pre- 
 sent controversy ; baptism being a positive institution of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 And in doing this, I should not only take good and reasona- 
 ble ground in itself, but I should take the very ground which Pe- 
 dobaptists themselves take in defending the Protestant princi- 
 ples in general against the claims of Roman Catholicks, and the 
 principles of Dissenters in particular against the claims of Epis- 
 copalians. 
 
 But as my object is to enlighten as far as possible, I will meet 
 the aforesaid argument for infant baptism on other ground, i. e. 
 I shall show, that provided the kind of proof which is plead 
 for and attempted to be introduced by Pedobaptists in relation 
 to this controversy were admitted to be sufficient, it does not ex- 
 ist. There are no premises, or data, contained in the Abraha- 
 mick covenant, or in any part of the Old Testament scrip- 
 tures, from which the right of infants to baptism can be fairly 
 and conclusively inferred; or be made out upon the strict princi- 
 ples of analogy. , 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 10 1 
 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 The Abrahamick covenant, though a gracious covenant, or a dis- 
 pensation of the covenant of grace, yet shown to be distinct 
 from the covenant of grace itself. 
 
 It is generally maintained by Pedobaptists, that the covenant 
 which God made with Abraham, and ratified by circumcision, 
 was the « ovenant of grace. But on careful examination, this 
 notion will be found to be incorrect. 
 
 It may be properly termed a covenant of grace, or a dispen- 
 sation of the covenant of grace, but not the covenant of grace 
 itself. 
 
 When we speak properly of the covenant of grace, we are 
 restricted by the phrase to one definite engagement or transaction, 
 containing the method of salvation by grace through a Media- 
 tor in contradistinction to the covenant of works. The definite 
 article which is prefixed, limits the idea to one and the same co- 
 venant. 
 
 But when we speak of a covenant of grace, we are referred 
 to one gracious engagement, or stipulation, in distinction from 
 certain other engagements equally founded in grace. The in- 
 definite article which is prefixed, implies that there are more co- 
 venants of grace than one, or that God has entered into various 
 distinct engagements with men in their fallen state, or with 
 some portion of them, which engagements, from the very 
 nature of the case, must be wholly of grace or unmerited fa- 
 vour. 
 
 And when we speak of a dispensation of the covenant of ' 
 grace, the definite and proper meaning is a particular mode or 
 method of dispensing the blessings of that covenant. This 
 manner of expression also implies that there are different modes 
 of dispensing the blessings of this covenant, all tending to the 
 same great and glorious result. 
 
 These distinctions are of high importance. 
 
 If God has, in fact, entered into various distinct covenants of 
 grace with men, or that there have been various modes or wavs 
 
 9* 
 
102 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 of dispensing the blessings of the covenant of grace adopted, 
 it ought to be distinctly observed. All these covenants, or dis- 
 pensations, are based upon the one proper covenant of grace ; 
 yet they have distinctive characteristicks, and ought not to be 
 confounded either with one another, or with that original 
 covenant on which they are all based. 
 
 It is upon the principle now stated that I call the covenant 
 made with Abraham a covenant of grace, or a dispensation of 
 the covenant of grace ; but not the covenant of grace itself. If 
 this distinction can be sustained, it will reflect great light 
 upon the present question — yea, it will be a key to the whole 
 subject. 
 
 While the Pedobaptists insist that the covenant of which cir- 
 cumcision was the appointed token was the covenant of grace, 
 the Baptists insist that it was not; but merely a covenant of pro- 
 perty — a temporal covenant, or a covenant of works. At the 
 same time they admit that the covenant of grace was also made 
 with Abraham, but hold that it was altogether distinct from 
 the covenant of circumcision. Herein they manifestly err. 
 
 For it is capable of the clearest proof, that God made but one 
 covenant with that patriarch, although it was exhibited, more 
 or less clearly,, at different times, or by distinct parts ; and al- 
 though it contained both temporal and spiritual blessings, which 
 covenant was finally sealed or ratified by circumcision. 
 
 God indeed said, " My covenant shall be in your flesh j" 
 yet it is evident that it was not a covenant by itself, but it was 
 a token of the covenant. It could not be both the covenant and 
 the token, because this would be making it a token of itself, 
 i. e. a token of a token,, which would be perfect nonsense. 
 
 Much, it is conceived, is lost to the cause of believers' bap- 
 tism, by an attempt to make out that two distinct covenants 
 were made with Abraham, and that circumcision was not a seal 
 of what is termed the spiritual covenant, but only of what is 
 termed the carnal or temporal ; because the notion is so evi- 
 dently contrary to fact 
 
 Whatever the transaction with Abraham implied, it is mani- 
 fest that God made but one covenant with him — that all the pro- 
 mises made at different times prior to- the date of the transaction 
 recorded in the xvii. chapter of Genesis, were then condensed 
 and put into the form of a covenant, and solemnly confirmed by 
 the rite of circumcision. 
 
 Nevertheless, we shall find, on examination, that this was 
 neither a mere temporal or carnal covenant, or a covenant of 
 works, nor the covenant of grace itself, but simply a peculiar gra- 
 inus covenant founded on that covenant, or a mere dispensatio? 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 10^ 
 
 of the covenant of grace, which might afterwards be varied, and 
 another dispensation, or other dispensations thereof, might ensue. 
 
 To determine the justness of this distinction, it will be ne- 
 cessary to obtain a correct definition of the covenant of grace. 
 
 The ideas of many appear to be loose and indistinct upon this 
 subject. They are accustomed to speak ot the covenant of 
 grace, as though it were one definite engagement, and yet make 
 it mean one thing at one time, and another at another. This is 
 evidently not a proper manner of treating the subject. 
 
 We ought to fix upon some one definite transaction, engage- 
 ment, or promise, as being that covenant ; and then, when we 
 talk of the covenant ol grace, constantly refer thereto. 
 
 The covenant of grace will be found, upon due examination, 
 to be the same as the covenant of redemption, of which Presi- 
 dent Dwight gives, in his System of Theology, the following 
 definition, viz. u God the Father entered into a covenant with 
 Christ, in which he promised him, on condition that he should 
 become a propitiation and intercessor for sinners, as a reward of 
 his labours and sufferings, the future possession of a church, 
 which, under his government, should be glorious and happy for 
 ever." This definition, with one addition, viz. that the sub- 
 jects respected in this covenant should become interested there- 
 in by faith, is a very proper definition of the covenant of grace. 
 Dr. Hopkins, in his System of Divinity, allows that " the cove- 
 nant of grace, in the highest sense, is the same as the covenant 
 of redemption," though he undertakes to distinguish it there- 
 from, and to make out that it is made directly with men them- 
 selves in time. This is plainly making it a different thing from 
 itself, which is absurd. Two covenants cannot be the same, and 
 yet distinct. Indeed two or more covenants may be similar in 
 certain respects, but they cannot be different covenants at diffe- 
 rent periods, or under different circumstances, and yet the same 
 covenant. The covenants which God has made with men in 
 their fallen state, are similar in certain respects to the covenant 
 made with Christ before the foundation of the world, yet they 
 are manifestly distinct: for one of the parties is distinct in 
 the one case from what it is in the other. To make a covenant 
 with Christ respecting men, is obviously a different thing from 
 making one directly with men themselves. We cannot, there- 
 fore, with consistency, make a distinction between the cove- 
 nant of grace and the covenant of redemption, and yet say that 
 the former is the same as the latter in its highest sense. If the 
 covenant of grace, in its highest sense, be the same as the cove- 
 nant of redemption, then we ought ever to consider it the same. 
 
104 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 and to regard the covenants made with us as only dispensations 
 thereof, or as gracious covenants founded thereon. 
 
 The Presbyterian Confession of Faith allows the sameness 
 of the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption, though 
 many Presbyterians distinguish between them. 
 
 Now, it is evidently of great importance to determine whe- 
 ther these covenants are the same or not ; for the one or the 
 other must be the fact. They cannot be the same and yet dis* 
 tinct ; though they may be distinct, and yet similar in certain 
 respects, but not in all. 
 
 If these covenants be the same, then it will follow that the 
 covenant of grace was not made with Abraham or with any other 
 man, or with men collectively, but with Christ as the Redeem- 
 er and Representative of his elect people in the ages of eterni- 
 ty, and consisted in the promise of the Father to give him a 
 seed from among men, which should in due time be effectually 
 called, justified by faith, and glorified. The scriptures abun- 
 dantly teach that there was such a compact, or engagement, be- 
 tween the Father and the Son, before the world began. And if 
 this be the covenant of grace in the true and proper sense, then 
 the several promises which God has at different times made to 
 men, or the different engagements which he has entered into 
 with them, or any individual or body of them, are only dispen- 
 sations of this covenant, or covenants of grace founded thereon, 
 and tending to the same glorious end. It would not be proper 
 to call either the covenant of grace, because by this appellation, 
 a different transaction is referred to — one that took place before 
 men existed. 
 
 It is perfectly manifest that God has made various covenants 
 with men in their fallen state, or with some individual, or por- 
 tion of them ; and these, from the very nature of the case, must 
 be gracious covenants, whether they contain temporal or spirit- 
 ual blessings, or both. He cannot treat favourably with sinners 
 upon any other footing than that of grace. Yet ihese all have 
 distinctive marks, and are as capable of being distinguished 
 from the covenant of grace itself as any one deed whatever is 
 capaple of being distinguished from another. 
 
 Should we disallow the sameness or identity of the covenant 
 of grace and the covenant of redemption, and say that the 
 former was not made with Chiist, but with men themselves, or 
 with some individual, or portion of mankind, we shall be involv- 
 ed in difficulty in regard to fixing upon the proper instrument and 
 giving it ^proper definition. 
 
 If we say that the covenant of grace is the general promise of 
 salvation to mankind upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ, it 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 105 
 
 may be objected that this promise contains nothing in itself to 
 secure the existence of faith and salvation, to any extent, and 
 consequently, nothing to ensure the continuance of the church. 
 Whereas the covenant of grace being the foundation of the 
 church, must naturally be supposed to contain effectual provis- 
 ion for her continuance and ultimate triumph. But every one 
 can see that a merely conditional promise, or covenant, does not 
 contain this provision. 
 
 Besides, so far as any argument can be drawn from this view 
 of the covenant for the baptism of the children of believers, it is 
 equally in favour of the baptism of the children of unbelievers ; 
 yea, of all classes of sinners, whatever be their age or charac- 
 ter ; for this conditional promise is equally to them all. Christ 
 hath tasted death for every man ; and he that believeth and is 
 baptized shall be saved ; yea, it is said, ll Whosoever shall call 
 on the name of the Lord shall be saved ;" and " whosoever 
 will, let him come, and take of the water of life freely." It 
 would be absurd to limit baptism, as based upon this covenant- 
 as now exhibited, to the children of believers, when the chil- 
 dren of unbelievers, yea, all unbelievers whatever, have the same 
 conditional promise of salvation made to them. 
 
 Many of those who consider the covenant of grace distinct 
 from that of redemption, regard it as merely conditional. The 
 proper definition of it, then, would be the promise of God to 
 save sinners through faith in Christ. Here,, therefore, is noth r 
 ing peculiar to one class of children, or to one class of adult 
 sinners. Whoever believes shall be saved. Hence the argu- 
 ment for infant baptism would be equally an argument for indis- 
 criminate baptism. And for aught the covenant contains, sin- 
 ners may, with one consent, reject the gospel, and the church 
 run out. 
 
 And, if we should extend the promise so as to make it abso^ 
 lute as it respects the children of believers., or some of them, 
 on condition of parental faithfulness, it will be seen that it doe* 
 not secure this faithfulness, and so the blessing may not descend. 
 Or if one parent is faithful, and consequently inherits the bless- 
 ing for his immediate seed, they may not be faithful in their 
 turn, and. so the succession of pious men may be broken. Those 
 who hold that there is a promise to parents respecting their 
 children, consider it a different thing to possess faith so as to 
 secure one's own salvation, from what it is to maintain that 
 faithfulness towards children which will secure the transmis- 
 sion of the blessing to them. So that the covenant, even as 
 now construed and extended, will not guaranty the continued ex* 
 
106 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 istence of a seed of believers on earth. For this, upon this plan? 
 we must look somewhere else than to the covenant of grace- 
 
 If we reject this conditional view of the covenant of grace, 
 and say that it contains an absolute promise that those whom it 
 respects shall become believers and inherit salvation, maintain- 
 ing, at the same time, that it is distinct from the covenant of 
 redemption, and made with men, or with some one, or more, of 
 mankind; then, it may be asked, with whom was it made ? 
 and where shall we rind it in this simple form ? Was it first 
 made with Abraham ? or did it exist before ? If it was not made 
 before the engagement with Abraham, then how were those 
 saved that existed previously ? They could not have been sav- 
 ed by the covenant of grace, or by virtue of its piovisions be- 
 fore it existed Besides, it is absurd to suppose the world con- 
 tinued for about two thousand years, as it must have done, on 
 this supposition, without any covenant of grace being entered, 
 into. 
 
 If, then, this covenant was made before the time of Abra- 
 ham, the question returns, with whom ? Was it made with 
 Adam, or with him and Eve together, directly after the fall ? 
 Then it was manifestly a distinct thing from the covenant made 
 with Abraham, though there was a similarity in one important 
 respect. Tiie promise to our first parents is in these words, in- 
 cluded in the sentence prouounced upon Satan : " And I will 
 put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed 
 and her seed : it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise 
 his heel." This passage contains the promise of a Saviour, 
 and an implied promise of a pious seed ; and the whole is put 
 in an absolute form ; but it does not determine from what 
 branch of Adam's family this Saviour should come, nor in what 
 particular line the pious seed should be called. And the cove- 
 nant as here made contains but these two items. 
 
 But on examination, the covenant with Abraham will be 
 found to contain several additional articles and peculiarities. 
 This is recorded Genesis, xvii. 1—14. " And when Abram 
 was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared unto Abram 
 and said, I am the Almighty God ; walk before me, and be thou 
 perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, 
 and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his 
 face, and God talked with him, saying : as for me, behold, my 
 covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many na- 
 tions. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but 
 thy name shall be called Abraham ; for a father of many na- 
 tions have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruit- 
 ful 3 and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 107 
 
 of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and 
 thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an ever- 
 lasting covenant ; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after 
 thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, all 
 the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be 
 their God. And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my 
 covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their gene- 
 rations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between 
 me and you, and thy seed after thee ; every man child among 
 you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh 
 of your foreskin ; and it shall b<* a token of the covenant be- 
 twixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be cir- 
 cumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he 
 that is born in the house, and he that is bought with money of 
 any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy 
 house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be 
 circumcised. And my covenant shall be iu your flesh for an 
 everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose 
 flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut 
 off from his people ; he hath broken my covenant." 
 
 The peculiarities of this covenant, diS here expressed, and pre- 
 viously, are the following, viz. 
 
 1 . A promise that the Messiah should be born of Abraham's 
 seed. " Thou shalt be a father of many nations." " In thy 
 seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Here was 
 something in addition to what was promised in the before-cited 
 covenant with our first parents, viz that the Messiah who was 
 to come should be a descendant of Abraham. Had he descend- 
 ed from Lot, or Abimelech, it would have beer* a fulfilment of 
 the promise to our first parents, but it would not have been a 
 fulfilment of the promise to Abraham. Here, therefore, was 
 obviously something peculiar. And this promise that Christ 
 should be Abraham's seed was a prominent item of this cove- 
 nant. 
 
 2. God promised in this covenant that Abraham should be 
 " multiplied exceedingly," which is doubtless to be taken in a 
 twofold sense, literally and spiritually— i. e. he should become 
 a great and mighty nation in the primary and literal sense of the 
 word — yea, the actual father of many nations ; and also that 
 there should be a vast multitude of believers like himself called 
 from among his natural posterity, and from among the Gentiles. 
 There was also something peculiar and very prominent in this 
 item. The foregoing promise to our first parents did indeed im- 
 ply the continuance of a pious seed among men, which would 
 ultimately be numerous. But it did not engage a numerous seed 
 
108 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 to Abraham, and likewise a multitude of pious descendants. 
 That covenant might have been fulfilled, provided Abraham had 
 had no more seed than common — yea, though he had died child- 
 less. But in that case, the covenant under consideration would 
 not have been fulfilled. In order for this to be carried into effect, 
 he himself must have a numerous seed, and multitudes of them 
 must be converted and saved ; and in order to this, not only 
 Ishmael must be born of Hagar, but Isaac must be born of 
 Sarah, after she was past age, which was a real miracle. God 
 not only did not promise this in the covenant with our first pa- 
 rents, but he does not promise it to ordinary believers. 
 
 3. God promised to Abraham that " kings should come out 
 of him," which all must see was a peculiar item. 
 
 4. God further promised Abraham that he would continue a 
 pious seed among his posterity in their successive generations, 
 particularly in that branch of his family which should descend 
 from Isaac. " And I will," said he, " establish my covenant 
 between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their genera- 
 tions, for an everlasting covenant." Again : " In Isaac shall 
 thy seed be called." This was manifestly peculiar. Such a 
 thing had not been promised to any particular parent before ; 
 nor has it been promised to any one since, with the exception of 
 Isaac and Jacob, with whom the covenant was renewed in most 
 respects. 
 
 5. God moreover promised that Abraham and his posterity in 
 the line of Isaac and Jacob, should have ".all the land of Ca- 
 naan for an everlasting possession." This also was a peculiar 
 Mid prominent part of the covenant. No one can doubt its be- 
 ing peculiar to Abraham and his natural seed, unless in the face 
 of the clearest evidence they will come forward and maintain 
 that the Gentiles have always had as good a right to the land of 
 Canaan as the Jews ; and that God might have fulfilled his co- 
 venant with Abraham, if he had given his posterity the land 
 of Ethiopia, or any other country instead thereof. 
 
 The several items now enumerated, I say, were peculiar to 
 Abraham and his natural seed, and serve to distinguish the co- 
 venant made with him from that made with our first parents, 
 and from any one subsequently made. God has not made such 
 a covenant as this with Gentile believers, nor with believers in 
 common among the Jews. 
 
 It is true there was one thing in this covenant in common 
 with every other dispensation of the covenant of grace, which 
 belongs to all believers, viz. the blessing of a free justification 
 by faith in Christ. 
 
 But take the covenant as a ivhole, and it was peculiar to Abm- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 109 
 
 ham and his natural seed. It did not belong to the nations in 
 common, or to believers in common among all nations; but to 
 that singular and wonderful people, which God, for wise reasons, 
 separated from all others. 
 
 It is hence still further manifest, that this covenant was not 
 the covenant of grace itself, but only a dispensation thereof, 
 or a peculiar gracious covenant founded thereon. 
 
 It appears to be conceded by Pedobaptists, that there were 
 peculiarities belonging to the covenant with Abraham, although 
 it be considered as the covenant of grace, and that it is not* 
 made with other believers in the same form, or to the same ex- 
 tent. Indeed, this is too obvious to be denied. But these pe- 
 culiar items are called appendages of the covenant of grace ; 
 i. e. something added or annexed to it. 
 
 But this notion is manifestly without a foundation. They 
 were not appendages of the Abrahamick covenant, but compo- 
 nent and essential parts of it, as much so as any item of any co- 
 venant, will or deed, whatever, belongs to the instrument itself \ 
 and distinguishes it from all other covenants, wills or deeds. It 
 must be perfectly obvious to every unbiassed mind that will 
 look at the subject, that each of these articles was a covenanted 
 blessing, and not a mere appendage of the covenant. Each one 
 entered into the very body of the covenant. All the blessings 
 contained therein were not equally important ; but they were 
 all essential parts of it, and were combined to render it one 
 complete whole, or one specifick deed, or compact. And the pe- 
 culiar items of this covenant were as much secured to Abra- 
 ham by promise, and ratified by circumcision, as those articles 
 were which are common to all believers. 
 
 Therefore, seeing the covenant, taken as a whole, was pecu- 
 liar to Abraham and his seed, or posterity, so circumcision, which 
 belonged to it as a whole, and not to one part of it in distinction 
 from the rest, was peculiar to him and his seed, and was never de- 
 signed for the Gentiles, except they were bought with Jewish 
 money, or proselyted so as to become one nation with them. 
 
 This covenant, therefore, wheu properly analyzed and de- 
 fined, does not contain any premises from which the baptism of 
 believers can be justly inferred, inasmuch as Abraham's case 
 was peculiar, and the same covenant is not made with other 
 believers, especially with Gentile believers ; and inasmuch as 
 baptism, provided it be designed to answer any of the ends of 
 circumcision, cannot be pretended to answer all of them ; nor 
 can it be considered as a seal of the same covenant. But it is 
 •altogether a new rite, appointed under a new and different dis- 
 pensation of the covenant of grace. 
 
 10 
 
110 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Although it is manifest, as I have shown, that circumcision is 
 of perpetual obligation to the Jews, it will not follow from any 
 thing contained in the covenant transaction with Abraham, that 
 it must be continued in the church at large, or something else 
 as a substitute, answering the same ends and applied to the same 
 subjects. When the peculiar nature of that covenant, and the 
 peculiar use and design of circumcision are considered, and 
 especially when we learn from the decision of the apostles at 
 Jerusalem, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, as recorded 
 in the xv. chapter of Acts, that circumcision was not to be im- 
 posed on the Gentiles, and indeed, was never intended for them 
 as Gentiles, or in their separate national capacity, and therefore, 
 was in no seuse obligatory upon them ; (to say nothing here of 
 the nature of a positive institution,) it is wholly unnatural and 
 arbitrary to infer the duty of baptism to any extent, especially 
 to infer the duty of baptizing infants, not only of the male sex, 
 but of the female. 
 
 I freely admit, as before observed, that God made but one co- 
 venant with Abraham, which included all the promises made 
 to him at different times, and that circumcision was a token 01 
 seal of this covenant. 
 
 At the same time, it must be particularly noticed that I con- 
 sider the covenant, as a whole, as God actually made it, and cir- 
 cumcision as belonging to it as a whole, and not merely to a 
 part of it ; and hence, as a whole, or as a complete covenant, com- 
 pact, or deed, I say it belonged to him and his posterity, and not 
 to mankind in common, or to believers in common. And this 
 view of it is manifestly correct, notwithstanding one or two of 
 the items belong equally to Jews and Gentiles; and therefore 
 we cannot duly infer the right of infants to baptism, not even 
 the right of male infants. 
 
 The difference which exists between the new dispensation 
 under which we live, or the new covenant, as it is called, and 
 the .A brahamick, requires a different application of baptism ap- 
 pointed therein from that of circumcision. 
 
 Indeed, we cannot infer the duty of baptism at all from the 
 covenant with xYbraham and the practice of circumcision ; much 
 less the baptism of both males and females. Nor can we in- 
 fer this from any other transaction or rite of the Old Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 Should we even take a different view of the covenant which 
 God made with Abraham from that which I have given, and ad- 
 mit that it was the covenant of grace itself, and consequently 
 that the beforementioned peculiar articles were only appendages 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 of this covenant, as Pedobaptists maintain, nothing would be 
 gained which would warrant the practice of infant baptism. 
 
 For it is evident that circumcision had respect to these append- 
 ages as well as to the main body of the covenant ; and that the 
 covenant assumes a very different appearance and character, as 
 exhibited in connexion with these appendages, from what it does 
 without them, or with other appendages. Consequently, leav- 
 ing out these appendages, or introducing others in their stead, 
 will materially affect the subject of the seal, and of the duties 
 of the covenantees. Hence we cannot infer the manner of ap- 
 plying baptism, which is a distinct religious rite, belonging to 
 the covenant as divested of its former appendages, and admin- 
 istered in connexion with others, or, more properly speaking, 
 without any others — not even if we should allow it to be also a 
 seal of the covenant. 
 
 The appendages of the covenant of grace as made with 
 Abraham, certainly rendered its dispensation or administration 
 different from any one which preceded, or which might follow 
 without such appendages, or with others. And circumcision 
 certainly had respect to these appendages as well as to the main 
 body of the covenant, or to its leading provision ; i.e. it was 
 designed to ratify all these items which were annexed to the 
 covenant, equally with the body thereof. Consequently, we 
 cannot, upon any just principles of reasoning, infer that baptism, 
 which does not have respect te> these appendages ; but belongs to 
 the covenant as administered, without them, or with entirely 
 different ones, must be administered to the same subjects as cir- 
 cumcision. The cases not being parallel, the argument from 
 inference and analogy is lost. 
 
 But I have fully shown that it is not proper to call the Abra* 
 hamick covenant the covenant of grace itself. Therefore, the 
 peculiar items which have been enumerated were not appenda- 
 ges of this covenant. Certainly, they were not appendages of 
 the covenant made with Abraham ; but definite and essential 
 parts of it. They belonged to the very body of the covenant, 
 and it is surprising that any should have undertaken to dis- 
 tinguish them therefrom. 
 
 And this very circumstance is a conclusive argument against 
 considering this covenant the same as the covenant of grace. 
 It was only a dispensation thereof, or a covenant containing 
 various gracious promises, founded on the engagement of the 
 Father, Son and Spirit, before the world began, respecting the 
 redemption of men. 
 
 The covenant of grace, when truly defined, being precisely 
 the same as the covenant of redemption ; it will, of course, be 
 
112 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 seen that it is always one and the same : but the dispensations 
 of it have varied ; or we may say, that God has entered into 
 various covenants with men, or with certain individuals, or 
 portions of mankind, founded on the eternal engagement be- 
 tween himself and Son, inclusive of the Holy Spirit, who was 
 to apply redemption when wrought out. 
 
 It is easy to see that these covenants, or dispensations, might 
 vary, without affecting the sameness of the covenant of grace, 
 And nothing is plainer than that they have varied. Some of 
 them have contained more ample provisions than others. Some 
 have contained merely temporal blessings; others merely spirit- 
 ual; and others both temporal and spiritual Some of them 
 have been expressed in a conditional, and others in an uncon- 
 ditional form. 
 
 There does not appear to be any material difference between 
 a covenant and a promise : for what is called a promise in one 
 part of scripture is called a covenant in another. Both a con- 
 ditional and an absolute promise is a covenant. 
 
 It is a mistaken view of the subject that two parties mutually 
 promising are necessary to the making of a covenant. A cove- 
 nant does, indeed, imply the existence of two parties, and so 
 does a promise. But a covenant does not always imply an en- 
 gagement of both. The promise of the one to the other, con- 
 ditional, or unconditional, is a real covenant. In the case of a 
 will, or testament, only one of the parties makes a promise, or 
 grant ; and yet this is a covenant in the highest sense. Whoever 
 carefully examines the scriptures will see that this view of 
 the nature of a covenant is correct. 
 
 And this will all help us to see the propriety of the foregoing 
 distinction between the covenant of grace and its dispensations^ 
 or the various gracious covenants which are founded on it. 
 
 We shall also be able to see from this and other considera- 
 tions which have been brought to view, that two or more of 
 these gracious dispensations, or covenants, may be similar, in 
 certain respects, and tend to the same great end, and yet each 
 may have its distinctive marks, so that it may be a different 
 covenant from any other, ur all others. One of these covenants 
 may contain provisions more effectually adapted to the end than 
 another. This was in fact the case with the Sinai covenant, 
 and the new covenant which was made at the coming of Christ, 
 and is now in operation. Both were covenants of grace. But 
 the promise in the former was conditional; and in the, latter 
 absolute. The former was, also, connected with the ceremonial 
 law, which was merely typical of the redemption by Christ ; 
 while the latter exhibits the substance itself, and plainly opens 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 113 
 
 the way into the holiest of all, by the blood of Jesus. Hence 
 St. Paul says expressly that the new covenant is " a better cove- 
 nant" than the old, " established upon better promises.'' 
 
 From this view of the covenants which God has, at different 
 times, made with men, it is evident that we are to look to each 
 for its distinctive character, and for the application of its seal, or 
 its ordinances, if it have any ; and that we cannot infer our duty 
 in this respect, in regard to one of them, from the duty enjoined 
 in another. 
 
 This view of the subject, moreover, prevents all confusion 
 and embarrassment ; whereas, if we make the several cove- 
 nants or the leading ones which God has entered into with 
 men, or with particular individuals, the covenant of grace itself 7 
 we are at once involved in perplexity, on account of the 
 variety, and, in some respects, dissimilarity of their provisions. 
 God promises more in one of them than in another ; and for that 
 reason it is a better covenant : yet all are founded in grace. 
 
 Therefore, it is not correct to call them essentially the same 
 covenant, and this the covenant of grace ; and to consider the 
 distinctive items as appendages : because what is promised in 
 each is essential to the covenant which contains it to make it 
 what it is, and hence cannot be merely an appendage. Besides, 
 the covenant of grace is manifestly the one made with Christ 
 respecting men, and not directly with men themselves. 
 
 As God, by virtue of the said engagement with Christ, has 
 made distinct covenants with men, although they have all one 
 leading feature ; and as it is manifest from the very instruments 
 themselves, that there is a distinction not only between the 
 new covenant under the gospel and the Sinai covenant, but 
 also between this and the Abrahamick covenant ; it is manifestly 
 not consistent to consider baptism as a substitute for circumcis- 
 ion. It does not belong to the same covenant, and, therefore. 
 cannot be a substitute. Neither is it appointed for the same 
 ends ; certainly not for all of them ; which it must have been 
 to make it a proper substitute. Neither are we any where told 
 in the scriptures that it is a substitute. Besides, it has been 
 fully shown that circumcision has never been abolished to the 
 Jews, the natural seed of Abraham ; but continued to be prac- 
 tised after the introduction of baptism by believing as well as 
 unbelieving Jews ; and will continue to be binding on the 
 nation to the latest generation. And, hence, baptism is not a 
 substitute therefor It cannot be a substitute for circumcision 
 to the Jews, because they are still bound to practise that rite. 
 And it cannot be a substitute for it to the Gentiles ; for it never 
 belonged to them in their separate national capacitv. 
 
 10* 
 
114 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 But baptism is altogether a new ordinance, pertaining to a 
 new and very different dispensation of the covenant of grace. 
 
 It is not proper,, however, to call it a seal of this new dis* 
 pensation or covenant. For the only proper seal of it is the 
 blood of Christ. 
 
 Baptism is no where in scripture represented as a seal of this 
 covenant, nor of any promise which God has made whatever. 
 It is merely required as a duty, being an outward purification 
 representing the inward, and a significant badge of discipleship. 
 
 But there would be no more propriety in calling it a seal of 
 the new covenant, than there would have been in calling the 
 " diverse washings" under the law, seals of the Abrahamick 
 covenant. 
 
 Baptism, being positively appointed, is of high importance, 
 and it has. its peculiar use as an act of open submission to 
 Christ ; a badge of discipleship, and an initiating rite into the 
 Christian church. Hence, the very nature of the case shows 
 that it is applicable to believers only. 
 
 To sustain the argument for infant baptism from inference 
 and analogy, it must be shown that the Abrahamick covenant 
 and the new covenant are in all respects the same — that cir- 
 cumcision and baptism were appointed for the very same pur- 
 poses ; and that the latter is expressly substituted by the law- 
 giver himself in the place of the former. And then the argu- 
 ment would go no farther than to warrant the baptism of male 
 adults and infants. It would give no countenance to the baptism 
 of females 
 
 But neither of these things can be shown ; but the contrary 
 is abundantly manifest. Hence, the argument is utterly defec- 
 tive, and ought forever to be abandoned. 
 
 There is evidently now the same propriety from the nature 
 of the new covenant for applying and restricting baptism to 
 believers of both sexes, which there was formerly for applying 
 and restricting circumcision to the males of Abraham's house 
 and posterity. 
 
 The covenant made with him and its appointed token, were 
 designed, among other things already enumerated, to separate 
 one whole nation from the rest of mankind ; to be, in various 
 respects, a peculiar people, and, (to use the words of Doct. 
 Owen,) " for the bringing forth of the Messiah as Abraham's 
 seed in fulfilment of the promise." 
 
 But the new covenant and baptism, are designed to collect 
 and separate from the world believers of all nations, and to form 
 them into one spiritual society or kingdom. Hence, from th<r 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 115 
 
 nature of the case, this ordinance should be restricted to such 
 as, in a judgement of charity, are Christians, or disciples. 
 
 This, accordingly, perfectly agrees with the apostolick com- 
 mission and practice, as we have seen. The pleasure of Christ 
 is signified so far, but no farther. 
 
 Hence, to bring the children of believers to baptism on their 
 parents' faith, by means of deductions from the covenant of 
 circumcision, is wholly unauthorized, and a great corruption of 
 this ordinance. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 1 1 7 
 
 CHAPTER XIIL 
 
 The argument for the baptism of infants grounded on the interest 
 which they are supposed to have in the promise of the Abraha- 
 mick covenant, considered and refuted. 
 
 Although the Abrahamick covenant was not properly the 
 covenant of grace ; yet it is confessedly important to consider 
 its provisions as a dispensation thereof, or as a covenant of grace. 
 
 The argument in question is based upon the following decla- 
 ration, viz. " And I will establish my covenant between me 
 and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an 
 everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed 
 after thee." 
 
 This promise is supposed to belong to believing parents in 
 common among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews. And 
 as circumcision was a token of it formerly, so baptism is con- 
 sidered a token of it now. Hence the former warrant to apply 
 circumcision to the infants of believers, is viewed as a warrant 
 for applying baptism to them now. 
 
 But if I shall succeed in showing that the promise in ques- 
 tion does not belong to believing parents in common, and their 
 seed, not even to Jewish parents and theirs, but was peculiar to 
 Abraham and his, and consequently, that baptism is not a to- 
 ken of it as circumcision was formerly, then the warrant for 
 infant baptism, grounded thereon, will disappear. 
 
 It is of great importance to understand correctly what God 
 did, in fact, promise to Abraham, and then we shall be prepared 
 to determine whether his was a peculiar case, or whether the 
 same be promised to all believing parents. 
 
 The argument in question, as generally managed, limits the 
 term seed to Abraham's immediate children, and either holds that 
 the promise was conditionally to him and also to them, or that it 
 was conditional to him and absolute as it respected them, i. e. if 
 Abraham was faithful, they should be called and saved. 
 - Hence the warrant to circumcise infants is supposed to be 
 limited to his immediate household; and that the covenant was 
 to be transmitted to each successive parent and his immediate 
 
118 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 children, on the same condition, or in the same sense, with 
 the right and duty of applying the seal to them, and to be limited 
 in the same manner as to Abraham and his family. So that the 
 right of circumcision to succeeding generations, rested not on 
 their connexion with Abraham, their great progenitor, but on the 
 Jaith of their immediate parents. 
 
 But this limiting of the seed, and consequently the right of 
 circumcision, to Abraham and his immediate children, and this 
 notion of the descent of the covenant singly or separately to each 
 believer arid his immediate seed* are manifestly erroneous. 
 
 The real truth is, God made a covenant with Abraham, in- 
 cluding both himself and his posterity, indefinitely, remote as 
 well as immediate, particularly in the line of Isaac and Jacob ; 
 and this covenant embraced both temporal and spiritual bless- 
 ings. Hence both himself and his seed after him, in their gene- 
 rations, were required to be circumcised. The whole nation 
 was thus divided and separated, according to God's free and 
 sovereign pleasure, from the rest of the nations, and a line of 
 distinction formed between Jews and Gentiles which has hith- 
 erto continued, and will, without doubt, hereafter continue 
 down to the end of the world. 
 
 I say his posterity were included with him indefinitely, by 
 which I mean that God did not promise that all his descend- 
 ants in every generation should become pious like himself, 
 but that some of them should, and the aggregate number should 
 be very great, as before explained, and that his posterity, in* 
 definitely, should inherit the land of Canaan. 
 
 Hence, whatever might be the character of any succeeding 
 parent, his children's right to circumcision remained clear and 
 undiminished, because they were the descendants of Abraham, 
 and God had expressly ordered that they should be circumcised. 
 His words were, " Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, 
 thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. Every man 
 child among you shall be circumcised." This, therefore, was 
 a sufficient warrant for the application of this rite to all suc- 
 ceeding generations of his seed. Every man child, whether of 
 the immediate or remote posterity, was manifestly to be circum- 
 cised. And this rite might be administered by the father or 
 the mother of the child, or by the physician, the nurse, the 
 king, the priest or the common citizen — only it must be done. 
 
 But the ordinance of Christian baptism is to be administered 
 by a regular minister of the gospel* and it would be impious in 
 any other person to undertake to administer it, which circum- 
 stance shows a very great dissimilarity in the two cases. 
 
 That this view of the seed, as embracing remote posterity as 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 1 19 
 
 well as near ; and consequently this extended vieiv of circum- 
 cision, are correct, will appear abundantly evident as we pro- 
 ceed. 
 
 Rightly to understand the clause, " tobe a God unto thee and 
 to thy seed after thee," it must be taken in connexion with what 
 immediately precedes, and wifti other declarations elsewhere 
 relative to the same subject. The whole sentence runs thus: 
 " And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy 
 seed after thee in their generations, for au everlasting covenant, 
 to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." It is, hence, 
 plain that " the seed after him" was not, merely, his children of 
 t he first generation, but of successive generations, however remote. 
 The words are plural ; not his seed in their generation ; but in 
 their generations ;" which undeniably include remote as well as 
 immediate posterity. The fifth, tenth and fiftieth generation were 
 as truly included with him in the covenant as the first. 
 
 And they were thus included, not upon any condition to be 
 performed by their immediate parents ; but on the ground of 
 the free and gracious engagement which God made with Abra- 
 ham personally. 
 
 I do not think that even Abraham^ faith and piety were a 
 proper condition, upon which the blessing descended to his pos- 
 terity, although God manifestly testified his love to him in bles- 
 sing his descendants. But the whole that he did, from his call 
 in the land of the Chaldees, for himself and posterity, was of 
 free and sovereign mercy. 
 
 Though the scriptures sometimes speak as though there were 
 a condition ; the fulfilment thereof was secured by God's free 
 promise. So that the covenant, considered as a whole, is pre- 
 sented in an absolute form, securing to Abraham the several 
 items which it contained. 
 
 But so far as there was any condition in the case, i. e. so far 
 as the descent of the blessing to his posterity in their genera- 
 tions, depended on parental faithfulness, it was evidently on con- 
 dition of his own faithfulness as the father and head of the na- 
 tion, and not on the faithfulness of parents in subsequent gen* 
 e rations. 
 
 God might, indeed, hear the prayers and bless the instruc- 
 tions of subsequent parents to the spiritual good of their chil- 
 dren ; but this is not the thing which he engaged to do in this 
 covenant, or upon the condition of which the blessing engaged 
 was suspended. He here made a covenant with Abraham him- 
 self and his seed after him in their generations, remote as well as 
 near, specifying positively what he would do for kirn and iketii. 
 
120. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 So far therefore as any condition was required in the ease, it 
 was required of, and performed by, Abraham. 
 
 Hence the promise was absolute that God would do thus and 
 thus for his posterity in their generations. 
 
 It is not said, neither is it intimated, that God would establish 
 the covenant and be a God to his posterity, provided each succes- 
 sive parent, or any class or number of parents, would practise 
 faithfulness ; but the whole engagement was with himself, all 
 was then settled, ratified and secured. 
 
 God did, indeed, renew the covenant in part with Isaac and 
 Jacob ; and in Kis gracious dealings with the nation, he some- 
 times refers to the love which he bore to them as well as to 
 Abraham. 
 
 Nevertheless, every thing engaged to Isaac and Jacob and 
 their posterity was, in the first place, freely and absolutely en- 
 gaged to Abraham. To them it was only renewed and repeated. 
 
 But after the branches spread from the stock, as in the case of 
 Jacob's children, no other individual subsequently stood in the 
 same relation to the covenant that these three patriarchs did, 
 and especially that Abraham did himself. 
 
 Hence, the favour shown to the nation in the time of Moses, 
 nearly five hundred years after the promise was first made to 
 Abraham, is attributed, not to the regard which God had to their 
 immediate parents, but to the regard which he bore to those 
 patriarchs. " The Lord," said Moses, on the plains of Moab, 
 * { loved your fathers, and he chose their seed alter them, even 
 you above all people as it is this day." When Hazael king of 
 Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz, it is said, IL 
 Kings, xiii. 22. " And the Lord was gracious unto them, and 
 had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of 
 his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and would not de- 
 stroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet." — 
 When Moses in the xxvi. chap, of Leviticus, had predicted what 
 desolating judgements should come upon the nation in after ages 
 for their sins, he adds these impressive words, " And yet for 
 all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not 
 cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them ut- 
 terly, and to break my covenant with them : for I am the Lord 
 their God. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of 
 their ancestors, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, 
 that I might be their God:" alluding, unquestionably, to the 
 Abrahamick covenant. Again ; God says by the prophet Jere- 
 miah, chap. xlvi. 28, " For I will make a full end of all the na- 
 tions whither I have driven thee : but I will not make a full end 
 of thee, but correct thee in measure.*" How strikingly do wc see. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 1 21 
 
 this declaration fulfilled to this day. Though that people are 
 scattered among all nations, they are preserved distinct, and 
 unquestionably they will continue so. Hence, in reference to 
 their future ingathering, St. Paul says, Romans, xi. 25, 26, 28. 
 " Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the 
 Gentiles be come in ; and so all Israel shall be saved" — " a? 
 touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." 
 
 It is manifest from these passages, that the seed included 
 with Abraham in the covenant, means remote posterity as well 
 as immediate ; and that the blessing promised to the seed was not 
 suspended upon the fidelity of successive parents ; but was freely 
 and absolutely -engaged to him; it being always understood that 
 the promise was indefinite, not embracing all the natural seed, 
 but only the children of promise — such as God was pleased to 
 call. 
 
 Hence, in the darkest periods with that people, there was a 
 reference, as we have seen, to that covenant. God would not 
 utterly cast them off on account of it— yea, the ordinances of 
 heaven should depart before he would cast off all the seed of 
 Israel from being his people. There was always a remnant of 
 believers under the former dispensation, u according to the 
 election of grace," and for aught appears, there has been a 
 remnant to this day, and will continue to be. " As touching 
 the election, the nation is yet beloved for the fathers' sakes," 
 and will in due time " be graffed in again." 
 
 The transaction, then, with Abraham, inclusive of his seed, 
 was a singular and wonderful exhibition of God's mercy — alto- 
 gether a peculiar case. The cases of other parents and of other 
 portions of our Lord's kingdom, are, by no means, parallel with 
 his. Other believers may fail entirely of having posterity, or 
 their seed may run out, or the descent of piety among them may 
 become extinct, however glowing it might have been in the 
 original stock ; and other nations, however enlightened they 
 may have once been, may revert back into heathenish dark- 
 ness, and be swallowed up among the multitude of other 
 kingdoms, and lost. But the covenant with Abraham secured to ' 
 him the existence of posterity permanently — yea, a numerous pos- 
 terity, and that as a distinct people, though scattered among all ; 
 and the continued existence of a pious seed to some extent, at 
 least down to the coming of Christ, and subsequently ; and, I 
 doubt not, to the end of the world. Hence their preservation 
 and distinction are a standing miracle. 
 
 It cannot, therefore, be pretended that God deals with othe? 
 believers, especially with particular believers among the Gen- 
 tiles, on so large a scale ; and that baptism is to be applied to 
 
 11 
 
122 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 the extent that circumcision was. The argument from this 
 covenant and circumcision, if it proves any thing, proves vastly 
 too much, and hence proves nothing. 
 
 As the same covenant is manifestly not made with believers 
 in common, the practice of baptizing infants cannot be inferred 
 from the promise in question. 
 
 While this promise to call and preserve a pious seed in suc- 
 cessive generations, did not necessarily embrace the whole of 
 his posterity, but often included but a remnant as in the days of 
 Elijah, the order to circumcise was so expressed as to include 
 the whole nation : " Every man child among you shall be cir- 
 cumcised." 
 
 That the seed includes remote as well as immediate posterity, 
 is still further evident from the following declarations, viz. " In 
 blessing, I will bless thee ; and in multiplying, I will multiply 
 thee," i. e. both lineally and spiritually. " I will multiply thy 
 seed as the stars of heaven." a And so shall thy seed be," i. e. 
 as innumerable as the stars. 
 
 These promises clearly and undeniably show, that the seed 
 connected with him are not confined to his immediate children, 
 but include remote posterity also ; and in the spiritual sense, 
 believers also from the Gentiles, as Paul shows in the iv. chap- 
 ter of Romans. 
 
 Therefore, all this goes to give the covenant with him and 
 circumcision a peculiar character, and to show that the argu- 
 ment from that source for infant baptism is perfectly groundless. 
 The cases are in no measure parallel. 
 
 There is one consideration more that confirms the foregoing- 
 view of the seed, which must not be omitted. It is this : that 
 God said, " I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee, all 
 the land of Canaan," as well as promise " to be a God to him 
 and his seed after him ;" and in the former case nothing can be 
 clearer than that the seed included remote posterity, for the 
 promise was not properly or fully verified till between four and 
 live hundred years afterwards. Yet the phraseology is exactly 
 the same as in the latter case. 
 
 This extensive sense of the term seed, while it gives the co- 
 venant a peculiar character, and cuts off* all reasonable preten- 
 sions that the same covenant is made with other believers, fur- 
 nishes a valid reason for the circumcision of the nation in suc- 
 cessive ages, but gives no countenance to the baptism of the 
 children of believers under the gospel. 
 
 To undertake to derive an argument from this source for this 
 practice, obliges one to maintain, with regard to believers in com- 
 mon, what is palpably untrue, and to infer vastly more than any 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 123 
 
 enlightened Christian would wish, viz. not only the baptism of 
 his immediate children, but of all his posterity, upon his faith, 
 however remote. The argument is just as good for the bap- 
 tism of the tenth generation as for that of the first ; but, in fact, 
 it is good for nothing in either case. 
 
 To say that the promise is to ordinary believing parents and 
 their seed, in a less extended sense than to Abraham, is to give 
 up the plea at once, that the same covenant now exists between 
 God and them, and their seed, and that all which was engaged 
 to him belongs to them. It certainly cannot be proved from 
 the terms of the covenant itself, that God makes a less extend- 
 ed covenant with them and their seed, than with him and his ; 
 and therefore the argument is lost. 
 
 I know it is said, that u they which are of faith are blessed 
 with faithful Abraham," and that "if ye be Christ's, then are ye 
 Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." But the 
 meaning is, not that they inherit every thing which was prom- 
 ised to him ; but only the leading blessing of justification by 
 faith, and salvation by free grace. They are blessed with him, 
 because the seed promised to him, spiritually and extensively 
 considered, includes them. They are heirs of the particular 
 promise—" in thy seed shall all nations be blessed." 
 
 But this does not imply that God makes the same covenant 
 with ordinary believers that he did with him, not even in a less 
 extended sense, because the very statement itself implies that it 
 is not the same. They do not, and cannot, stand in the same 
 relation to the covenant that he did. They are not Abraham , 
 nor a succession of Abrahams, but simply Abraham's seed, in 
 the large and spiritual sense of the terms. 
 
 If, to sustain the argument for infant baptism, it should be 
 said that although no individual believer stands in the same re- 
 lation to the covenant that Abraham did, yet that the church 
 does collectively — that the church has stepped into his place, and 
 that the promise is now to her and her seed, as it was to 
 Abraham and his, and to Isaac and Jacob, and theirs ; and that 
 after Jacob, the real ground for the continuance of circumcis- 
 ion, was God's covenant with the church and her seed ; and that 
 accordingly, the ground for infant baptism now, is God's cove- 
 nant with the church and her seed, and not with each individual 
 believing parent and his ; I would remark, 
 
 1. That the ground here stated for continuing circumcision 
 to the seed of Israel, is manifestly incorrect. The scriptures 
 never base it upon such a principle. And I have sufficiently 
 proven that the real ground for its continuance was God's cove- 
 aant with Abraham, and his order for the circumcision of him- 
 
124 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 self and his seed. The original charter remained good, and did 
 not require to be renewed with each successive generation of 
 his seed ; nor is it ever represented as being so renewed. The 
 right was permanent. 
 
 2. To base infant baptism on this principle, would be basing 
 it on one which is very general and indefinite, and one which 
 would lead to the unlimited use of baptism. 
 
 According to this scheme, the promise is not that God will 
 bless each believer and his seed ; but the church collectively and 
 her seed j i. e. he promises to bless them as a class , or to call 
 some of them. Consequently, if he ^eeps alive a seed of be- 
 lievers somewhere among the seed of the church, this is all 
 which baptism purports as being engaged. This, then, is bas- 
 ing the practice on very general and indefinite ground — on 
 ground so very different from any thing contained in the scrip- 
 tures, that few, if any, will, upon proper examination, under- 
 take to defend it. 
 
 Besides, it would naturally lead to the baptism of all, with- 
 out distinction, whether children of the church, or not ; be- 
 cause God has promised to call an elect people from among the 
 Gentiles collectively, as he did from among the Jews collectively. 
 According to this principle, therefore, baptism should be ap- 
 plied as extensively as circumcision. 
 
 3. It belongs, upon this principle, to the church, and not to 
 the individual parents, to offer up the children in baptism. 
 
 This is an unavoidable consequence : for if the church has 
 stepped into Abraham's place, or taken his standing in relation to 
 the covenant, and if circumcision was practised after Jacob, and 
 baptism is now practised upon this ground, i. e. upou the ground 
 of the promise made to her collectively, and her seed, and not 
 upon the promise to parents individually, and their seed ; then 
 it is clearly the province and duty of the church collectively, and 
 not of the parents, to present the children in this ordinance. 
 The party with whom the covenant is made should manifestly 
 be the one to give up the children. This duty, therefore, will, 
 as I said, unavoidably belong to the church. Hence the dea- 
 cons, or a committee appointed for the purpose, should brinj* 
 forward the children in behalf of the church ; or the baptism 
 should be performed in some way for the church, so that it 
 might be known to be her act, and not the act of the parents. 
 
 Hence, this would be wholly changing the ground for this 
 practice. But the above principle will necessarily lead to it. 
 And the absurdity of the consequence is sufficient to overthrow 
 the premises ; besides, the premises themselves have no foun- 
 dation in the scriptures. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISflfly ^ 12S 
 
 After all /therefore, which can be said upon the subject, it is 
 clear that the promise that God would be a God to Abraham 
 and his seed after him in their generations, was peculiar to him 
 and them, and cannot be claimed by ordinary believers, so as to 
 lay a foundation for the baptism of infants. Even if it should 
 be allowed that this promise does belong to them and their seed, 
 in the same sense that it did to Abraham and his, we could not 
 consider baptism as a token thereof, and a substitute for circum- 
 cision, unless we are so instructed by the word of God, which 
 is not the case ; and hence the inference for the baptism of in- 
 fants fails. 
 
 In reference to that class of Pedobaptists who consider the 
 promise in the Abrahamick covenant conditional, both as it re- 
 spects the parents and children, i. e. that God promised to be 
 the God of Abraham on condition of his faith, and the God of 
 his seed on condition of their faith, and that he promises the 
 same to other parents and their children, on the same condi- 
 tion ; and that there is nothing in the promise to the parents 
 which secures the existence of faith in the children ; I would 
 observe, that this presents no other ground for the baptism of 
 the children of believers, than for the baptism of the children 
 of unbelievers, yea, of all other persons whatever, without re- 
 gard to their present moral character ; as I have already shown 
 in my exposition of Acts, ii. 38, 39. 
 
 According to this exposition of the promise, the notion that 
 the children of believers are in covenant, and those of unbeliev- 
 ers not, is entirely without foundation. The latter are in cove- 
 nant as truly as the former, provided the promise is merely con- 
 ditional. For it is to all — yea, to all that are afar off, as well 
 as to the children of believers. Here, then, is no other ground 
 for the baptism of the latter, than exists for the baptism of all 
 mankind. 
 
 And the argument for infant baptism, based upon that view 
 of the promise which secures the piety of the children on condi- 
 lion of parental faithfulness, I have already refuted in this chap- 
 ter. If it proves any thing, it proves too much, and thereby 
 destroys itself. It is, on the whole, perfectly manifest that 
 Abraham's case was peculiar, and is not to be adduced as an 
 example, in the point in question, for others, and especially for 
 Gentile believers. 
 
 Neither is there any other promise than that which has been 
 considered, to believers and their seed, which will authorize 
 infant baptism. 
 
 Even if it could be proved that God does expressly engage 
 to bless and save the children of believers, if faithful, this would 
 
 11* 
 
126 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 not lay a foundation for their baptism, unless we are somewhere 
 taught that baptism is a token or seal of this promise, and that 
 it should be applied to the children as well as the parents ;— 
 which is not the case. 
 
 The existence of stick a promise itself any where in the Bible, 
 cannot be conclusively shown. 
 
 Indeed, from the ordinary connexion which God has estab- 
 lished between means and ends ; from his command respect- 
 ing the religious education of children ; and from his character 
 as a prayer-hearing God, parents may take encouragement, if 
 faithful, to hope that their children, to some extent, at least, 
 will be brought into the kingdom. 
 
 But this does not appear to be engaged in any covenant trans- 
 action between God and each believing parent, and ratified by 
 baptism. 
 
 The passages which are brought in support of such a cove- 
 nant, in addition to the promise already considered to Abraham, 
 will be found, on examination, to be insufficient to prove its ex- 
 istence. 
 
 One of these is Deut. v. 29, " O that there were such an 
 heart in them, thatthey would fear me, and keep my command- 
 ments always, that it might be well with them, and with their 
 children forever." This is spoken of the nation collectively. 
 It expresses a desire that the nation were, and would continue to 
 be, a holy and obedient people, for the % good of the present and 
 succeeding generations. In that case, their children as well as 
 themselves would, indeed, enjoy happiness and prosperity. — 
 But it will be perceived that there is a condition implied on the 
 part of the children as well as of the parents. The promise is 
 not that if the parents would be obedient, the children should 
 be of course; but if the children would be obedient too, they 
 should also be happy. As long as the nation, parents and chil- 
 dren together, should keep God's commandments, it would be 
 well with them. The personal obedience of each is plainly the 
 condition of being blessed. This, then, affords no proof of the 
 existence of such a covenant as above described. The follow- 
 ing passages, to which the reader is merely referred, may be ex- 
 plained in a similar manner, viz. Deut. vi, 2, xxviii. 2, 3, 4, 
 and xxx. 2, 6 ; Ps. ciii. 17, 18, and Ex. xx. 6. 
 
 The following, viz. Deut. vii. 8, 9, and x. 15 ; Isaiah, xliv. 
 3, and lix. 21 ; and Jer. xxxii. 39, may be explained on the 
 principle of the promise contained in the Abrahamick covenanl 5 
 as already illustrated. 
 
 The seed of God's servants mentioned in Ps. lxix. 36, and 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 127 
 
 eii. 28, mean not simply the carnal seed ; but the imitators of 
 the faith of their parents, or predecessors. 
 
 Jer. xxx. 20, relates to the return from the Babylonish cap- 
 tivity, and therefore furnishes no proof that children stand in 
 the same relation to the church now, as formerly. 
 
 Proverbs xx. 7, and xxii. 6, and Ps. xxxvii. 25, 26, contain 
 a recognition of general facts, or maxims. There is wont to be 
 > connexion between the piety and faithfulness of parents, 
 and the piety and uprightness of their children, on a general 
 scale, leaving room for exceptions. These are statements of 
 the ordinary influence of a pious education upon children. — 
 But this connexion is not noticed in the form of a covenant, 
 but rather as a matter of fact. The same principle might be 
 extended to the instructions of a pious minister and his people, 
 or of a pious teacher and his pupils, or his sabbath school chil- 
 dren : as to matter of fact, these means are wont to be blessed 
 to some extent. But the subject is not put into the form of a 
 covenant, and ratified with a seal. Neither is it in the former 
 case. Therefore, the baptism of infants cannot be inferred 
 therefrom. 
 
 These, together with those examined in a former part of 
 this work, are the principal passages brought in support of the 
 covenant promise which is supposed to exist in relation to be- 
 lievers and their seed ; and they evidently furnish no premises 
 from which the right of infants to baptism can be duly inferred. 
 
 Even if it could be proved that God has made a covenant 
 with believers in common to bless their immediate children, 
 provided they are faithful, this right would not follow. Be- 
 cause baptism is no where said to be a token, or seal, of such a 
 covenantor promise, or to be designed for any such purpose. 
 
 And even if it were, it would not follow that it must be ap- 
 plied any further than to believers of both sexes. It is a positive 
 institution, and the use of it is defined and limited by the very 
 words of the institution. Were it clearly and undeniably a seal 
 of such a promise, we might argue reasonably and conclusively, 
 that it answers all the purposes of a seal, when applied to be- 
 lievers of both sexes, as truly as circumcision did when applied 
 to the males of Abraham's family. It will not prove the right 
 of the children to baptism to say that they are interested in the 
 promise; for the females in Abraham's family were interested in 
 the promise of the covenant which God made with him, as 
 truly as the males ; and yet the seal ivas not to be applied to 
 them. Will it be said that it was not applicable to them ? But, 
 if simply an interest in the promise gave a right to the seal, 
 then doubtless God would have appointed a seal which was 
 
128 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 applicable to both sexes, provided circumcision was not ; or the 
 seal appointed would have been applied to females as far as the 
 nature of the case would admit. 
 
 The truth of the case is, this interest in the promise did not 
 give the right to the seal : but that which gave the right was 
 the order of God, which expressly limited it to the males. 
 
 So in the case before us, that which gives the right to the 
 ordinance of baptism is not the interest of the subject in the 
 promise, but the order of God, which is expressly limited to 
 believers of both sexes. 
 
 This application of baptism, allowing the aforesaid covenant 
 to exist, and baptism to be the seal of it, is a sufficient confirma* 
 tiou of the promise, and we have no warrant to extend it any- 
 further. 
 
 If it be said that we are not forbidden to baptize infants, I 
 reply, neither were the Jews forbidden to circumcise females. 
 Besides, we are not expressly forbidden to baptize unbelievers. 
 nor our meeting houses and bells. But will it hence do to baptize 
 them ? Surely this kind of reasoning will not do. 
 
 When the subjects of a positive rite are described, and order- 
 ed to receive it, this is a virtual and plain prohibition of its 
 application to any other persons, or things. 
 
 In every view of the case, therefore, the argument for the 
 baptism of infants grounded on the Abrahamick covenant, or 
 on any covenant or promise in the Bible, fails, and ought never- 
 more to be plead. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. „ 129 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 The inconsistency between the belief and practice of Pedobaptists 
 respecting the church membership of infants, exposed. 
 
 One of the strongest arguments for the baptism of infants is 
 based upon their supposed membership in the Christian church, 
 the same as in the Jewish. The churches being the same, and 
 the membership of infants being once established in the Jewish 
 Church, must, it is argued, continue, unless it be expressly set 
 aside ; and, if it continue, then they should be baptized upon 
 the ground of it. 
 
 All Pedobaptists do not plead for the continued church 
 membership of infants ; but most of them do, and place great 
 reliance upon it. My object, in this chapter, will be to show 
 the inconsistency which exists between their belief and prac- 
 tice ; and, also, to make it appear that the argument destroys 
 itself by proving too much. 
 
 Infants are baptized, either because they are members, or, 
 to make them members. But what becomes of them after- 
 wards ? Are they treated as members ? Are they considered 
 as brethren, saints, and the faithful in Christ Jesus ? Are they 
 considered as being in communion ? No, they are not permitted 
 to come to the LoraVs Supper upon the ground of their baptism 
 and church membership. 
 
 Yet the Lord's Supper is supposed to come in the place of 
 the passover as truly as baptism has in the place of circumcision. 
 And it is perfectly obvious that children ate of the passover as ', 
 well as adults. It was a household right. 
 
 If, therefore, the Lord's Supper has come in its place, and 
 children are still church members, why are they not admitted 
 to it ? The argument is as strong for their admission to commun- 
 ion as to baptism : yea, it is rather stronger, because females 
 w r ere admitted to the passover, although excluded from circum- 
 cision. If circumcision was a household right, so was the 
 passover, still more perfectly. And if baptism has succeeded 
 the former as still a household right ; the same must be said oi 
 the Lord's Supper upon the same principle. And infants cannot 
 
130 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 be excluded therefrom, any more than from baptism, unless 
 their right be annulled, which cannot be reasonably pretended, 
 if the other right is not annulled too. 
 
 It is said, indeed, " let a man examine himself, and so let 
 him eat." But this will not exclude infants any more than the 
 rule " he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and 
 " if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest," excludes 
 them from baptism. The same plea may be made in the former 
 case as in the latter, that the rule respects merely adults, and, 
 therefore, does not affect the right of infants. There is not, in 
 fact, one plea for infant baptism which may not be urged, with 
 equal force, for infant communion. Why then is the one prac- 
 tice observed and the other not ? Why is not the very same 
 principle allowed to operate in both cases, when they are mani- 
 festly parallel ? Here is a palpable inconsistency on the part of 
 Pedobaptists. Infants are considered church members long 
 enough to secure their baptism, and then refused the privileges 
 of members. They are treated as though they were not mem- 
 bers. No material difference is made between them and the 
 world. They are said to be in the church, and yet not in com- 
 munion. They are admitted to one gospel ordinance, and rejected 
 from the other, when the principle adopted, with regard to both 
 is the same. They are not numbered among the brethren, or ad- 
 mitted into the society of Christians, till they make the same 
 profession which is required of the unhaptized. 
 
 They are, indeed, said to be under the watch and care of the 
 church : but in what sense? Not as brethren. And to what 
 extent are they under its watch and care ? Not as deserving 
 excommunication if not reclaimed by the ordinary process. For 
 how could they be cast out of communion when they were 
 never in? The watch and care, then, which are exercised 
 over them are not materially different from what are exercised, 
 or should be exercised, over all children and all persons, except 
 that there is a special care to be exercised by parents over their 
 own children and households. 
 
 Baptized children are indeed said to be within the pale of the 
 church. But what does this mean ? Are they full and com- 
 plete members ? No ; such they cannot be, without becoming 
 communicating members. Are they then halfway members ? or 
 one quarter of the way members ? If so, where does the Bible 
 treat of such a class of members ? Seeing the inconsistency 
 of this, will any say they are complete members, but not in com- 
 munion ? This is a contradiction. They cannot be complete 
 members, without being received as brethren, and as having & 
 right to the communion. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 131 
 
 Christ makes no difference between the members of his 
 church, allowing some to come to his table, and others not. 
 But he says to them all, " Do this in remembrance of me." 
 And the apostle Paul says, " We are all partakers of that one 
 bread." Besides, there was formerly no distinction on ac- 
 count of age in the Jewish church in regard to eating the pass- 
 over. Therefore, if the children of believers are complete 
 members of the church, they ought to be considered communi- 
 cating members. And the Bible manifestly knows of no other 
 than complete members. 
 
 Here, then, is a gross inconsistency between the principle and 
 practice of Pedobaptists respecting the membership of infants. 
 If this principle were fully carried out, or exhibited in practice, 
 it would manifestly lead to infant communion. But if infant 
 communion were admitted, the church would no longer answer 
 to the descriptions which are given of it in the New Testa- 
 ment, and the Lord's Supper would no longer be such a feast as 
 it is therein represented. Instead of being a household of faith, 
 or a society of Christians, the church would be a mixed com- 
 pany of believers and acknowledged unbelievers. And the Sup- 
 per, instead of being the communion of saints, would be the 
 communion of saints and acknowledged unbelievers. The prin- 
 ciple defended of late by Pedobaptists themselves, that grace is 
 a necessary qualification for communion, would have to be given 
 up. And the children of God would be constrained to have 
 fellowship in this most solemn of all transactions in this world 
 with the acknowledged children of Belial. There are, indeed, 
 as the case now is, some unsound members, at least, in the 
 church. But they are not systematically and allowedly received 
 as they must be in the other case. 
 
 The inconsistency of admitting known unbelievers to com- 
 munion merely because they have been baptized in their infan- 
 cy, seems to be apparent to every enlightened and reflecting 
 mind. It would be shocking to men of piety to see the door to 
 communion opened so wide as to receive them. Hence bap- 
 tized infants are debarred from this privilege, notwithstanding 
 the principle adopted with regard to their baptism would re- 
 quire them to he admitted. 
 
 The absurdity of this principle with regard to their baptism 
 is not so readily seen, as it would be in this case, but in reality 
 it is equally great. For they are thereby introduced into a ho- 
 ly and spiritual society without the qualifications which are ex- 
 pressly required ; and after being received they are refused the 
 most important privilege of the society, and generally treated 
 as though the whole done at their baptism was a nullity. 
 
I 32 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 The Pedobaptists are often heard to acknowledge, to a cer- 
 tain extent, that there is an inconsistency between their belief 
 and their practice in relation to their children. They admit 
 that they are justly reproached for their unfaithfulness ; and un- 
 dertake to concert measures for a reformation Something, it is 
 said, must be done, more effectually, for the children of the church. 
 Their standing must be more thoroughly ascertained and set- 
 tled, and tbe instruction and discipline intended for them must 
 be carried more fully into effect. Accordingly, churches meet 
 and pass resolutions ; exhort parents, &c. Presbyteries and as- 
 sociations take the matter into consideration, and, after much 
 deliberation, resolve to enjoin, or recommend, to the sessions 
 and churches to awake to this subject. They adopt, and, per- 
 haps, print a number of resolutions respecting the standing of 
 baptized children, and the duties of pastors, sessions and church- 
 es towards them ; and every thing wears the appearance of 
 something being done to the purpose. 
 
 But, soon, all reverts back to the same state as before. There 
 is, indeed, in some cases, a revival of parental and catechetical 
 instruction. But to prosecute a system of regular church disci- 
 pline as though the children were real members, is found to be 
 impracticable. 
 
 I do not state these things for the sake of irritating, or re- 
 proaching my brethren ; but to expose the inconsistency of al- 
 lowing of the membership of infants in Gospel churches, and 
 the impracticability of exercising that discipline towards them 
 which was appointed only for communicating members, or pro- 
 fessed Christians ; and to show that this is the only discipline 
 appointed in the church. 
 
 It is found extremely difficult, in the outset, to determine the 
 real standing of these children. All do not agree that they are 
 actual members of the church. Or, if this be admitted, they 
 cannot agree in what sense, and how far they are members ; and 
 in what way they are to be approached and dealt with ; — wheth- 
 er directly, or through the medium of their parents only. 
 
 And, in case they prove refractory, it is a matter of difficulty 
 to determine how they are to be brought before the church, with 
 which they have never personally covenanted ; and how the 
 ehurch are finally to dispose of them ; — whether they are to 
 rxcommunic ate them outright; or inflict some other censure. 
 
 This subject is, in fact, attended with almost endless perplex- 
 ities and difficulties. And I presume there is scarcely a Pe- 
 dobaptist to be found, who has clearly worked his way through, 
 and devised and entered upon a system of practice with which 
 he is fully satisfied. If the real truth were told, the conees- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 164 
 
 :>ion would often be made, that while they readily bring their 
 children into the church as members, they do not know what 
 to do with them after they are in. 
 
 And these embarrassments will remain so long as anothei 
 sort of membership is plead for than that which is constituted 
 by professing the faith of Christ, and voluntarily joining the 
 society of Christians; and so long as another sort of church 
 discipline is attempted to be enforced than that which was 
 instituted by Christ for such as profess to be his disciples ; or, 
 in other words, so long as infants are baptized upon the faith oj 
 their parents. 
 
 The adoption of the plan of infant church membership under 
 the gospel is attended with another difficulty, viz : it naturally 
 leads to the membership of the wife upon the faith of her hus- 
 band, as well as of the children: for in the Jewish church, the 
 membership of the former was as fully determined as that of 
 the latter. The husband, if a native Jew, was in the church 
 with his ivhole family. If a proselyte, he entered with his 
 whole family, ivife, children and servants. This is too evident 
 to be denied. If, therefore, the memoership of the children 
 continues for the father's sake, that of the wife must continue 
 also; and, hence, the latter must be baptized, as .well as the 
 children, upon her husband's faith. The consequence is 
 unavoidable. This, therefore, tends further to show the incon- 
 sistency complained of, and the falsity of the argument before 
 us, which, if it proves any thing, proves altogether too much ; 
 and, consequently, proves nothing. 
 
 it 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM* 135 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Containing additional evidence that there is such a change in the 
 constitution of the church under the gospel as excludes the 
 membership of infants. 
 
 The church membership of infants under the present dis- 
 pensation is not held by all Pedobaptists, as before observed : 
 and hence such as do not hold to it must admit of the very 
 change now plead for, seeing they were, evidently, members 
 of the Jewish church. 
 
 But the majority of this denomination maintain that their 
 membership is still retained, and we are boldly challenged to 
 make it appear that it has ever been set aside. 
 
 Much has already been advanced in proof of the discontinu- 
 ance of infant membership ; and much more might be advanced, 
 were it not for protracting this discussion too far. I must be 
 contented with citing and commenting on a few more passages, 
 and referring to others. 
 
 The first I shall notice is Isaiah iv. 2, 3, 4 : " In that day 
 shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the 
 fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that 
 are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that he that 
 is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called 
 holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem ; 
 when the Lord shall have washed away the tilth of the daugh- 
 ters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem 
 from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgement, and by the 
 spirit of burning." 
 
 These words manifestly refer to the times of the Messiah, and 
 denote such a change in the church, here figuratively called Zion 
 and Jerusalem, as excludes the membership of infants, as such. 
 The clause, " them that are escaped of Israel," denote " them 
 that are escaped from the corruptions that are in the world, 
 through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour." They 
 plainly intimate that the Messiah's kingdom should consist of a 
 select company — the redeemed of the Lord. This is expressed 
 still plainer by the clause " he that is left in Zion, and he that 
 remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 that is written among the living in Jerusalem. " Here a great 
 sifting, purging out, or pruning off, is foretold ; in fact, a new 
 organization of the church ; so that he that was left was to be 
 called holy in a higher sense than the term had been previously 
 applied to the nation, viz : renewed and sanctified by the Holy 
 Ghost. This is clearly determined to be the sense by the ex- 
 planatory words, " even every one that is written among the 
 living in Jerusalem," which means unquestionably not every 
 one that should literally subsist ; but every one v^ho should be 
 quickened by the Spirit, or be bom of God. Those, therefore, 
 who should be left in the church, would be such as are madt- 
 alive unto God by a spiritual renovation ; which implies that 
 the residue should be excluded, or left out. Hence, infant 
 membership has, of course, ceased. 
 
 Again; chap. xxvi. 1, 2: " In that day shall this song be 
 sung in the land of Judah; we have a strong city; salvation 
 will God appoint for walls and bulwarks. Open ye the gates, 
 that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in." 
 This strong city is not the literal Jerusalem, but the figurative ; 
 the gospel church, which St. Paul calls " the city of the living 
 God." The direction, to open the gates to a the righteous na- 
 tion which keepeth the truth," is a plain indication that such 
 only should be considered as proper members ; and hence infant 
 membership is excluded. It is true, the in/ants of believers are 
 not expressly prohibited from entering. Neither are adult un- 
 believers. But the command to receive those of a particular 
 character — the righteous, is a virtual exclusion of the rest. To 
 receive other members than those described, would lead to 
 great corruption and confusion. 
 
 Again: chap. lxii. 1,2, 12: " For Zion's sake I will not 
 hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until 
 the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salva- 
 tion thereof as a lamp that burnetii. And the Gentiles shall see 
 thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory : and thou shalt be 
 called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. 
 And they shall call them the holy people, the redeemed of the 
 Lord : and thou shalt be called, Sought out, a city not forsaken." 
 This description of the gospel church is such as plainly excludes 
 infants. The a.ldress is to the spiritual Zion. u Thou shalt be 
 called," says the piophet, u by a new name," which can be no 
 other than "that of " Christians," which was a title first given to 
 die disciples at Anlioch. But who were called Christians ? Not 
 the bo^y of the Jews, nor the infants of believers ; but believers 
 themseloes only. " The disciples were called Christians first in 
 ' \ntioch." The disciples alluded to were Hellenist Jews, o' 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 137 
 
 Jews-, by birth, that spake the Greek language, and not Gentiles 
 as many imagine, though Gentile believers were afterwards 
 added. The giving of this title to the followers of Christ at 
 this time, (which was done by a divine suggestion as the origi- 
 nal word imports) was a fulfilment of this prophecy. And, 
 hence, the church, at the time alluded to, was to be composed 
 of Christians, u which are not born of blood, nor of the will 
 of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The change 
 predicted, then, was one that would exclude infants. That this 
 is the meaning is increasingly evident from the closing words : 
 * And they shall call them the holy people ; the redeemed of the 
 Lord; and thou shalt be called, Sought out, a city not forsaken ," 
 which terms clearly prove that the New Testament church 
 should be a select company, called out from the world, and pro- 
 fessing and appearing to be the children of God ; and not con>- 
 sisting of believers and their unbelieving children. 
 
 I would here refer the reader to the following passages in the 
 Old Testament, which teach the same doctrine, and point for- 
 ward to the same change in the constitution of the church : — 
 Deut. xviii. 15, 18, 19; Isaiah, xxvii. 6, 12, and xlix. 20, 22, 
 and liv. 13, and Ixv. 15 ; Ezekiel, xxxiv. 22, 23 ; Amos, ix. 9, 
 10, 11,12; Haggai, ii. 6, 7, 8, 9, and Zechariah, xi. 7, 10, 11. 
 
 The following passages from the New Testament, together 
 with the whole Gospel history, are in exact accordance with 
 the above predictions and explanations; viz. Mat. iii. 8, 9, 10: 
 " Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance. And think 
 not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father : 
 for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up 
 children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the 
 root of the trees ; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth 
 good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire." 
 
 This is a plain intimation that a standing in the Redeemer's 
 kingdom, which was about to he set up, could not be claimed 
 by birth; that it was to be a spiritual and holy kingdom ; and 
 that there was to be a breaking off of the unsound branches, re- 
 taining none but the fruitful ones ; all purporting the introduc- 
 tion of a new order of things, 
 
 Again ; chap. xxii. 1 1, 12, " And when the King came in to 
 see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding 
 garment: And he saith unto him, friend; how earnest thou in 
 hither not having on a wedding garment ? And he was speech- 
 less." In the parable from which these words are quoted, the 
 calling of the guests to the wedding, -represents the calling of 
 members into the Gospel church. The blame which is here 
 reflected upon the man who came into the King's house without 
 
 12* 
 
138 CHRISTIAN BAPTISE. 
 
 -I wedding garment, shows that be had no warrant to enter withour 
 one. He is not reprimanded simply for not having a wedding 
 garment, but for coming in among the guests without one^ This be- 
 ing applied to the church, as Christ intended, shows that it is a so- 
 ciety which ought to be inaccessible to the unbeliever. Presi- 
 dent Edwards very justly adduces this as one of his strongest 
 proofs tba| grace is a necessary qualification for communion. — ( 
 The Gospel church is a select company, and to give any a right 
 to enter it, they must have on the wedding garment of Christ's 
 righteousness, which is received by faith. Whoever enters 
 without it, is not only blamed for being an unbeliever, but for. 
 the act of coming in. " Huv, earnest thou in hither, not having 
 on a wedding garment ?" But if infant membership is contin- 
 ued in the church, (hen unbelievers are placed in it by. God's 
 appointment How, then, can they be to blame for coming in ? 
 If the church is a school, or nursery, for the unconverted chil- 
 dren of believers, as this doctrine supposes, then, none of them 
 can be to biame simply for being there. The Jewish children 
 were never to blame for being in that church But the man 
 here intended to be described, is blamed for coming into the 
 Gospel church. And this cannot be consistently restricted to the 
 unsound adult professor ; but it describes the case of all grace- 
 less members The whole representation goes to show that 
 the Gospel church consists of professors of religion, and no oth- 
 er, and that grace is an indispensable gualification to enter. — 
 None are born members as in the Jewish church ; and none 
 should be received, hut such as appear to be Christians, as none 
 others will be approved. The church is no longer national ; 
 but consists of believers of all nations. And this change of its 
 national character plainly excludes the membership of infants. 
 
 Again; Eph. ii. 14, 15, a For he is our peace, who hath 
 made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of parti- 
 tion between us j having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even 
 the law of commandments contained in ordinances ; for to make 
 in himself of twain one new man, so making peace ; and that he . 
 might reconcile I oth unto God in one body by the cross, having 
 slain the enmity tiiereby." " Of twain," Christ is here said to 
 have made u on* new man;" and he did this "by reconciling 
 both unto God in one body by the cross," which clearly shows 
 that they become one by becoming believers in Christ, and in 
 no other way. This consideration, then, determines the char- 
 acter of this " new man," ox Gospel church* It is composed 
 ot believers only ; and, hence infant membership is no part of 
 its constitution. Doctor Guise, though a learned Pedobap- 
 tist, in his paraphrase on this passage, introduces the apostle 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 139 
 
 as saying, " Christ has abolished these (the ceremonial pre- 
 cepts,) to the end that, as the great Head, in whom all things 
 were to be gathered in one, he might unite these distant par- 
 ties to each other ; and that he might make out of both, one 
 church, formed, as new creatures, according to the image of 
 God by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and formed together 
 for Gospel worship a ad new obedience, and equally partakers, 
 by a new constitution under him, of all the blessings that per- 
 tain to the kingdom of grace in this world, and the kingdom of 
 glory in that which is to come. In this manner he has brought 
 about an entire harmony and friendship between believers of all 
 nations among themselves as one spiritual body, they being united 
 by faith and love to him, and to one another in and through him. 57 
 This is an admirable description of the Gospel church. But 
 how it consists with the doctor's notion of infant membership 
 elsewhere expressed, it is hard to conceive. The new constitu- 
 tion which he admits the church is placed under, manifestly 
 excludes the membership of infants. 
 
 In addition to these passages, the reader is referred to John, 
 viii. 39; Romans, ix. 6, 7, 8, 24,25,26,27; Heb. xii.lt, 12 : 
 Gal. iii. 26, 27, 28 y and v. 6 ; and I. Pet. ii. 9, 10. 
 
 Infants, therefore, are not to be baptized on the ground of 
 their membership in the Gospel church; because iv does not 
 exist. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 141 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 The argument in favour of Infant Baptism from Ecclesiastical 
 History, examined and shown to be insufficient and inconclu- 
 
 I shall be brief in my remarks on the subject of this chap- 
 ter, partly because I should otherwise transcend ray limits, and 
 partly because I consider the scriptures as the proper source of 
 proof, and seeing we do not find infant baptism there, it ought 
 to be rejected, though we should find ever so much in its fa- 
 vour in the records of uninspired men. It illy becomes those 
 who allow the scriptures to be a sufficient, and the only infalli- 
 ble rule of faith and practice, when they fail to prove a point 
 from them, to resort to church history. There is manifestly 
 too much stress laid upon this argument in the present case. 
 
 That there is mention made of the baptism of little children 
 in ecclesiastical history, as early as the forepart of the third 
 century, and claimed as a tradition from the apostles, will nptbe 
 denied, although the first of the fathers who makes decided 
 mention of the practice, viz. Tatullian, manifestly opposed it. 
 His words are these, viz. u The delay of baptism may be more 
 advantageous, either on account of the condition, disposition, 
 or age of any person, especially in reference to little children. 
 For what necessity is there that the sponsors should be brought 
 into danger ? Because either they themselves may fail of 
 their promises by death, or be deceived by the growth of evil 
 dispositions. The Lord indeed says, do not forbid them to come 
 to me. Let them therefore come, when they are grown up — 
 when then can understand — when they are taught to what they 
 are to come. Why should this innocent age hasten to the re- 
 mission of sins? Men act more cautiously in worldly things, 
 so that divine things are here intrusted with whom worldly 
 things are not. Let them know how to seek salvation, that you 
 may appear to give to one that asketh." 
 
 Some testimonies, previous to this, are attempted to be pro- 
 duced, but none of them are so explicit as to be relied on. 
 And as to this, although it recognises the practice of baptizing 
 little children, it surely does not give it countenance ; but the 
 
142 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 author clearly dissuaded from it. He certainly reasons very 
 much like an Anti-Pedobaptist. His mode of speaking im- 
 plies that the practice was of recent date : neither does it de- 
 cidedly acknowledge the existence of infant baptism in the 
 sense afterwards adopted. It rather appears to convey the idea 
 that some began to baptize children at too early an age, although 
 not strictly upon the faith of their parents. The parents, as 
 parents, are not spoken of as having any thing to do in the 
 case ; but sponsors were provided to answer for the children, be- 
 cause they were too young to give the requisite answers them- 
 selves. This all looks as though, from a false view of the ne- 
 cessity and benefit of baptism, they began to encourage appli- 
 cations from children before they were capable of a regular pro- 
 fession of their faith ; and to remedy their incapacity, sponsors 
 came forward to answer for them. And from this arose, at length, 
 the practice of baptizing mere infants upon the account of their 
 parents. 
 
 Venema, who was a learned writer, says, as quoted by Pen- 
 gilly, that " Tertullian has no where mentioned Pedobaptism 
 among the traditions or customs of the church that were pub- 
 lickly received and usually observed." The inference from 
 which U, that no such tradition, or custom, was then publickly 
 received and generally observed, although the above quotation 
 implies that the practice of baptizing children at too early ait 
 age, without proper evidence of faith, began to prevail. 
 
 The next writer who speaks of this practice is Origin, whc 
 flourished a little after Tertullian, i. e. in the former part of the 
 third century, who says, that " the church received a tradition 
 from the apostles to give baptism to little children also." Here 
 again the proof is not decisive that mere infants -axe meant who 
 were baptized on the faith of their parents. The terms little 
 children, may mean no more than very young persons, baptized 
 upon their own account, though improperly, as above stated, for 
 the want of the requisite qualifications ; and afterwards he 
 might have been understood to mean mere infants. 
 
 After Origin, Cyprian, who lived about the middle of this 
 century, speaks more definitely of infant baptism ; and sub- 
 sequently, Austin, who lived in the fifth century, when no one 
 doubts that the practice, as now understood, generally pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 In relation to the early introduction of infant baptism, Bish- 
 op Taylor, as quoted by Pengilly, affirms that " there is no 
 pretence of tradition that the church in all ages did baptize all 
 the infants of Christian parents. It is more certain that they 
 did not do it always, than that they did it in the first age. St- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 143 
 
 Ambrose, St. Hieroni, and St. Austin, were born of Christian 
 parents, and yet not baptized until the full age of a man and 
 more." He says further, " that there is a tradition from the 
 apostles to do so, (i. e. to baptize infants,) relies but on two wit- 
 nesses, Origin and Austin, and the latter having received it from 
 the former, it relies wholly on one single testimony, which is but 
 a pitiful argument to prove a tradition apostolical." He says, 
 moreover, " that it was not so, (i.e. not an apostolical tradition,) 
 is but too certain, if there be any truth in the words of Ludo- 
 vicus Vives." This last writer lived in the sixteenth century, 
 and is quoted by Dr. Gill as saying, that " formerly no person 
 was brought to the holy baptistery, till he was of adult age, and 
 when he both understood what that mystical water meant, and 
 desired to be washed in it, yea, desired it more than once." And 
 in reference to the Waldenses, he further says : " I hear, in 
 some cities of Italy, the old custom is in a great measure pre- 
 served." 
 
 This is one among many testimonies, that the ancient Wal- 
 denses, who were witnesses for the truth in the dark ages oi 
 popery, practised believers' baptism only. 
 
 I am sensible that in opposition to these testimonies, writers 
 of eminence might be quoted who maintain that infant baptism 
 was affirmed to be received as a tradition from the apostles by 
 men who lived at so early a period of the Christian era, that 
 they must have known whether the fact were so or not. 
 
 But this merely goes to show what is asserted by the ablest 
 judges to be the fact, that when we undertake to survey the peri- 
 od in which the first mention is made of this practice, we are 
 involved in absurdity and doubt. The testimonies concerning 
 many of the transactions of those early ages, are vague and 
 contradictory. Besides, many of the writings of the early fa- 
 thers are lost — others have been interpolated and corrupted by 
 transcribers and translators. Moreover, most of those whose 
 testimonies are relied on were tinctured with a vain philosophy 
 and the reigning superstition, which were carried so far as to 
 maintain that it was even right to deceive to promote the good 
 of the church, so that their testimony in the case should be re- 
 ceived with caution. 
 
 It is no decisive evidence that the practice in question was 
 truly apostolical because it is mentioned so early and claimed 
 as such, and because there was not more express mention made 
 of the opposition which must have been raised against its in- 
 troduction, if it had been an innovation. For the introduction 
 was gradual, probably in the way already stated. Also, at, and 
 previous 9 to the period alluded to, the sentiment prevailed that 
 
Ml CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 water baptism was necessary to salvation, and that it had the 
 virtue of washing away original sin, and of procuring divine 
 forgiveness. This would naturally induce the belief that it 
 could not have been the design of Christ to exclude infants 
 therefrom, and consequently from salvation. And hence they 
 would at length venture to confer what they conceived to be 
 so great a benefit upon the children. 
 
 The difficulty arising from there not being more express 
 mention made of opposition to this practice, is by no means 
 insurmountable. It has already been shown that Tertullian 
 did make opposition to it — besides, if there had been no record 
 of any opposition, the case would not have been peculiar. For 
 there is no record of any opposition being made at first to the 
 practice of infant communion, introduced about the same time with 
 infant baptism, and manifestly on the same ground, viz. its being 
 essential to salvation. It is evident that this practice prevailed 
 for a season, but who introduced it, or who opposed it, we are 
 not told. A tradition was also claimed in those early times in 
 favour of Episcopacy ; but we cannot ascertain its particular or- 
 igin any more than in the case of infant baptism. Accordingly 
 Bishop Prideaux says, that 6i Pedobaptism rests on no other di- 
 vine right than Episcopacy." Yet many Protestants reject the 
 latter because they do not find it in the Bible ; and for the same 
 reason we should reject the former. Besides, there is no no- 
 tice taken of any opposition being made, at first, to the admission 
 of sponsors in baptism, nor of the person, or church, that first in- 
 troduced them. Nor have we any account of the origin of the 
 difference which then prevailed in regard to the proper time of 
 keeping Easter. All we know of the case is, that such a dif- 
 ference existed, and was the occasion of warm disputes between 
 the eastern and western sections of the church. 
 
 The want of information respecting the introduction of these 
 several articles, or respecting the opposition which was raised 
 against them, will goto relieve the difficulty pertaining to the 
 introduction of infant baptism, by placing all on the same ground. 
 
 Although there is nothing very express on record, in opposi- 
 tion to infant baptism, at the time the first mention is made of 
 it, except what has been quoted from Tertullian, there are 
 subsequent accounts of this opposition, which show that the 
 date of it may be carried much further back than many are 
 willing to acknowledge. 
 
 Doctor Gill affirms, that " there were many and great debates 
 about infant baptism at the first of the reformation, years before 
 he affair of Munster." 
 
 He says, the Bishop of Aries in Provence wrote to Pope Ira- 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 145 
 
 nocentthe third, under whom the Lateran council was held in 
 1215, that " some hereticks there had taught, that it was to no 
 purpose to baptize children, since they could have no forgive- 
 ness of sins thereby, as having no faith, charity," &c. » 
 
 Further ; that " there was a people called German heTeticks, 
 or publicans, who came into England from Gascoigne in the 
 year 1166, or a little before, who asserted that infants are not to 
 be baptized, till they come to the age of understanding. These 
 were headed by Gerbardusand Dulcinus." 
 
 Also, that St. Bernard, in a letter to the Earl of St. Gyles, 
 in 1147, brings the following charge against Henry, from whom 
 the people denominated Henricians were called, viz. " the in- 
 fants of Christians are hindered from the life of Christ, the 
 grace of baptism being denied them." And that, about the 
 same time, the same author, in his treatise upon the Canticles, 
 notices a people called Apostolici, (probably the followers of 
 Henry,) and charges them with saying that infants are not to be 
 baptized." He says, " they laugh at us for baptizing infants.' 5 
 
 Further : The Doctor says, that Peter D. Bruis, and Henry, 
 his follower, both opposed infant baptism. That Peter, the 
 abbot of Clugny, who wrote against them, charges them with 
 saying, that " infants are not baptized, or saved, by the faith of 
 another ; but ought to be baptized and saved by their own 
 faith ; or that baptism without their own faith does not save ; 
 and that those that are baptized in infancy, when grown up, 
 should be baptized again ; nor are they then re-baptized, but 
 rather rightly baptized." Dr. Wall allows that these two men 
 were Anti-Pedobaptists, and their followers were very nume- 
 rous. 
 
 Doctor Gill further states, that Evervinus, of the diocess of 
 Cologne, wrote a letter to St. Bernard, in 1140, giving an ac- 
 count of some hereticks lately discovered in that country, con- 
 cerning whom he says : " They condemn the sacraments ex- 
 cept baptism only, and this only in those who are come to age, 
 who they say are baptized by Christ himself, whoever be the mi- 
 nister of the sacrament. They do not believe in infant baptism, 
 alleging that place of the gospel, " he that believeth and is 
 baptized shall be saved." 
 
 That " Bruno and Berengarius, about the year 1035, opposed 
 infant baptism." 
 
 That Deododwin, Bishop of Liege, in a letter to Henry I. 
 king of England, says, " There is a report come out of France, 
 and which goes through all Germany, that these two do maintain 
 that the Lord's body (the Host) is not the body, but a shadow 
 snd figure of the Lord's body, and that thev do disannul lawful 
 
 13 
 
146 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 marriages ; and, as far as in them lies, overthrow the baptism of 
 infants." 
 
 And that " Guudulphus and his followers, about this time 3 
 opposed infant baptism." Dr. Milner admits that " this people 
 objected particularly to the baptism of infants, because they 
 w r ere incapable of understanding, or confessing the truth." 
 They are said to have been considerably numerous in Flanders 
 and elsewhere, and they were condemned in a council held at 
 Arras in 1025. 
 
 It appears, also, that the Lollards in England were opposers 
 of infant baptism ; for it is said they maintained " that infants 
 be sufficiently baptized if their parents be baptized before 
 them." 
 
 Yea, it appears from the concession of Dr. Mosheim, a learn- 
 ed Pedobaptist, in his Ecclesiastical History, that the origin of 
 this opposition to infant baptism cannot be fixed at any period 
 short of that of the apostles. He says : u The true origin of 
 that sect which acquired the denomination of Anabaptists, by 
 their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came 
 over to their communion, and derived that of Mennonites, from 
 that famous man to whom they owe the greatest part of their 
 felicity, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and of course, 
 is extremely difficult to be ascertained." He further says: 
 " It may be observed, in the first place, that the Mennonites are 
 not entirely mistaken when they boast of their descent from 
 the Waldenses, Petrobrussians, and other ancient sects who 
 are usually considered witnesses of the truth in the times of 
 universal darkness and superstition. Before the rise of Luther 
 and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of 
 Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland, and 
 Germany, many persons who adhered tenaciously to the follow- 
 ing doctrine, which the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites 
 had maintained, some in a more disguised, and some in a more 
 open and publick manner, viz. that the kingdom of Christ, or 
 the visible church he established on earth, was an assembly of 
 true and real saints, and ought to be inaccessible to the wicked 
 and unrighteous, and also exempt from all those institutions 
 which human prudence suggests to oppose the progress of ini- 
 quity, or to correct and reform transgressors. This maxim is 
 the true source of all the peculiarities that are to be found in 
 the religious doctrine and discipline of the Mennonites ; and it 
 is most certain that the greatest part of these peculiarities were 
 approved of by many of those who, before the dawn of the re- 
 formation, entertained the notion already mentioned relating to 
 the visible church of Christ. " 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 147 
 
 This is virtually admitting that the Waldenses were ancient- 
 ly Anti-Pedobaptists, or at least many of them. This also is 
 capable of other proof. Of course, the opposition to infant 
 baptism is carried back to the seventh century, for that is the pe- 
 riod in which these people " fled into the valleys." This view 
 of the subject is corroborated by the testimony of Reinerous 
 Sacco, as quoted by Mosheim's translator, in a note, vol. iii. p. 
 316, " who lived about eighty years after Peter Waldo, (i. e. 
 in the twelfth century,) and who persecuted these people, and 
 speaks of them as a sect which had flourished above Jive hun- 
 dred years, (which term carries us back to the seventh century.) 
 Nay, he mentions authors of note who make their antiquity 
 amount to the apostolick age." 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that infant baptism has been long and 
 faithfully opposed — opposed as well as maintained, by eminent 
 men — men that have forsaken all for Christ : and that no peri- 
 od short of the apostolick age can be assigned when this oppo- 
 sition first commenced. Although the baptism of infants, or, at 
 least, of small children before they could give a reason of their 
 hope, began to be practised in the forepart of the third century, 
 and subsequently, for a long time, appears to have generally pre- 
 vailed, it does not appear that it has ever been practised univer- 
 sally. There is reason to believe there have always been op- 
 posers to it, when it has been carried to its greatest height. And 
 as to the practice of the truly primitive church, I have abun- 
 dantly shown from the scripture records themselves, that it was 
 altogether against it, and in favour only of the baptism of be- 
 lievers. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 149 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Containing remarks on Female Communion, and the Change of 
 the Sabbath, 
 
 Many allege that the foregoing view of the nature of posi- 
 tive institutions, and the demand which has been made for an 
 explicit warrant in the case of infant baptism, will lead to the 
 exclusion of females from the Lord's table, and to the denial of 
 the change of the Sabbath. 
 
 In regard to the first, it is plead that there is no explicit war- 
 rant for the admission of females to communion ; but that their 
 right is based merely on inference and analogy — the same kind 
 of proof which is offered in the other case. This statement, 
 however, will be found, on examination, to be incorrect. 
 
 An explicit warrant is a plain and positive expression of the 
 will of Christ in the institution itself which contains the duty, 
 or a plain apostolick example in relation to the case. 
 
 And such a warrant is manifestly furnished in regard to fe- 
 male communion. For, 
 
 1. The order to attend upon the supper was given to disciples 
 without regard to sex. Our Lord manifestly brake bread to the 
 twelve, at first, not as apostles , nor as ordinary ministers , nor as 
 men in distinction from women ; but as disciples. The occasion 
 was one on which he was present, with his own particular fam- 
 ily, which consisted of the twelve, for the purpose of celebrat- 
 ing the passover according to custom. To these, merely in the 
 character of disciples, he brake the symbolick bread, saying. 
 " Do this in remembrance of me." This command obviously 
 includes other disciples — yea, all others, down to his second 
 coming, without regard to sex. " In Christ, there is neither 
 male nor female ;" but all <c are one." 
 
 2. It is perfectly obvious that this ordinance was celebrated 
 by the whole church of Jerusalem, which consisted of males and 
 females* * 
 
 That it consisted, in part, of females, appears from the consi- 
 deration that the assembly on the day of Pentecost was promts- 
 mous ; that, agreeably to the prophecy of Joel, referred to on 
 
 13* 
 
150 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM* 
 
 that occasion, Acts,ii. 17, 18 — the Spirit was poured out upon 
 "God's sons and daughters, servants and handmaids;" that 
 " the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved," 
 without regard to sex ; and that " believers were the more ad- 
 ded to the Lord, multitudes, both of men and women," So that 
 here is positive proof that women belonged to that church as 
 well as men, being alike baptized upon a profession of their 
 faith. And it is expressly said, that " all that believed were to- 
 gether ;" and that u they continued steadfastly in the apostle's 
 doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in 
 prayers. " Here, then, the proof is positive, that women par- 
 took of the supper, in common with men. It is plainly record- 
 ed, that they believed and were added to the Lord ; and that 
 all that believed were together, and continued in the apostle's 
 doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread. The proof 
 is just as express for female as for male communion. 
 
 3. There were women, also, in the church of Samaria : Acts, 
 viii. 12* " For when the Samaritans " believed Philip preach- 
 ing the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name 
 of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.' 7 
 The communion of that church, also, must have included fe- 
 males as well as males. 
 
 4. There is both an express order to the church of Corinth, 
 as a body, consisting of males and females, to celebrate the sup- 
 per, and an express record that they did so. 
 
 That this church consisted of women as well as men, appears 
 from I. Cor. x. 34, 35 : " Let your women Jteep silence in the 
 churches ; for it is not permitted unto them to speak. If they 
 will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home ; for 
 it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 
 
 The order to that church to observe the supper is in chap. xi. 
 23. "For I have received of the Lord that which also I deli- 
 vered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he 
 was betrayed took bread, &c. The pronoun you, includes the 
 church collectively, females as well as males, for of such it con- 
 sisted. And the order was to the whole church . Hence the 
 institution itself, as repeated and enjoined by Paul, contains an 
 explicit warrant for female communion. 
 
 Besides, the apostle says, chap. x. 16, 17, " The cup of 
 blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood 
 of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the com- 
 , munion of the body of Christ ?■ For we, being many, are one 
 bread, and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one 
 bread." Here, therefore, is a plain and positive record, that 
 the Corinthian church did all partake of the supper. It is 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 151 
 
 just as obvious that the females partook of it as it is that the 
 males did. They are included in the pronoun " we," and in 
 the adjective u a//," as it is evident at first sight. 
 
 The proof, then, is explicit, that there were women in that 
 church — that the church coljectively was ordered to attend upon 
 the supper ; and that they actually did so. Besides, the last 
 clause of the last cited passage, viz. " we are all partakers of 
 that one bread," includes all other Christians, so that the case 
 of that church was not peculiar. 
 
 It is said, indeed, verse 28, li But let a man examine himself, 
 and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup ;" but 
 this does in no measure restrict the privilege of communion to 
 males ; for the word anthropos, (man,) is here, as in many oth- 
 er places, evidently used as a name for the species, and not to 
 distinguish a man from a woman. 
 
 In view, therefore, of all this, the warrant for female com- 
 munion is, properly speaking, explicit, and not based upon in- 
 ference and analogy- 
 Let such testimony be brought in the case of infant baptism, 
 and it will suffice. 
 
 But in relation to that subject, as we have seen, all is silent. 
 There is not so much as a plain and necessary inference from 
 scriptural premises in support of it. 
 
 In regard to the change of the Sabbath, I would remark, that 
 this is a moral duty, in part, at least ; and, therefore, the sub- 
 ject will admit of proof by way of iuference and analogy. So 
 far, at least, as the institution respects the keeping of a seventh 
 part of time holy^ it is of a moral nature ; otherwise it would not 
 have been inserted in the moral law, but have been placed in 
 the ceremonial. It being, therefore, a moral precept, the above 
 kind of proof may be brought in relation to the change from the 
 seventh to the first day of the week. There are now the same 
 ieasons for observing the latter, which there were anciently for 
 observing the former, 
 
 2. The example of the Apostles and primitive Christians, is 
 in favour of this change. The first day of the week was ob- 
 served by them as a day of religious worship, and breaking of 
 bread. It is, hence, denominated the Lord's day in distinction 
 from other days, which is a plain intimation of the change. — 
 Moreover, it was particularly distinguished and honoured by 
 Christ's appearing thereon to his disciples after his resurrection, 
 
 There is reason, also, to conclude that the apostle Paul al- 
 ludes to this change, and to the New Testament Sabbath in Heb, 
 iv. 9: " There remaineth therefore a rest (in the Greek, Sab- 
 batismos, a Sabbath) to the people of God." 
 
PART II. 
 
 THE DIFFERENT MODES OF ADMINISTERING THE ORDINANCE 
 OF BAPTISM IN USE AMONG THE CHURCHES SHOWN TO BE 
 VALID. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Containing an examination of the Greek word, baptizo. 
 
 The question at issue, is not whether immersion be a valid 
 mode of baptism. This no one disputes. But whether it be 
 the only valid mode, or whether the other modes in use, viz. 
 washing, pouring and sprinkling, are not valid also. My ob- 
 ject is to show that these modes are valid, as well as immersion, 
 And to that end, I will commence with an examination of the 
 Greek work, baptizo ; the word used in the institution. 
 
 This word signifies " to immerse, to wash, or to wet." There- 
 fore, if we keep within the proper scope or meaning of this 
 term, the baptism, if otherwise correct, is valid. In regard to 
 the action of baptizing, the apostles were directed to do what 
 this word imports. If therefore it signify washing in general 
 as well as immersion, then any kind of washing, by a proper 
 officer, in the name of the Trinity, is baptism. 
 
 That baptizo signifies to wash, or to wet, as well as to immerse , 
 we have the testimony, in the first place, of the best lexicogra- 
 phers. 
 
 It is rendered into Latin, " mergo, lavo," the English of 
 which is, (in the infinitive mood,) " to immerse, to wash, or to 
 wet." Washing, then, is one of its significations. The Greeks 
 used it to denote both immersion and washing in general. The 
 import was not confined to immersion, either in classical wri- 
 tings or common conversation. 
 
 If, therefore, washing comes within the proper import of this 
 
154 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 term, it is a valid mode of baptism, whether the subject be 
 applied to the water, or the water to the subject. 
 
 When it is admitted that haptizo means to immerse, many 
 seem to think it is proved that this is the only valid mode of 
 baptizing. There is great account often made of this admission, 
 as though it decided the whole controversy. 
 
 But in truth it proves no more than that immersion is a valid 
 mode of baptism, without affecting the validity of other modes. 
 
 Take this admission, which is made by many learned Pedo- 
 baptist authors, apart from what they further say respecting the 
 import of baptizo, and it would, indeed, appear to have great 
 weight ; because it would represent them as yielding the ground 
 to the Baptists, and as contradicting their own practice. 
 
 But these authors have immediately added, that it signifies 
 also to wash) to wet, or to cleanse. It is unfair, therefore, to quote 
 only a part of their testimony, viz. so far as it contains an ad- 
 mission that this Greek term means to immerse, while they 
 maintain in the same connexion, and with equal plainness and 
 confidence, that it means also to wash, or to apply water in any 
 mode. From a partial quoting of the testimony of these authors, 
 (which I am sorry to say is frequently done,) one would be 
 ready to think the cause of immersion triumphant. Wtiereas, 
 when it is quoted entire, it yields no support to that cause : i. e, 
 it affords no proof that immersion is the only valid baptism. 
 
 These authors admit no more than every one admits who is 
 acquainted with the subject, viz. that one of the meanings of 
 baptizo is to immerse, while he maintains that it signifies also to 
 tvash or to cleanse in any mode. 
 
 I am willing to allow the Baptists every thing which can be 
 reasonably claimed from the import of this word. And this I 
 have already done. It signifies to immerse, to ivash, or to wet. 
 
 But this admission does not determine in which of these 
 senses it is used when it pertains to the ordinance of Christian 
 baptism. The word may be oftener used to denote immersion 
 than washing; but this will not prove that it means immersion, 
 exclusively, when applied to this subject. There is nothing in 
 this circumstance which necessarily restricts its import to im- 
 mersion. It may notwithstanding,when applied to this ordinance, 
 be used in the other sense, and this may be sufficiently indica- 
 ted by the circumstances of the case. At any rate, it plainly 
 includes the other sense, so as to determine that washing in any 
 mode is baptism as well as immersion. 
 
 It is plead in favour of the first rendering of this term, that it 
 is a derivative from bapto, the meaning of which is to c%, to 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 155 
 
 plunge all over in water ; consequently, that this also means to 
 immerse, and that only. 
 
 But this conclusion will not follow, allowing the truth of the 
 premises. For the very circumstance that baptizo is a deriva- 
 tive from bapto, shows that its import is less. The full meaning 
 of the root, or primitive word, is not ordinarily retained in the 
 derivative. Allowing, therefore, that bapto means to dip exclu- 
 sively , we cannot justly infer that baptizo means also to dip and 
 nothing else: but the natural inference is, that its common 
 signification is something short of dipping. To wash in any 
 mode, is a meaning which well suits a derivative from bapto. 
 Accordingly, some of the best writers have said that the proper 
 meaning of baptizo is to wash in general, and that it only signi- 
 fies to immerse, as that is one mode of washing. 
 
 The inconclusiveness of this argument is still more evident, 
 from the circumstance that bapto itself does not invariably mean 
 to dip. In Daniel, iv. 33, it plainly signifies to wet, or to sprin- 
 kle ; for it would not be proper to say that Nebuchadnezzar was 
 dipt in the dew of Heaven; but he was " wet with it," as the 
 passage is rendered, or the dew was distilled upon him. 
 
 The common meaning, however, of bapto, is to dip. But it is 
 never applied to the ordinance of baptism. The Saviour has 
 employed a term of more extended, or general import. 
 
 That baptizo signifies to wash as well as to immerse, appears, 
 in the second place, from the use of it in the Scriptures, when 
 applied to other purifications than that of baptism. The trans- 
 lators have rendered it in this sense ; and a careful examina- 
 tion of the several passages will show that they have rendered 
 it correctly. 
 
 The first is Mark, vii. 4 : " And when they come from the 
 market, except they wash, (in the Greek, * ean me baptisontai,' 
 i. e. except they baptize,) they eat not : and many other things 
 there be which they have received to hold as the washing (in 
 the Greek, c baptismous,^ baptisms) of cups, and pots, brazen 
 vessels, and of tables." The translation in both cases is man- 
 ifestly correct, except in the latter, the word, " baptismous,' 5 
 should have been rendered in the plural, washings. In the first 
 clause, reference appears to be had to the custom of washing 
 hands, or at most to the washing of the more exposed parts of the 
 body. And in the latter, to the different methods of washing or 
 cleansing the articles described. The word being plural, de- 
 notes different methods of applying water, or the applying of it 
 in any mode. And the tables, from their size and peculiar con- 
 struction, could not have been immersed in water without great 
 inconvenience, as every one must see who is acquainted with 
 
156 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the customs of those times. These tables were evidently wash- 
 ed by applying water to them. 
 
 Again, Luke xi. 37, 38 : " And as he spake, a certain Phari- 
 see besought him to dine with him : and he went in, and sat 
 down to meat ; and when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled 
 that he had not first washed, (in the Greek, c oli ou protou ebap- 
 tisthef i. e. that he was not first baptized,) before dinner." The 
 occasion for wonder here, on the part of the Pharisee, was evi- 
 dently our Lord's not having washed his hands before dinner ; 
 and not his not having been immersed, u for the Pharisees and 
 all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, (or, with the fist, 
 as it is when strictly rendered,) eat not." 
 
 Another passage in which " baptizo," in a substantive form, 
 is used in the sense of washing, is Heb. ix. 10 : " Which stood 
 only in meats and drinks, and diverse washings, (in the Greek, 
 4 diaphorois baptismois,' i. e. diverse baptisms) and carnal ordi- 
 nances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Here 
 is a plain allusion to the various ablutions appointed by the law, 
 some of which were performed in one mode, and some in anoth- 
 er : some were performed on &part of the body, and some on 
 the whole. Yet they are all called baptisms, which shows con- 
 clusively that baptizo denotes washing in general, and is by no 
 means confined to the sense of immersion. 
 
 Moreover, it would be absurd to speak of different immersions, 
 when immersion is but one simple aet, especially as the word, 
 diaphorois, here used to quality u baptismois," denotes, not 
 simply " diverse washings," but different sorts, or kinds of wash- 
 ings. But to speak of different sorts or kinds of dippings, would 
 be grossly absurd. The terms are, therefore, rightly translated, 
 diverse, or different washings ; which is a plain proof of the 
 correctness of the above definition of baptizo. 
 
 Again : this word appears to be used in this sense, L Cor. x. 
 1,2: " Moreover, brethren, I would not have you ignorant 
 how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed 
 through the sea ; and were all baptized (in the Greek, ebapti- 
 zanto) unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." The baptism 
 received in this case was manifestly not an immersion in water ; 
 but merely a washing, wetting, or sprinkling. They were nei- 
 ther plunged into the cloud nor into the sea. They were no 
 more than washed ox wet with rain from the one, and with sprays 
 from the other. Hence, in evident allusion to this baptism of the 
 congregation of Israel, David says, Ps. lxxvii. 16, 17, " The 
 waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee, they were 
 afraid, the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 157 
 
 out water^ the skies sent out a sound : thine arrows also went 
 abroad." 
 
 Again ; he says, Psalms, lxviii. 9 : " Thou, O God, didst send 
 u plentiful rain, whereby thou didst confirm thine inheritance, 
 when it was weary." These passages explain the baptism in 
 the cloud. It was by rain therefrom ; which probably took place 
 " when the pillar of the cloud went from before their face and 
 stood behind them." In passing over their heads, that it might 
 come between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of 
 Israel, (see Exodus, xiv. 20.) it distilled upon the latter a re* 
 freshing rain : whence they are said to have been u baptized 
 unto Moses in the cloud." xVnd they were baptized also unto 
 him u in the sea," not by being immersed in it, for u they went 
 through the midst of it on dry ground, and tbe waters were a 
 wall unto them on the right hand and on the left ;" but by a 
 mist, or by sprays from the sea. 
 
 Again; our Lord says, Luke, xii. 50: "I have a baptism 
 (in the Greek, baptisma) to be baptized with, and how am I 
 straitened till it be accomplished!" It is much more natural 
 to understand the term here to mean washing* wetting, or bathing, 
 than immersion. For we are told that during his agony in the 
 garden, "his sweat w T as as it were great drops of blood failing 
 down to the ground ;" and while on the cross, the blood issued 
 from his wounds and overspread^ or bathed his bo ly. 
 
 Again ; we are told, John, iii 25, 26, that u there arose a 
 question among some of John's disciples and the Jews about 
 purifying ; and they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, 
 he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest 
 witness, the. same baptizeth, and all men come to him." This 
 dispute about purifying being illustrated, or defined, by an allu- 
 sion to Christ's baptizing, shows that purifying and baptizing 
 mean the same thing. The subject which agitated some of 
 John's disciples, in as much as they were zealous for their 
 master's interest and honour, was the baptism performed by 
 Christ, and its acceptability with the people. If, therefore, we 
 can determine how this purifying was performed, we shall be 
 assisted in determining the mode of baptism. One thing is cer- 
 tain respecting this purifying, viz. that it was not necessarily, 
 or invariably, performed by immersing the whole body in water. 
 This appears from the size of the vessels made use of for the 
 purpose, which was not sufficient for immersion. See John, ii. 
 5 : " And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the 
 manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three 
 firkins apiece." The purifying, then, might have been, yea, must 
 have been, in some instances at least, performed in some mode 
 
 14 
 
158 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 short of immersion. It was a mere partial washing, or bathing— 
 the washing of the face, the hands, or some other part of the 
 body. Baptism being here represented as being the same with 
 purifying, must nave been, or at least might have been, some- 
 thing short of a total immersion. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 159 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Containing an examination of the Greek word, u louo," as used 
 to denote the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 The application of " low" (the appropriate meaning of 
 which is to wash) to the ordinance of baptism, tends to confirm 
 the preceding remarks. This term, in its different declinations, 
 is several times employed to denote the actum of baptizing. 
 And its import is as broad as that of the English term, wash, 
 which describes an action performed by putting a person or 
 thing into the water, or by applying the water to either, in any 
 mode whatever; although it usually denotes some degree of 
 friction or rubbing When a person is said to be washed, no 
 more is commonly or necessarily implied than the washing of 
 the exposed parts of the body, or some one of them. Hence 
 our Saviour said, in reply to Peter's request that he would 
 wash not only his feet, but h : s hands, and hs head, " He that is 
 washed, needeth not save to wash his feet^ but is clean every 
 whit." 
 
 The application of louo to the ordinance of Christian Bap- 
 tism, shows that baptizo, when applied to the same, is used in 
 the sense of to wash rather than that of to immerse- Immersion^ 
 then, is not essential to the validity of the ordinance, because 
 washing may be performed in other modes as well as in that. 
 
 One of the passages in which louo is so applied in the form 
 of a substantive, is Eph. v. 25, 26 : tv Christ loved the church, 
 and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it 
 with the washing of water (in the Greek, u to toutro tou huda- 
 tos") by the word." There can be do doubt that Christian 
 baptism is the thing here referred to, and described. There 
 is no other application of water in use in the Christian church 
 to which it can be understood to refer; and it must be obvious to 
 every one, that the significant and expressly appointed ordinance 
 of baptism is meant. This is an outward cleansing represent- 
 ing the inward by the Holy Ghost, and it is here denominated 
 simply a washing with water. From which it is evident, that 
 the leading idea of baptism is a washing or cleansing^ a purifi- 
 
160 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 cation, or a putting away the filth of the flesh — a significant ee- 
 remony which the Lord has seen meet to appoint and continue 
 in the church, as a publick badge of discipleship, and an out- 
 ward representation or symbol of the purifying work of the Spi- 
 rit through the instrumentality of the word. It does not, of it- 
 self, save ; but it is simply an act of obedience— an appointed 
 and significant purification. Immersion, then, is evidently not 
 essential, but washing in any other mode is alike valid. 
 
 Another passage in which louo is applied to baptism, is Heb. 
 x. 22 : " Let us draw near with a true heart, in the full assur- 
 ance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
 science, and our bodies washed (in the Greek, leloumenoi) 
 with pure water." Leloumenoi is a participle from louo, which, 
 as before observed, means to wash in general. 
 
 Christian baptism is here again undoubtedly referred to, and 
 is expressly represented as a washing, which affords another 
 conclusive testimony that baptizo, when applied to this ordi- 
 nance, is used in the sense of to wash, rather than that of to 
 immerse. Any application of water which may be termed a 
 washing or cleansing, is a real baptism, though in ever so small a 
 degree. 
 
 Again : A similar application is made of louo in the form of a 
 substantive, in Titus, iii. 5 : " Not by works of righteousness 
 which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us by 
 the washing (in the Greek, loutrou) of regeneration and renew- 
 ing of the Holy Ghost. 5 ' " The washing of regeneration" pro- 
 bably denotes baptism, a " being born of water," as regenera- 
 tion itself is called, in the next words, " the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost." The latter expression would be a tautology if 
 the former denoted regeneration itself. Baptism is probably 
 meant by the first phrase, and if so, it is called a washing. 
 
 And provided regeneration itself is denoted by this phrase, it 
 is manifestly called a washing in allusion to the washing used in 
 baptism ; so that, in either sense, baptism is represented as a 
 washing* 
 
 A similar application is made of louo, I. Cor. vi. 11 : u And 
 such were some of you ; but ye are washed, (in the Greek, 
 M apelousasthe," which is compounded of apo and louo,) but 
 ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." The words, " but ye 
 are washed," evidently relate to baptism, and are the same as to 
 say, " but ye are baptized." For if we should say they de- 
 note the inward change, or purification, the next words, viz. 
 i{ but ye are sanctified," would be a mere tautology. 
 
 But even if we should say he means the same inward cleans- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. l6l 
 
 ing by both phrases, it will be evident, from the manner" in 
 which this is expressed, that the outward cleansing by baptism is 
 a icashing too. 
 
 Again; Annanias said to Paul, Acts xxii. 16: " And now 
 why tarriest thou ? Arise and be baptized, and wash away (in 
 the Greek, apolousai ) thy sins, calling on the name of the 
 Lord." Here baptism is also represented as a washing. Not 
 that it does really wash away sin, but only representatively or sym- 
 bolically , or it is an open expression and testimony of that faith 
 in Jesus whereby we obtain the remission of sins and are wash- 
 ed in the fountain of his blood. At any rate, the sense of wash- 
 ing is plainly attributed to baptism. 
 
 This sense is again attributed to it in John, xiii. 10 : " Jesus 
 saith unto him, he that is washed (in the Greek, " o leloume- 
 nos") needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every 
 whit." In whatever way this passage is explained, the leading 
 idea of baptism is a washing. 
 
 Seeing, therefore, that louo is applied in so many instances to 
 the ordinance of baptism, this is a strong argument in favour of 
 understanding the word baptizo in the sense of to wash, rather 
 than that of to immerse when it is applied to express this ordi- 
 nance ; especially as it does itself evidently bear this render- 
 ing, and is so employed and rendered in several passages of scrip- 
 ture, as we have seen. 
 
 Hence the mode of immersion is included in its signification 
 only as it is one form of washing, while washing, in any other 
 mode, is equally valid. 
 
 Could it be even proved that the apostles generally — yea. 
 universally performed baptism by immersion, this would not 
 prove that no other mode is valid. The form of applying wa- 
 ter is a mere circumstance which does not affect the validity of 
 the ordinance. If the apostles practised immersion only, this 
 would show that it is the preferable mode ; that no other is 
 so proper and expressive ; but it would not absolutely nullify 
 other modes. 
 
 Because, the word baptizo, used in the commission, admits of 
 a greater latitude of meaning, both as used in the scriptures 
 and in the classicks ; and because louo,, a word which appropri- 
 ately means to wash, without determining the mode, is applied 
 to the same ordinance. And therefore, if we keep within the 
 proper scope of these terms, we perform a valid baptism. We are 
 bidden to teach and baptize ; and if to baptize be to immerse, or 
 to ivashwith water in any mode, then if we do either, we exe- 
 cute the commission. 
 
 14? 
 
1 62 MODE OF BAPTISM, 
 
 But it is far from being decisively proved that the aposties 
 practised immersion, and that only. We have not found such 
 proof from either of the words used to express this ordinance, 
 nor shall we, by the examination of any other declaration or 
 circumstance pertaining to the subject. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM, 163 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The figurative import of baptism examined. 
 
 The Baptists make considerable account of the figurative im- 
 port of baptism. It is considered as representing a death, burial, 
 and resurrection, or, at least, a burial and resurrection; and 
 hence immersion is regarded as the only valid mode. 
 
 This view of the subject is grounded principally upon two 
 passages. The first is Rom. vi. 4 : " Therefore we are buried 
 with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised 
 up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
 should walk in newness of life." The other is Colos. ii. 12 : 
 " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with 
 him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
 him from the dead." 
 
 In regard to the application of scripture figures, it must be re- 
 marked that great care and prudence are required, lest we make 
 them mean more than the author intended. By giving them 
 too literal an interpretation, many gross errours have obtained 
 in the church in successive ages. 
 
 It is of considerable importance to the right understanding oi- 
 these passages to ascertain what is referred to by being buried 
 with Christ, or what burial of him is meant. Is the allusion 
 made to his baptism, or to his burial in the tomb subsequent to 
 his crucifixion? The argument from this source in favour of 
 immersion, seems to point us to his baptism, taking it for granted 
 that he was buried in the water, and maintaining that the primi- 
 tive Christians are said to be " buried with him," by being 
 baptized in the same mode. But if we duly examine the sub- 
 ject, we shall find that the allusion is to his burial in the tomb, 
 and not in the water. u Know ye not, says the apostle, that so 
 many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized 
 into his death. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism 
 into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead 
 (not from the water) by the glory of God, we also should walk 
 in newness of life." The words, "that like as Christ was 
 Taised up from the dead," show conclusively that the reference 
 
164 MODE OF BAPTISM* 
 
 is made, not to his baptism, but to his burial in the tomb. Our 
 beiug buried with Christ does, indeed, imply that he was 
 buried ; cot in the water, but merely in the tomb. The 
 concluding clause of the passage from Colossians teaches the 
 same thing. " Through the faith of the operation of God, who 
 hath raised him/ro/?i the dead." 
 
 The question, then, before us, is, in what sense are we said 
 to be buried with Christ in his tomb which was hewn out of a 
 rock, by baptism, and risen with him from the same ? Baptism, 
 it will be observed, is not itself a burial, but rather the cause 
 which produces a buriaL " Buried with him by baptism," or 
 " in baptism." If baptism be merely the cause, and the burial 
 the effect, these passages do not determine the mode of ad- 
 ministration. A figurative burial, which is the effect, may be 
 produced by baptism in any other mode, as well as in that of 
 immersion. The whole effect of baptism is represented to be a 
 death and burial unto sin, and a resurrection to newness of life. 
 
 Hence, if the baptism intended be outward baptism, the 
 meaning must be that we hereby signify and profess to be dead 
 and buried to sin, as Christ died for sin, or that we profess to 
 be crucified to the world and separated from its lusts, like as 
 a person who is dead and b.uried is, thereby, separated from 
 living men ; and that we profess also to be alive unto God 
 through Jesus Christ. Moreover, we hereby profess to ground 
 all our hopes of purification, pardon, and happiness, upon the 
 death, burial and resurrection of Christ — to have communion 
 with him therein — and to derive spiritual quickening, purifica- 
 tion and nutriment therefrom, through the effectual working of 
 the Holy Spirit. We are also hereby brought under the highest 
 obligations to walk in newness of life. 
 
 Now, it is manifest that all this may be signified and pro- 
 fessed by one mode of baptism as well as by another. 
 
 If it be allowed, that one mode is more striking, and more ex- 
 pressive of these things than another, any mode of applying 
 water answers the great design, because it is an outward purifi- 
 cation, in receiving which we profess our faith in Jesus, who 
 was crucified, and buried, and is risen again for our justification 
 and salvation. 
 
 But if spiritual baptism be referred to in these passages, (and 
 there are several considerations in favour of this interpretation,) 
 then the above effects, or consequences, are really produced. 
 
 I would here remark, that Christ expressly promised to " bap- 
 tize his disciples with the Holy Ghost." It is also said, " b) 
 one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be 
 Jews or Greeks." And Peter speaks of a baptism distinct from 
 
MODE OP BAPTISM. 165 
 
 u the putting away of the filth of the fleshy" viz. " the answer 
 of a good conscience towards God." 
 
 Inasmuch, therefore, as there is a spiritual baptism common 
 to all believers, and as this is vastly the most important kind of 
 baptism, the apostle may be reasonably supposed to refer to 
 this in these passages. Especially, as there are effects attribu- 
 ted to it which can be strictly affirmed of no other : viz. a death 
 unto sin, and a resurrection to spiritual life. 
 
 Besides, in connexion with the passage quoted from the 
 epistle to the Romans, the apostle speaks of a crucifixion also ; 
 but it is not the crucifixion of the literal body, but of the " old 
 man," or body of sin. The burial spoken of, therefore, may be 
 naturally understood to belong to the old man too, the same body 
 which is crucified with Christ ; (seeing that a burial is conse- 
 quent upon a death.) In that case, spiritual baptism must be 
 the thing referred to. 
 
 This interpretation is further sustained by the apostle's speak* 
 ing in connexion with the passage quoted from Colossians of 
 " the circumcision made without hands," which indicates that 
 the inward change and purification wrought in the hearts of 
 Christians by the Holy Ghost is the thing intended by being 
 buried with Christ in baptism. 
 
 We cannot, therefore, infer any thing conclusively from 
 these passages in favour of immersion as the only valid mode. 
 It will no more follow that we must be immersed in water 
 because we are said to be buried with Christ in baptism, than 
 it will that our bodies must be literally crucified, or that some- 
 thing must be performed upon them resembling a crucifixion, 
 because we are said to be crucified with him. Again ; it will 
 no more follow that immersion must necessarily be the mode> 
 than it will that the ordinance must be administered in the 
 form of planting, because we are said to be "planted together in 
 the likeness of his death." 
 
 We must not be too literal, as before observed, in the appli- 
 cation of figures, lest we run into the grossest absurdities. 
 Their obvious design is to teach and impress some spiritual 
 truth, or idea ; but not that every feature in the representation 
 or image is to be applied to that truth, or idea ; or that we must 
 always have, in all respects, something answerable to the figure 
 in that which is intended to be described. 
 
 The spiritual idea intended to be described in these passa- 
 ges is that of a death to, and separation from sin, and a recovery 
 to holiness, which is really produced by the baptism of the Spi- 
 rit, and explicitly professed, by outward baptism, whatever be 
 the mode. 
 
166 MODE OF BAPTISM, 
 
 Allowing the latter to be meant, viz. a baptism with water, 
 it is by no means necessary that we should have a form of bap- 
 tism answering in all respects to this idea. Or if it were, it 
 would be difficult to determine whether, on the whole, immer- 
 sion would be a more perfect representation of it than washing 
 in some other mode. 
 
 The operation of the Spirit in producing the spiritual reno- 
 vation, is commonly denoted by " his being shed forth," " or 
 poured out," or by " his coming upon" the people of God, and 
 not by their being immersed into him. In conformity .to this 
 representation, Christian baptism appears to be the thing refer- 
 red to by the prophet Isaiah, chap. lii. 15, in these words : 
 * c So shall he sprinkle many nations ;" and by the prophet Eze- 
 kiel, chap, xxxvi. 25, in these words : " Then will I sprinkle 
 clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." These predic- 
 tions both relate, unquestionably, to gospel times, and CMstian 
 baptism appears to be the thing referred to. Conse ntiy, 
 they decidedly favour the practice of applying water to the 
 subject, and not of applying the subject to the water, as in 
 immersion. 
 
 There is another passage urged with much confidence in fa* 
 vour of immersion as the only valid mode. It is Eph. iv. 5 : 
 u One Lord, one faith, one baptism." 
 
 It is contended that water baptism is here meant, and that 
 there being but one baptism, implies that there is but one mode. 
 
 It is by no means clear that water baptism is the one intended. 
 There are weighty reasons for supposing the apostle refers to 
 the spiritual baptism, which is emphatically one — the common 
 blessing and privilege of all the children of God. In that case 
 it proves nothing in favour of this mode. 
 
 But, allowing that water baptism is meant, it will not be 
 necessary to consider immersion as essential to the oneness of 
 the ordinance. The baptism may be emphatically owe, though 
 the water be applied in different ways. All which is necessary 
 to its being one baptism, is that it should be administered to a 
 proper subject by the sole authority of Jesus Christ in the name 
 of the Trinity with the use of water. It is not said there is one 
 mode of baptism, but simply one baptism. And if this be ad- 
 ministered as just described, it is with obvious propriety de- 
 nominated one, though performed in different ways : as there is 
 one Lord's Supper, too — one simple ordinance, designed to com- 
 memorate the dying love of Christ ; and its oneness is not af- 
 fected by the circumstance of its being received in an upper 
 room, as at the first, or in a meeting house, school house, or pri- 
 vate house, or in the open air, or in the posture of sitting, stand,* 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 167 
 
 ing, or kneeling ; or by the circumstance of coming to a table, 
 or by that of the elements' being carried round to the different 
 seats, or by its being administered on Friday, as at first, or on 
 the Sabbath, or on any other day of the week. These things 
 evidently do not affect the oneness of this ordinance ; neither 
 do the different applications of water in baptism affect the one- 
 ness of that ordinance. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 169 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The circumstances attending the Administration of Baptism con- 
 sidered. 
 
 There are several circumstances connected with the perform- 
 ance of this rite in the primitive ages favourable to the mode 
 of immersion ; and there are several, also, which are unfavour- 
 able to it ; but nothing, in either case, which is decisive. 
 
 As belonging to the first class of circumstances, we may no- 
 tice the people's being baptized " in a river ;" their " going 
 down into and coming up out of the water ;" and John's " bap- 
 tizing in Enon because there was much water there." 
 
 In regard to the people's being baptized in a river, I would 
 observe that they might have been baptized therein by washing, 
 pouring, or sprinkling, as w r ell as by immersion. Christ might 
 have been baptized in the river of Jordan in either of these 
 modes. To be washed in that river, although the application of 
 water was made only to a part of his body, might have been 
 very naturally the mode. 
 
 But, it will be inquired, why did they repair to this river for 
 baptism, instead of fetching the w T ater from it, or from some 
 other fountain, seeing but little water was required in any other 
 mode except in that of immersion ? I will answer this ques- 
 tion by asking another. Why did the women mentioned in the 
 xvi. chap, of Acts repair to the river's side where prayer was 
 wont to be made ? or why was prayer wont to be made there ? 
 This place could not have been selected for the purpose of bap- 
 tism, because the ordinance was not known among them till 
 Paul came there and preached. The selection, therefore, 
 was evidently made for its pleasantness and convenience. So 
 in the other case. The banks of Jordan afforded a pleasant 
 and convenient place for a field-preacher to labour in like John 
 the Baptist. And then it would be very natural to baptize the 
 converts in or at the river. There is no mention made here or 
 elsewhere, of their going from the place of preaching to obtain 
 baptism. This place, therefore, might have been selected be- 
 cause of its pleasantness and convenience for preaching and the 
 
 15 
 
170 
 
 MODE OP BAPTISM. 
 
 accommodation of the multitudes in other respects than that of 
 baptism. Besides, the great number who applied for baptism 
 made it convenient to go to the river itself, especially as the 
 preaching took place on its banks. Moreover, it might have 
 been thought preferable to go to a river or fountain of water, 
 when convenient, and take the water from thence, or to wash 
 therein, because it was considered as more fully and strikingly 
 representing the fulness of the gospel provisions, than the bring- 
 ing of water in a vessel. 
 
 As to the circumstance of their going down into the water, 
 and coming up out of it, I would remark, that allowing they 
 actually did so, it will not prove immersion to be the mode. Go* 
 ing into the water was not baptism. For the baptism was sub- 
 sequently performed, as it is clear from the case of Philip and 
 the eunuch. Whether in that case, or in any other, the sub- 
 ject was immersed j or washed in some part of his body, or had 
 water applied by pouring or sprinkling, we are not informed. 
 And we must not be wise above what is written, if, indeed, 
 baptizo meant only to immerse, it would be clear that the sub- 
 ject was immersed, but as it does not merely mean this, the man- 
 ner of the baptism is undecided from the circumstance in ques- 
 tion. To go into the water for the purpose of washing is not at 
 all unnatural. 
 
 Besides, it is well known by all that have access to the scrip- 
 [ tures in the original Greek, that the prepositions translated 
 " into" and " out of," might have been correctly rendered to 
 and/mm. They are oiten so rendered. The preposition M eis," 
 is rendered to, or unto, nearly as many times inthe^ew Testa- 
 ment as it is into. The preposition " apo," which is translated 
 " out of," m Mat. iii. 16, and Mark, i. 10, is translated "from" 
 more than five times as often as it is " out of" And the pre- 
 position " ek," which is translated H out of" in Acts, viii. 39, is 
 also translated u from" oftener than " out of." So that from 
 the ordinary use of these prepositions, the balance of evidence 
 is in favour of rendering them " to" and u from," instead of 
 "into" and " out of" If, then, these words might have been 
 as properly, or more properly, translated to and from, then all 
 which is necessary to be understood from the record is, that 
 they went down to, and came upfro?n, the water. It may seem 
 strange that these Greek terms were thus indefinite, and that 
 they will admit of being rendered either way. But such is the 
 fact. The connexion, however, will ordinarily show how they 
 are to be understood, where it is important to know the precise 
 meaniug. Besides, the evil arising from the indefinite import of 
 <*' eis," which may be rendered either to, into 7 or unto, was re- 
 
MODE OP BAPTISM. 171 
 
 rnedied, when a real entrance into a thing or place was to be 
 clearly denoted, by doubling the preposition, i. e. by using it 
 singly, and also compounding it with the verb. 
 
 When the subject, therefore, is fairly understood, the cir- 
 cumstance under consideration is of no real weight to prove 
 immersion to have been the primitive mode. 
 
 In respect to the circumstance of John's baptizing in Enon 
 because there was much water there, I would remark, that the 
 reasons already assigned for his baptizing in or at the river of 
 Jordan, will apply to this case also. This place might have 
 been selected for other purposes than that of immersion, allow- 
 ing it to have been strictly a place of much water. 
 
 But the Greek terms, " hudata polla," literally rendered, are 
 many waters, and therefore may simply denote a place of many 
 rivulets, or springs of water, which rendering, it is said, is fa- 
 voured by the geography of the country. 
 
 But if the present rendering; is retained, the passage does not 
 conclusively prove that immersion was the mode, though it is a 
 circumstance which, if not counteracted by other considerations, 
 might naturally lead to that conclusion. 
 
 These are the most material circumstances in favour of the 
 mode of immersion, and they are all, evidently, inconclusive. 
 
 The circumstances, on the other hand, which are unfavoura- 
 ble to that mode, and corroborative of the general sense which 
 I have given of baptizo, are the following, viz. : The improba- 
 bility that the multitudes which were baptized by John and by 
 the apostles, were provided, under the circumstances of the 
 case, with proper change of apparel for such a mode. A con- 
 stant miracle, or that whicii, at least, would have been very lit- 
 tle short of a miracle, would have been required to sustain John, 
 day after day, up to his waist in water, to baptize in this mode ; 
 and yet we are told that he " did no miracle," Also, it can 
 hardly be supposed, that under the beuigh reign of the Prince 
 of Peace, so great an inconvenience as the mode of immersion 
 implies under certain circumstances, viz. those which existed 
 when such multitudes were baptized by a single individual, or 
 a few individuals, and that without their having any previous 
 notice, or very little previous opportunity to prepare. The in- 
 convenience of baptizing a few individuals, at this day, in this 
 mode, when the thing is understood beforehand, is allowed to be 
 not very great. And, indeed, were it ever so great, it ought to 
 be performed in this mode if the candidate is not otherwise sa- 
 tisfied. But under the circumstances attending baptism in ma- 
 ny cases, in the primitive ages, the inconvenience was great. 
 And it would be highly inconvenient in many cases which 
 
i/2 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 might be stated in our own day. Another circumstance unfavour- 
 able to immersion, is the little time afforded, on the day of pen- 
 tecost, and the want of accommodations for the baptism of the 
 three thousand. Another such circumstance is that of the jailer 
 and his family being baptized in the outer prison, (for it appears 
 plain from the record that they were baptized there) in the dead of 
 the night. And again ; there is no mention made in all the 
 New Testament history of baptism, of tiuir going from the 
 place of preaching to administer this ordinance U the preach- 
 ing was held by the side of a river, they were baptized in or at 
 the river ; if in the temple, (for aught appears,) they were bap- 
 tized in the temple ; if in a jail, the} were baptized in the jail ; 
 and if in a private house, they were baptized in the house. 
 
 This last circumstance is decidedly unfavourable to immer- 
 sion as the mode, or certainly as the only mode. 
 
 Indeed, if it were commonly and ever so clearly related, that 
 after the preaching and conversions that took place, the preach- 
 er and converts repaired to a river or fountain of water for the 
 purpose of baptism^ this, though a circumstance favourable to 
 immersion, would not have been decisive, as I have already 
 shown ; because they might have repaired thither to be washed, 
 sprinkled, or poured upon, conceiving that a plenitude of water 
 would more strikingly represent the plenitude of divine grace, 
 and the atoning merits of Christ, than a little, and therefore have 
 preferred taking the fluid directly therefrom, to taking it from a 
 small vessel. There are various instances, in these days, of 
 people's going to a river, lake, or pond to receive baptism, with- 
 out being immersed. So that such a circumstance, had it ex- 
 isted, would not have been conclusive in favour of immersion. 
 But the truth is, it did not exist. We are no where informed 
 of their going//om the place of preaching to a river or fountain 
 to obtain baptism. So far as appears, the converts were uni- 
 formly baptized in the place where the preaching was held, or 
 the other means were used that were blessed to their conver- 
 sion. This, therefore, is a strong circumstance in favour of the 
 more general signification of baptism. 
 
 Although neither this nor any other ciremmstance is con- 
 clusive against immersion, so the circumstances before men- 
 tioned are not conclusive in its favour. For aught appears 
 from the several circumstances attending the administration of 
 baptism in the primitive ages, it might have been performed in 
 either of the beforementioned modes. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISMS 173 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Containing an examination of the argument in favour of Immer- 
 sion from Ecclesiastical History, 
 
 Many have asserted with confidence, that immersion was 
 the mode ordinarily practised in the early ages. Dr. Wall, an 
 eminent writer and a strong Pedobaptist, allows that" the whole 
 church practised immersion for thirteen hundred years after 
 Christ, except in the case of the cliuicks," i. e. persons of feeble 
 health, and hence labours to bring the church back to that mode 
 of administration. I believe his testimony is as strong as any 
 which can be found. It is one upon which the Baptists place 
 great reliance. And yet it will be perceived that even this 
 author, after a diligent research, does not affirm that immersion 
 was invariably practised in those ages ; nor does he offer any 
 thing to show that it was considered essential to the validity of 
 the ordinance. Instead of this, he brings satisfactory proof 
 from the writings of the early fathers that it was not so consider- 
 ed, but that other modes of applying water were viewed as 
 constituting a real baptism. This was decidedly his own opin- 
 ion. 
 
 Allowing, therefore, that this, and other similar declarations 
 of ecclesiastical writers, contain the real matter of fact , all which 
 they prove is, that immersion was considered the most signifi- 
 cant mode, and, therefore, preferable to any other, when the 
 health and circumstances of the subject would permit. 
 
 All appear to allow, that the Clinicks were baptized in some 
 mode short of immersion. And this shows conclusively that im- 
 mersion was not deemed essential to the validity of the ordi- 
 nance ; and, therefore, the early practice of the church, allow- 
 ing it to be as above stated, does not prove the position which is 
 taken by the Baptists. 
 
 We should, however, beware of placing too much confidence 
 in the testimony of Doctor Wall, or any other writer, respecting 
 the ancient practice of baptizing, ordinarily, by immersion. For 
 many things are affirmed of the practice of the church in the 
 ages subsequent to the time of the Apostles, which are not found, 
 
 15* 
 
174 MODE OP BAPTISM. 
 
 in the Bible ; and, for that reason, ought not to be received.— 
 The Baptists, in particular, ought to beware of relying too much 
 on what the above mentioned Doctor says about' the mode of 
 baptism in the early ages ; for he tells us with equal confidence, 
 that the whole church, with few exceptions, for many centu- 
 ries, practised infant baptism. This part ot his testimony they 
 reject, because they find no scriptural warrant for the practice. 
 The other part, then, should be regarded with caution, and not 
 adopted, unless it decidedly comports with the Bible. Under 
 these circumstances, it is, in itself, of little consequence to show 
 what the Apostolick practice was. If we leave the Scriptures, 
 and follow the traditions of men, we shall be involved in great 
 darkness and inconsistency. 
 
 It is far from being proved from the New Testament records, 
 that immersion was exclusively, or even prevailingly practised in 
 the apostolick age ; much less that it was considered essential 
 to the validity of the ordinance. 
 
 It is possible that immersion was introduced subsequent to the 
 times of the Apostles, under the notion that it was more expres- 
 sive and emphatick, or that it would more effectually wash 
 away sin. For it is manifest, that after the lapse of two cen- 
 turies, or more, many began to attribute an improper influence 
 to this ordinance ; supposing that it did really cleanse from sin, 
 and was connected with immediate forgiveness ; and that it 
 was, moreover, essential to salvation. In this view of the case, 
 much water would naturally be preferred to a little ; and, hence, 
 immersion might have been introduced in this way, without 
 having the sanction of apostolick practice. Why might not 
 this have been thus introduced, as well as many other things 
 that then obtained, which were manifestly not scriptural^ and 
 which the great body of evangelical Christians reject ? 
 
 It does, indeed, appear^ from the best accounts which we have 
 of the transactions of the church from about the commencement 
 of the third century to that of the thirteenth, that immersion 
 was commonly the mode of baptism ; but l cannot find that, du- 
 ring that period, it was, at any time, considered essential to the 
 validity of the ordinance, or that it was, at any time, practised 
 uniformly. Those who speak most positively merely say, it 
 was practised " in the ordinary use?'* But this ordinary use, for 
 the reasons above stated, might have been an innovation. 
 
 The earliest account extant of the manner of Christian bap- 
 tism, after the age of the apostles, is that which is given by 
 Justin Martyr, in the second century, in his apology to the Em- 
 perour, Antoninus Pious, in the following words, viz. " And we 
 will declare after what manner when we were renewed by 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 175 
 
 Christ, we devoted ourselves to God : lest omitting this we 
 should seem to act a bad part in this declaration. As many as 
 are persuaded, and believe the things taught and said by us to 
 be true, and promise to live according to them, are instructed 
 to pray, and to ask, fasting, the forgiveness of their sins of God, 
 we praying and fasting together with them. After that they 
 are brought where water is, and they are regenerated in the 
 same way of regeneration as we have been regenerated ; for 
 they are washed in water in the name of the Father and Lord 
 God of all, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." 
 In this account, the leading idea attributed to baptism is a 
 washing, rather than that of immersion. He does not say they 
 were immersed in water, but washed in water. 
 
 But as to the true import of baptism, I would tely mainly up- 
 on the testimonies which have been produced from the Scrip- 
 tures. And as long as they do not appear to make the mode of 
 immersion essential, we may safely conclude that it is not so. 
 Washing in general comes within the import of baptizo, and is 
 indeed, the principal, or leading idea, expressed. Baptism is 
 much oftener and much more clearly represented as a washing 
 than as a burial. Indeed, it is never directly called a burial, 
 though Christians were said to be buried with Christ by bap- 
 tism, but, here, it is rather the cause of a burial than the burial 
 itself. But baptism is plainly and repeatedly represented as a 
 washing. Washing is actually one of the meanings of the word 
 used in the institution. Besides, the action of baptizing is sev- 
 eral times denoted by another term (louo) which properly sig- 
 nifies to wash. Washing, then, in any mode, is valid baptism. 
 
 Even sprinkling is a small degree ol washing, wetting, or 
 cleansing, and, of course, valid ; though it is not so significant, 
 and does not so properly come within the true import of baptizo, 
 as a real washing, or the application of water with some degree 
 of friction. 
 
 Immersion, also, is a washing in a larger sense than sprinkling. 
 But it is not so properly a washing, as the applying of water with 
 friction, or rubbing. Yet it is a valid baptism, and truly a sig- 
 nificant mode ; and I am not prepared to say that it is not the 
 most significant ; but I can see no grounds for considering i£ 
 essential, and it is here that the point at issue lies. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 171 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Concluding arguments in favour of the validity of all modes of 
 Baptism. 
 
 It may be further observed, that the reason of the thing shows 
 that the validity of baptism does not consist in the quantity of 
 vmter used, nor in the mode of applying it. 
 
 One mode may, indeed, be more significant than another, and 
 on that account may be preferable ; but the different modes in 
 use among the churches all tend, essentially, to represent the 
 same thing, a renovation or cleansing by means of the death of 
 Christ, and through the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit ; 
 and, hence, it appears unreasonable, and arbitrary, to select one 
 of them only, and say that all the rest are invalid. 
 
 Baptism is, at most, only an outward purification. It has 
 no inherent influence to wash away sin. Its virtue, therefore, 
 does not consist in the quantity of water used ; but in the an- 
 swer of a good conscience, which may be possessed in the use of 
 different modes. 
 
 Again ; the gracious King of Zion does not appear to make 
 any difference in his treatment of those ministers and churches 
 who do not practise immersion, and those who do. He con- 
 tinues the light of evangelical truth as clearly, in the former, as 
 in the latter ; pours out his spirit as copiously upon them ; dwells 
 in their hearts as richly ; communes with them at his table as 
 freely ; blesses and prospers them as evidently ; and acknowl- 
 edges them, every way, as his, with as much "power and de- 
 monstration of the Spirit." 
 
 Hence we have the testimony of God's providence, and the 
 seal of his Spirit, to the truth of the foregoing doctrine. Cer- 
 tainly, the Lord does not make any difference in the numerous 
 revivals of religion with which the world is blessed, between 
 those who do not immerse and those who do : to say the least, 
 none that will operate against the former. 
 
 And this furnishes evidence that both belong to his Kingdom ; 
 the former as truly as the latter, and that the mode of their bap- 
 tism is as valid, 
 
178 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Surely, the abundant blessings bestowed upon those who 
 wash, pour, or sprinkle in baptism ; the honour which the Lord 
 puts upon their ministers and ordinances ; his readiness to own 
 and bless them as his people ; and the wide-spread and lasting 
 success which attends the word preached by and among them ? 
 furnishes living testimony which is entitled to high regard, that 
 they have a true form of baptism ; that they are a conspicuous 
 and precious portion of Christ's visible kingdom ; and that this 
 dispute about the form of applying water in baptism ought to be 
 relinquished. 
 
 When Peter was called to an account by his Jewish breth- 
 ren for u going in unto the uncircumcised Gentiles, and eating 
 with them," he justified himself by alleging that God gave 
 unto them the like gift to that which was bestowed upon the 
 Jews, pouring out his Holy Spirit upon them, and " purifying 
 their hearts by faith. " And " what then," said he, " was I, 
 that I could withstand God ?" 
 
 In like manner, God's pouring out the like gift upon those 
 who do not immerse, to that which he bestows upon those who 
 do, is a proper and ample vindication of the liberal ground taken 
 in this work. 
 
PART III. 
 
 OPEN COMMUNION WITH ALL EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS IL- 
 LUSTRATED AND DEFENDED. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Subject Explained, 
 
 It is not my design to teach and defend communion with all 
 , who assume the title of Christians ; but with all who exhibit 
 4he essential characteristicks of Christians — with those church- 
 es and members of churches who are regarded as the true fol- 
 lowers of Christ. 
 
 There are some that call themselves Christians who are so de- 
 fective in principle and practice as not to deserve the name. 
 Simply professing the name of Christians is not sufficient to en- 
 title any to Christian fellowship. 
 
 But those churches and members of churches that profess the 
 essential doctrines of the gospel, and maintain so much upright- 
 ness of walk and conversation as to give evidence of piety, are 
 entitled to the privilege of communion, and ought not to be re- 
 ' jected from the table of the Lord. 
 
 It is not my intention to point out very minutely what parts 
 of Christian doctrine must be believed, and what degree of 
 Christian practice must be maintained, to constitute the charac- ' 
 ter of evangelical Christians. Eveiy church or class of Chris- 
 tians must be allowed the privilege of judging in this matter for 
 themselves. 
 
 Some may set the criterion of judging higher than others. 
 
 Christians may discover their imperfections, either in being too 
 
 trict or too lax in regard to judging of the qualifications of those 
 
180 OPEN COMMUNION. 
 
 who claim to be their brethren, and desire communion. Al- 
 though they are bound to form their opinion of the Christian 
 character of others according to the rules and marks which are 
 furnished by the scriptures, they may, in some instances, fail of 
 judging correctly. Christian charity and fellowship may be ex- 
 tended to some who do not give the requisite evidence of be- 
 ing the disciples of Christ, and withheld from others that do. 
 
 But for Christians to act consistent with themselves, and with 
 the principle now advocated, they should admit to their com- 
 munion such churches and members of churches as they deem 
 evangelical ; i. e. as being the true churches and members of 
 Christ. Although they may see defects both in the principles 
 and conduct of these brethren, yet as they are not so gross as- 
 to preclude the idea of their being Christians, they ought to ad- 
 mit them to their communion. If they exclude such from the 
 table of their Lord, they are not open communionists in the 
 sense now plead for. 
 
 In defending open communion as now explained, I do not 
 mean to be understood to say that it is not expedient, while 
 Christians are divided in opinion, as at present, to maintain se- 
 parate societies. This may be, and probably is, expedient, and 
 most for the edification of all. Christians may be more useful 
 and happy in being associated in separate churches, according 
 to their respective opinions on the subject of religion, than to be 
 formed with these discordant views into the same church. Ne- 
 vertheless, while embodied in these separate societies, they may 
 hold communion with one another, as opportunity presents, and 
 in this way manifest their .mutual love, and their oneness in 
 Christ. Frequent occasions offer for their communing together, 
 and they should unquestionably be more frequently sought than 
 they are. Every church ought to invite their Christian breth- 
 ren of other churches who may be present at their commun- 
 ion seasons to come and partake with them ; and individu- 
 al Christians ought to accept of the invitation, and also to apply 
 for admission to this privilege when Divine Providence places 
 them in circumstances to enjoy it. This is the true doctrine of 
 open communion. 
 
 If any refuse to acknowledge those as Christians who actual- 
 ly give the scriptural evidence of being such, and reject them 
 from communion on that ground, they are doubtless chargeable 
 with an errour ; but it is a different one from that which consists 
 in rejecting acknowledged Christians from communion. In the 
 former case, although there is an errour committed in not ad- 
 mitting of actual evidence of piety, there is a consistency be- 
 tween the belief and practice of these Christians ; but in the 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 181 
 
 iatter case there is not. Because acknowledged Christians are 
 debarred from coming to their Master's table 
 
 When the Christian character and Handing of other Chris- 
 tians are once admitted, we are bound to receive them to our 
 communion. This is what the doctrine of open communion 
 implies, and what I shall undertake to defend. 
 
 16 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 183 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Containing the argument for Open Communion founded on the 
 Christian experience and character* 
 
 The fact that our Christian brethren of other churches and 
 denominations, are acknowledged to be the disciples of Christ — 
 members of the same visible church with ourselves, and heirs 
 of the same kingdom, at once determines their right to eat 
 bread with us at the same table. 
 
 Possessing this character, and being viewed in this light, they 
 are, from the very nature of the case, entitled to Christian cha- 
 rity and fellowship. To this case the following words of Christ 
 directly apply, John, xiii. 34, 35 : " A new commandment I give 
 unto you, that ye love one another : as I have loved you, that ye 
 also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are 
 my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Also, the fol- 
 lowing clause in the institution of the supper, Luke, xxii. 19 : 
 " This do in remembrance of me." It is obvious that these 
 commands are obligatory upon all the friends of Christ ; the 
 last, as truly as the first. And the ordinance of the supper 
 being an act of communion, the friends of Christ, as far as 
 they have opportunity, are manifestly bound to attend upon 
 it together, in remembrance of their common Lord and Re- 
 deemer. This precept, especially in connexion with the 
 command for brotherly love, carries open communion upon the 
 very face of it. How preposterous it must be for Christians 
 to acknowledge one another as brethren, and yet refuse to 
 eat together at the same table ; especially, as this is the 
 Lord's table, and not theirs. How can they love one another, 
 as Christ has loved them, and yet refuse one another Christian 
 communion? The admission, by the members of one church, 
 that those of another are Christians, is, at once, an acknowledg- 
 ment that they ate bound to obey the above order of Jesus, as 7 
 truly as themselves, and that in obeying it they are equally ac- 
 cepted of the Lord. This consideration, then, manifestly opens 
 the door to celebrate it together, provided Providence furnish- 
 es the opportunity. Nothing can be plainer. The master 
 whom they serve is a common master and Saviour. Their duty 
 and privileges are common. Of course, the celebration in ques- 
 
184 OPEN COMMUNION. 
 
 tion should be common. Being fellow disciples, they should ap- 
 proach the board of their Lord together. Surely, the one class 
 should not say to the other, you may not come to the Lord's ta- 
 ble with us. It is, indeed, your privilege to come, and the Lord 
 will receive you ; but we cannot. You must have a separate 
 table. We verily believe you are Christians; and we esteem 
 and love you as such ; and we expect to go to heaven, and eat 
 the marriage supper of the Lamb with you ; but, as the case is 
 now, we cannot participate of the emblems of the broken body 
 and shed blood of our common Saviour with you here. If you 
 will have our company at the table of Jesus, you must adopt 
 our particular views, and join our church, or denomination ; 
 otherwise, you must stand by yourselves, and we by ourselves. 
 
 Now, how palpably inconsistent is this ! Here are Christians, 
 redeemed by the same blood ; renewed by the same Spirit ; 
 children of the same heavenly Father ; believers in the same 
 Lord Jesus ; all living upon the same forfeited bounty ; one body 
 in Christ, and members, one of another ; animated by the same 
 hope ; and heirs of the same everlasting kingdom; and, yet, they 
 cannot come to the same table together! O absurdity in the 
 extreme ! O prejudice and bigotry ! what have ye done ? 
 
 In addition to the above precepts for brotherly love, and the 
 celebration of the supper, we have the following injunction of 
 the inspired Paul, which most aptly and pointedly relates to 
 this case : Rom. xv. 7, " Wherefore receive ye one another, 
 as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." Here, the 
 rule which is to regulate the intercourse and fellowship of 
 Christians with one another, is that of Christ's having received 
 them ; and all should be done to the glory of God. They are 
 bound by the high and sacred authority of the risen and exalt- 
 ed Jesus, to receive one another, as he also hath received them. 
 The consideration that our brethren are received of Christ, at 
 once determines it to be our duty to receive them too — to admit 
 them cheerfully to our fellowship, as both we and they enjoy his. 
 It binds us to welcome them to all Christian privileges. 
 
 Here, the peculiar and blessed principle on which open com- 
 munion rests is stated and explained. It is the love of Christ 
 to all his people, and his own example in receiving them to 
 communion and favour. The order to receive one another is 
 peremptory ; and the motives to obedience unspeakably ten- 
 der, forcible and endearing. How it is possible for this princi- 
 ple to be overlooked, it is hard to conceive. 
 
 In this passage there is an important duty enjoined upon 
 Christians ; an endearing example introduced to enforce it ; 
 and the high and dignified end to be aimed at declared. This 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 186 
 
 principle, or rule of conduct, will remain as long as the exam- 
 ple which we are required to imitate remains, and there are 
 Christian brethren to receive. 
 
 Nor can it, with any consistency, be said, that this rule re- 
 lates, merely, to something short of a mutual participation of 
 the supper, and that we have obeyed it, when we have acknowl- 
 edged our brethren as Christians, and conversed and prayed 
 with them, although we expressly decline being guests with 
 them at the table of the Lord. For it is manifest that Christ 
 receives both us and them to be guests with him at his own ta- 
 ble ; and, hence, if we do not commune with one another, we 
 do not receive one another as he hath received us. Has the 
 Lord granted us the privilege of communion at the supper ? — 
 Then we must allow it to them— we must permit them to come 
 and eat with us ; or we, manifestly, do not receive them as he 
 hath received us. As they are the children of God as well as 
 we ; and as we are received by Christ to this blessed privilege ; 
 so they must be received by us. 
 
 This receiving of one another plainly relates, not only to the 
 less distinguishing privileges of the gospel, but to the high 
 and peculiar privilege of coming around the board of Christ, 
 and commemorating his dying love. Therefore, we must 
 practise open communion, or we do not copy his example. It 
 is so perfectly obvious, that professing evangelical Christians 
 cannot refuse communion with one another in this ordinance, 
 and yet receive one another as Christ hath received them, that 
 a mere child can see it. The closing of the door to commun- 
 ion by one class of Christians against another, is a palpable and 
 grievous violation of this rule. 
 
 " Is not the bread which we break," says the apostle Paul, 
 " the communion of the body of Christ ? And is not the wine 
 which we drink, the communion of the blood of Christ?" 
 
 Then, how obviously ought we all to be partakers thereof, 
 together, after the example of the primitive Christians. 
 
 In concluding this chapter, therefore, I repeat the declara- 
 tion, that the foundation for open communion, in the sense plead 
 for, is laid in the work of regeneration — in the forming of the 
 hearts of men to the faith and love of Christ, whereby they 
 become Christians. u By one spirit are we all baptized into/ 
 one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles ; whether we be 
 bond or tree ; and have been all made to drink into one spirit." 
 And being thus one in Christ, we ought to be of one commun- 
 ion. 
 
 16* 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 187 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Containing the argument for Open Communion, based upon the 
 principle that the mode of baptism is not essential. 
 
 One of the main pillars of the close communion system is, 
 the opinion that there is no valid baptism except by immers* 
 ion. This is that, in particular, which separates the two great 
 bodies of Christians, denominated Baptists and Pedobaptists ; 
 or which divides a very great portion of them. 
 
 Some of the denomination of Baptists are in favour of 
 open communion ; but, in this country, most of this class are 
 what are termed free-will Baptists. The Calvinistick Bap- 
 tists generally hold to close communion, i. e. they do not re- 
 ceive any to the Lord's table except those of their own faith 
 and order. Although they agree in the great leading doc- 
 trines of the gospel with Pedobaptists — particularly with 
 Presbyterians and Congregationahsts, they will not commune 
 with them. 
 
 And they justify their practice, upon the ground that bap- 
 tism is a prerequisite to communion, and that there is no valid 
 baptism except by immersion. They say they cannot, consist- 
 ently, commune with Pedobaptists, because they have not been 
 baptized. 
 
 This bar to open communion is removed, at once, by show- 
 ing that immersion is not essential to the validity of this or- 
 dinance. 
 
 This is what I have attempted to do, and think I have fully 
 done, in the second part of this work, to which the reader is 
 referred. It is unnecessary to repeat the arguments there ad- 
 duced. 
 
 The validity of the different modes of baptism in use among 
 the churches being established, the principle of open com- 
 munion is easily defended. For, although some difficulty 
 may arise on account of the baptism of infants, which I shall 
 endeavour to remove, the great objection in regard to the mode 
 of administration is completely answered. None ought to be 
 debarred from the table of the Lord, because they have not 
 been immersed. To commune with Pedobaptists, who have 
 simply been washed, poured upon, or sprinkled, is not communing 
 
188 OPEN COIYIMUNION. 
 
 with unbaptized Christians ; but with those who have been 
 duly baptized, so far as the mode is respected. No objec- 
 tion, therefore, can lie, from this quarter, against open com- 
 munion with all evangelical Christians. And if this be a 
 true principle, it is of high importance that it should be un- 
 derstood, and defended. The reader is earnestly requested to 
 consider candidly and impartially what hath been advanced 
 under this head. 
 
 Respecting the above-mentioned difficulty arising from the 
 performance of baptism in infancy, I would remark, that this 
 does not pertain to all the members of Pedobaptist churches ; 
 but, merely, to those who have received no other than infant 
 baptism. Many of the Pedobaptists have received baptism in 
 adult age upon their own profession of faith. These, therefore, 
 may, upon the principle now stated, be received to communion 
 without hesitation. 
 
 The baptism performed in infancy is manifestly premature* 
 It cannot be considered as a complete gospel baptism, or a* a 
 submission to the ordinance according to the direction of our 
 Lord, and according to its manifest design and end ; although I 
 am not disposed to consider it a mere nullity. 
 
 The action of the officiating minister is, in itself, valid, though 
 performed upon an improper subject. It is a kind of half-way 
 baptism ; or, to speak more correctly, it is a baptism prema- 
 turely performed. 
 
 Hence, those Christians that have received no other than 
 infant baptism, are not to be considered altogether in the light 
 of unbaptized persons, and precluded, on that account, from the 
 communion ; but as persons baptized before they were duly 
 qualified, and before they were duly called upon to make a 
 profession of their faith. 
 
 Nevertheless, if their consciences are satisfied with their 
 infant baptism, and they do not feel the obligation of coming 
 forward personally to the ordinance, they ought not to be de- 
 barred from communion on account of this defect in their bap- 
 tism. 
 
 The difficulty now stated is not peculiar to the scheme which 
 I have adopted. It belongs to the scheme of Pedobaptists in 
 respect to those baptisms which were performed upon the plan 
 of the half-way covenant, as it is commonly called, and to those 
 performed upon the plan of the indiscriminate administration 
 of the ordinance. According to the prevailing views of Pedo- 
 baptists in this day, especially of Presbyterians and Congrega- 
 tionalists, there was a very material defect in those baptisms 3 
 viz. the want of faith in the parents by whom the children 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 189 
 
 were offered. And very many have scrupled the validity of 
 their baptism on this account. Yet such baptisms have gener- 
 ally been considered valid by Pedobaptists. Few ministers, if 
 any, have consented to re-baptize on account of this want of 
 faith in the parents. 
 
 If, therefore, they are consistent in allowing the validity of 
 those baptisms, where the faith of the parents, which they hold 
 to be required to give a right to the baptism of the children, is 
 wanting, they cannot charge any inconsistency to my view of 
 the baptism of infants, although their own faith, which I hold 
 to be requisite to give them a right to the ordinance, is wanting. 
 The cases are manifestly parallel. I do not admit the baptism 
 to be full and perfect where the faith of the subject is wanting. 
 Neither do they, upon their scheme, where the faith of the 
 parents is wanting. Therefore, if they can consistently admit 
 Christians to communion notwithstanding the latter defect, it 
 is manifest that f can admit them notwithstanding the former. 
 
 If, however, those who have been baptized in infancy upon 
 the faith of their parents, are convinced, when they come to 
 years of understanding, and are brought to believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that it is their duty to be baptized again, upon 
 their own faith, they ought to be admitted to enjoy the privilege. 
 The defect above noticed is an adequate reason for repeating 
 the ordinance. And it cannot be justly considered as treating 
 the subject lightly, or as profaning the name of the Lord, to 
 perform baptism anew in the manner directed, when it is disco- 
 vered that it was not so performed at first. 
 
 When I first became enlightened to see that believers are 
 the only proper subjects of Christian baptism, it was not clear 
 to me that the ordinance ought to be repeated, notwithstanding 
 this deficiency. But, after due consideration, I perceived that 
 believers ought not to be precluded from offering themselves in 
 baptism, because their parents, through misapprehension, had 
 previously offered them. 
 
 Baptism is evidently a duty which cannot be duly discharged 
 by proxy. Ii is a matter in which the subject is to act in person, 
 and for himself ; openly submitting to the command of Christ, 
 and receiving the badge of discipleship. 
 
 It is a privilege, also ; a precious and peculiar privilege, of , 
 which the subject ought not to be deprived by means of the 
 mistakes and traditions of men. 
 
 Moreover, it is a duty so plain ; so positive ; and so natural, 
 under the constitution of the gospel ; and so intimately connect- 
 ed with the putting on of Christ, that the Spirit of God is vront 
 to incline the hearts of believers to obey it. I will not say he 
 
190 OPEN COMMUNION. 
 
 does this in all cases ; but he does in multitudes of cases 3 and, 
 I believe I may say commonly. It is one of the first things 
 which are wont to occupy the minds of the newly converted, 
 especially when they contemplate the subject of following 
 Christ by an open profession of religion. Very many of those 
 who are called from among Pedobaptist congregations, and who 
 have been baptized in their infancy, have a desire to be bap- 
 tized on their own faith. This desire is often expressed, and 
 ministers are conversed with upon the subject ; and much pains 
 are required to convince them that their infant baptism will do. 
 It is frequently a long time before the desire to be baptized is 
 repressed^ and in various instances the mind is never wholly re- 
 lieved. 
 
 Besides the instances of this kind which are known, many 
 are secretly tried upon the subject, and do not make their difficul- 
 ties and desires manifest, because they conclude it will be una- 
 vailing : that there is no relief in their case, except they with- 
 draw from the churches with which they would wish to be con- 
 nected, and join in close communion, which they are not wil- 
 ling to do. 
 
 And this desire among believers to he baptized, and these em- 
 barrassments which grow out of the usages of Pedobaptist 
 churches, are evidently increasing. The more the Holy Spirit 
 is poured out, and converts are multiplied, and the more the 
 light of evangelical truth breaks in upon the world, the greater 
 the number of persons who wish to come forward, upon their 
 own profession, to Christian baptism : and, at the same time, the 
 greater is the aversion to close communion. 
 
 This is a subject which is exciting deeper and deeper inter- 
 est in every direction. There are multitudes who know not 
 how to get by this gospel institution. And yet they regard all 
 that are born of God as their brethren, and cannot be fettered 
 with close communion. That undue limiting of Christian love, 
 sympathy and fellowship to one's own sect or party which is 
 so lamentably prevalent, is not a feature of the young convert. 
 He loves all that love Jesus Christ. It is not till he is trained 
 to human systems, and loses, in a degree, the simplicity of his 
 first love, that he learns to adopt the Shibboleth of party. 
 
 Now, this early desire to be baptized upon an open profes- 
 sion of faith which exists among the converted, is manifestly 
 the fruit of the operation of the Spirit of Christ. And it ought 
 not to be repressed, because the subjects, in many instances, have 
 been prematurely brought forward by their parents in the help- 
 less age of infancy, of which transaction most are wholly un- 
 conscious. 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 191 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Containing the argument for Open Communion, based upon the 
 right and privilege of private judgement. 
 
 It is a plain principle of the word of God, that Christians 
 have the right of examining and judging/or themselves, in mat- 
 ters of religion. One has no right to dictate to the conscience 
 of another. 
 
 It is not meant, that every one has a right, in the sight of God, 
 to form his own opinion of his truths and precepts. In that re- 
 spect he is bound to construe things rightly, and really to know 
 his Master's will. But the right of private judgement, which is 
 plead for, pertains to us in regard to our fellow Christians. We 
 may labour to instruct and convince others, and they, in their 
 turn, to instruct and convince us ; but neither have the right of 
 exercising dominion over the faith of the other. " Who art 
 thou," says Paul, il that judgest another man's servant ? To his 
 own master he standeth, or falleth." The solemn truth that each 
 of us shall give an account of himself umo God, forbids the idea 
 that others may judge for us, or prescribe to us in matters of 
 religion. 
 
 Therefore, in the case before us, one class of believers have 
 as good a right to determine what constitutes a valid baptism as 
 another. If the one come forward and say that they have been 
 baptized into Christ, and are otherwise entitled to Christian 
 charity, they are to be admitted to communion by the other, 
 upon this declaration, although they have not been baptized 
 according to their views of the institution. The latter, having 
 no right to exercise dominion over the faith of the former, are 
 bound to receive them upon the principle that, in their own 
 opinion, they have been baptized, and that the right of judging 
 in the case/or themselves, is one of which they cannot be divest- 
 ed. If they should be refused the privilege of coming to the 
 table, this would be, at once, exercising a lordship over their 
 consciences, which is not admissible. 
 
 Should it be said that this principle will oblige us to receive 
 all who apply for communion, however gross their opinions or 
 conduct may be ; I would reply, that it will not, for this 
 
192 OPEN COMMUNION. 
 
 reason : we are bound to receive none to our charity and fel- 
 lowship, but such as appear to be Christians : and the opinions 
 and conduct of some may be so perfectly at variance with the 
 truths and precepts of the gospel, as to forbid the idea of their 
 being Christians. In that case they are not entitled to com- 
 munion. 
 
 Those differences among Christians which are to be borne 
 with, respect merely such things as are not essential — i. e. 
 such as may be differently viewed without destroying the 
 Christian character, and excluding the hope of salvation. 
 
 And here, I say, the right of private judgement is secured, and 
 is very sacred. And the responsibility rests on each one person- 
 ally. So that even if others should prove to have been in an 
 errour, our receiving them to Christian fellowship, upon the 
 principle stated, will not implicate us. They, alone, are an- 
 swerable. 
 
 Should it be further said in support of the practice of close 
 communion, that we are commanded to " withdraw from every 
 brother that walketh disorderly," I would reply, that " with- 
 drawing," in this passage, manifestly means the same as excom- 
 munication — the same kind of treatment which is denoted by 
 the following expressions : " Let him be unto thee as an hea- 
 then man and a publican ;" " note that man and have no com- 
 pany with him that he may be ashamed ;" and " with such an 
 one, no, not to eat." And, therefore, the disorderly walking 
 intended cannot be the minor errors and faults of Christian pro- 
 fessors ; but those which are gross, and which, if persisted in, 
 destroy the Christian character. If we were to withdraw from 
 others for every thing defective in their principles, or practice, 
 there would be an end to Christian communion in this world : 
 il for there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and 
 sinneth not." Why should the Baptists withdraw from the 
 Pedobaptists, because they have not, in their opinion, been 
 regularly baptized, when, allowing that they are right in this 
 opinion, they have other defects themselves, as great as this ? 
 Let it not be said that the passage alluded to relates particularly 
 to church order, and not to sins and errours in general. For it 
 cannot be reasonably supposed that a breach of church order is 
 a worse evil than any other, and, consequently, to be treated 
 with marked disapprobation. It is, manifestly, as disorderly, 
 in the sense of this passage, to break the Sabbath ; to be world* 
 lyminded, uncharitable and selfish, and to exclude those whom 
 Christ receives, as it is to fail of practising the right mode of 
 baptism, or to administer this ordinance to improper subjects. 
 Why, then, should the command to withdraw be restricted to 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 193 
 
 a breach of church order. There is, obviously, no reason for 
 this restriction. The rule will apply equally to all kinds of 
 unchristian conduct ; but will not oblige the churches to ex- 
 communicate their brethren for slight errours and misdemeanors ; 
 but for those, only, which are gross^ and which strike at the ve- 
 ry foundation of the Christian character ; although they should 
 admonish one another daily for their lesser failings. 
 
 19 
 
194 
 
 OPEN COMMUNION. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Containing the argument for Open Communion, based upon the 
 consideration that although baptism was manifestly intended to 
 precede, in the order of nature, the commemoration of Christ's 
 death in the ordinance of the supper; it does not appear that 
 we have a warrant to insist upon it as an indispensable pre- 
 requisite in all cases. 
 
 Should the two last mentioned grounds of open communion 
 fail in the opinion of any, this, for aught appears, might be ta- 
 ken as the last resort. None, however, will understand me as 
 giving up either of those grounds, or as considering them, in any 
 wise, suspicious ; for they appear to be sound and good : but all 
 may not regard them in that light. If, therefore, there be any 
 remaining ground for open communion which those may take 
 who cannot adopt either of the others, it is important that it 
 should be fairly exhibited. For the sake, therefore, of reliev- 
 ing this class, it is stated, that it does not appear that we are 
 warranted to insist on baptism, in ail cases, as an indispensable 
 prerequisite to communion. It is, indeed, plainly commanded. 
 It is, moreover, a badge of discipleship, and a regular door of en- 
 trance into the visible church ; and, consequently, it is, in the 
 order of nature, prior to communion. Nevertheless, it does not 
 appear that it is, in all cases, of such absolute and indispensable 
 necessity, that none may be admitted to communion except such 
 as are considered regularly baptized. 
 
 The ground now stated, is the one which some who conceive 
 immersion to be the only valid baptism, do actually take : and 
 although open communion may be maintained upon operand bet- 
 ter grounds, as I have already shown, this is inexpressibly bet- 
 ter than close communion. The principle of open communion 
 with all evangelical Christians is so evidently agreeable to the 
 general structure, spirit and design of the gospel, that it must 
 liave some valid reason, or reasons, to support it, whether we 
 are able to discover them or not. And, if we should fail to as- 
 sign the true and proper reason, or reasons, it surely cannot be 
 wrong to receive those whom Christ receives himself; for the 
 apostolick rule, before mentioned, binds us to receive one 
 another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. This, 
 at once, settles the principle of open communion, as above ex- 
 plained. 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 195 
 
 Hence,, those brethren who regard immersion as the only 
 valid baptism, may receive to their communion, under certain 
 circumstances, such as they consider unbaptized Christians, 
 
 There is manifestly a wide difference between the cases of 
 those who believe immersion to be the only valid baptism, and 
 yet apply for communion without it, and of those who do not 
 believe this mode essential, but have submitted to the ordi- 
 nance in another form, and verily believe themselves duly bap- 
 tized. To admit the former to communion without baptism, 
 would be tolerating them in the neglect of a known and ac- 
 knowledged duty, which would be inconsistent ; but in the 
 latter case, the neglect is not wilful, allowiug these persons to 
 be in an errour : for they do verily believe that they have 
 complied with the order of Christ. Therefore, such may be 
 received to the Lord's table by those who cannot regard them 
 as regularly baptized. They ought not to insist that they should 
 be immersed, or otherwise be debarred from Christian com- 
 munion. If they are judged to be fit subjects in every other 
 respect than their not having been immersed, and they are 
 willing and desirous to obey the Lord in the ordinance of the 
 supper, although they feel not their obligation to be plunged in 
 water, they ought to be received. The right of admission is 
 one which they enjoy as the children of God and heirs of the 
 kingdom. 
 
 Let it not be said, here, that no uncircumcised person was 
 permitted to eat of the passover ; and therefore no unbaptized 
 person should be permitted, under any circumstances, to eat of 
 the Lord's supper, for the institutions are different ; therefore 
 the rule in the former case will not apply in the latter. And 
 this argument ought never to be plead, especially by those who 
 regard the Lord's supper as, in no measure, a substitute for the 
 passover. The institutions are not only different, but both 
 positive; and, hence, each rests. on its own basis. We cannot 
 rightly argue from the one to the other, any more than in the case 
 of circumcision and baptism. 
 
 And when we come to consider the institution of baptism, 
 by itself, where do we find it asserted that no unbaptized per- 
 son, under any circumstances, shall eat of the Lord's Supper ? 
 1 have not found any such prohibition. 
 
 I have, indeed, found that the kingdom of Christ consists of 
 a select company of disciples, and that these were directed to 
 be initiated by baptism ; but I have not found that no one may 
 be permitted to obey Christ's order to attend upon the supper 
 in remembrance of him, who is considered as not haviug sub- 
 mitted regularly to baptism. Although he be viewed as not 
 
J 96 OPEN COMMUNION. 
 
 having come into the visible church by the appointed door, but 
 as having, through misconception , entered some other way, 
 shall he, for this, be refused the children's bread, when all 
 perceive him to be one of their number, and that Christ has 
 received him ? In a judgement of charity, he has entered the 
 invisible church, through the appointed door, which is not bap- 
 tism, but Christ himself. He has believed on him for justifica- 
 tion, and been born of the Spirit, which is inconceivably more 
 important than to be born of water. Shall he, therefore, be 
 refused the bread of his God and Saviour, and turned out of 
 doors, because he is considered as not having entered the visible 
 church by the appointed medium, or by submitting to be im- 
 mersed? This would seem to be making a greater account of 
 the outward baptism than of regeneration itself. 
 
 And the rejection of the brother from communion in this 
 case is the more inconsistent, because he verily believes himself 
 to be baptized, and to have come into the church in the way 
 appointed. 
 
 We can hardly suppose a case in which a person would 
 deem it his duty, if properly instructed, to come to the Lord's 
 table, without submitting to baptism in some form,. There are 
 indeed a few cases, it is said, in the Methodist denomination, of 
 persons being admitted to the communion without any baptism 
 whatever. But this, one would think, must be owing to the 
 want of. a due consideration of the subject. 
 
 It is possible, however, for a person to conceive it his duty to 
 celebrate the Lord's supper, and yet, after being instructed, have 
 no conviction of the duty of baptism. Should such a case 
 happen, it would be more consistent with the general principles 
 of the gospel to receive him than to reject him. But what might 
 be admissible in such an extreme case, could not be reasonably 
 plead as a rule in common cases. 
 
 The cases which ordinarily occur are those of persons who 
 have received what thty call Christian baptism ; but it not be- 
 ing by immersion, the brethren now alluded to cannot consider it 
 valid. Nevertheless I say, they may and ought to receive them 
 to communion. Both baptism and the Lord's supper are com- 
 mands binding on all the children of God. It is, therefore, un- 
 reasonable to debar a particular class of them from the latter, 
 because they appear to have misapprehended their duty respect- 
 ing the former. 
 
 It is, indeed, said, John, iii. 5, that " except a man be born 
 of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom ot 
 God," in which passage, reference appears to be had both to 
 baptism and regeneration. But it cannot be the meaning that no 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 197 
 
 person, under any circumstance, can go to heaven without water 
 baptism ; nor that no person can enter the visible church without 
 being bom of the Spirit ; but that both these qualifications are 
 requisite to a regular and approved standing in the gospel 
 church. Although a person cannot enter the kingdom of glory 
 without being born of the Spirit, it is evident that he can enter 
 the visible church without it. Accordingly, we read of one in 
 the parable of the marriage of the king's son, who came into the 
 house without a wedding garment, and of foolish virgins who 
 took no oil in their vessels with their lamps, as well as of wise 
 virgins who did. 
 
 If, therefore, notwithstanding this declaration, a person can 
 enter the visible kingdom of God in this world, without being 
 born of the Spirit, which is the most essential qualification, he 
 may enter, for aught appears, without the other qualification : 
 i.e. he may be admitted into the society of saints, and be num- 
 bered with them, especially if he appears to be born of the Spirit, 
 without receiving what is deemed a regular baptism. Admit 
 that he ought to be baptized by immersion — Christians ought to do 
 many things which they do not do, and yet their Christian char- 
 acter is not annulled. 
 
 No one ought to enter the visible church without regeneration ; 
 yet some, as it has been observed, do enter without it. Yea, 
 some enter, and are allowed to enter into some churches, with- 
 out so much as making a profession of regeneration! Simply 
 the obligation, therefore, to enter by regular baptism, will not 
 preclude the possibility of entering without it. Through 
 mistake on the part of the applicants, or on the part of the min- 
 ister and churches, members may be received who have not all 
 the qualifications demanded. Yet, notwithstanding they have 
 not entered in the way and manner prescribed, in all respects, 
 they are to be considered as in ; and while they walk worthy, 
 they should be retained as members, and be admitted to all the 
 privileges of members. 
 
 The passage under consideration, as it respects the necessity 
 of baptism, can mean no more than that baptism is an appoint- 
 ed badge of discipleship , and a regular door of entrance into the 
 church. It contains a rule of duty which Christians are 
 bound to observe. 
 
 Yet, it will not follow that a person cannot, through mistake 
 as to the nature of this precept, come into the visible church 
 without duly obeying it, and be consistently allowed to partake 
 of the supper in remembrance of Christ. It does not appear 
 that we are to regard baptism in all cases indispensable to com- 
 munion. But those who exhibit the essential marks of disci- 
 
 1.7* 
 
198 OPEN COMMUNION. 
 
 pleship, and desire to be admitted to the supper, although tfiefi 
 manner of entering the church is regarded as defective, ought to 
 be received. The spirit of the command is answered in this 
 case, if the letter is not. We ought not to debar our brethren 
 from one ordinance and privilege, because they, through mistake, 
 exclude themselves from another. But being children, they 
 should have a place among the children, and be allowed to eat 
 at their father's table. 
 
 Although, therefore, I am fully persuaded that evangelical 
 Christians, in whatever way they may ha<e been baptized, 
 should be admitted to communic;.. on the ground that any 
 mode of baptism is valid ; and that this is the true ground of 
 admission, in connexion with the evidence of their piety — 
 ground which can, and ought to be defended : and that if any, 
 however, are not satisfied with this ground, they should receive 
 their brethren, though not baptized according to their views 
 of the subject, upon their own declaration that they are bap- 
 tized, because they have the right of private judgement in the 
 case : yet, if any deem both these grounds inadequate, they 
 may receive their fellow Christians to communion on the prin- 
 ciple last stated ; viz that we are not warranted to insist on bap- 
 tism, in all cases, as an indispensable prerequisite to communion. 
 If the defect in question, allowing it to be real, will not, under 
 the circumstances stated, exclude them from heaven, and does 
 not exclude them from the fellowship of Jesus in this world, it 
 ought not to exclude them from the fellowship of their Christian 
 brethren. They have the essential prerequisite, a new heart, or 
 appear to have, and, therefore, must be admitted. 
 
 Especially, does the duty of open communion appear to be 
 binding, when we take into consideration the whole subject as 
 it has been exhibited, and give to the several reasons which 
 have been assigned their just weight. 
 
 I have shown that the foundation for this practice is laid in 
 the renovating work of the Spirit, by which Christians are 
 brought into the same spiritual family. 
 
 That water applied, in any form, in the name of the sacred 
 Trinity, is valid baptism. 
 
 That all Christians have the right of private judgment, and 
 none ought to lord it over the consciences of their brethren ; and 
 therefore, they ought to receive one another to communion on 
 iheir respective testimony as to their baptism. 
 
 And, that those who cannot consider any other baptism va- 
 lid except immersion, and cannot be satisfied with either ol 
 these grounds, may receive those who have not been immersed, 
 upon the principle, that baptism is not an indispensable prere- 
 quisite to communion in all cases. 
 
OPEN COMMUNUffi.\v* oF THE J#t 
 
 So that in every view of the subject, the duty is manifestly 
 obligatory. There are reasons in favour of it which are adapt- 
 ed to the particular views and circumstances of ail Christians. 
 If one class of Christians cannot admit theff^wSfchf t fitti com - 
 munion on one of the above grounds, they can on another. So 
 that the cruel bars, which have been so long kept up, ought to 
 be taken down. 
 
 It is truly a sore evil that Christians should withhold fellow- 
 ship from one another. It is one of the greatest stumbling 
 blocks which are laid before the world It is a constant occa- 
 sion of reproach, and of triumph, on the part of the enemy. — 
 There is something so unnatural in it — so contrary to the alleged 
 spirit of Christianity — so inconsistent with the representa- 
 tion that Christians are one in Christ — so different from the 
 descriptions which are given of the church, at first, when " the 
 multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one 
 soul"— so contra; y to that special precept of Jesus that his dis- 
 ciples should M love one another" — so perfectly at variance 
 with his own example— and so ruinous in its tendency ; that 
 every observing mind must see the absurdity of it, and every 
 tender-hearted Christian must bleed and mourn. How can any, 
 that truly prefer Jerusalem above their chief joy, be content 
 with such a state of things ? How can ministers and Christians 
 look on, with indifference, and, instead of seriously labouring to 
 remove the evil, rather lend their influence to increase it, being 
 consent that some little thing — some mode, or tradition, should 
 be the occasion of keeping them apart, and of presenting them 
 in hostile array against each other ? 
 
 Why is not the subject more thought of? Why do not Chris- 
 tians labour more assiduously to remove this reproach from the 
 church of God ? Why do not the ministers of the gospel, espe« 
 eially, make more powerful efforts to bring about an union 
 among Christians? The work belongs more eminently to 
 them than to others ; inasmuch as they are leaders of the 
 church, and as their own discordant views are the principal 
 means of keeping the bars up. 
 
 Painful as the truth is, it is owing more to the stand which 
 the ministers of the gospel have taken, and to the influence 
 which they exert, that this evil exists, than to any thing which 
 pertains to the churches. Only let " the watchmen see eye to 
 eye," and their flocks would readily unite in Christian com- 
 munion. 
 
 Therefore, it becomes them, especially, to examine the sub- 
 ject, andtobreak down the separating wall. It becomes them 
 to weep over the desolations of Zion ; to be deeply affected 
 
20fc) OPEN COMMUNION. 
 
 with the subject of these alienations and collisions, and of this 
 defaced beauty of the church ; and to arise and labour with one 
 accord, for the introduction of a better state of thiDgs. 
 
 Let them candidly and soberly meet the existing evil ; exa- 
 mine it minutely ; and see what can be done. And let them 
 diligently apply the means of reformation— the healing reme- 
 dies which are required ; and never rest, till the object is gained 
 — till evangelical Christians are of one heart and of one soul ; 
 and till they walk together in the due order and fellowship of 
 the gospel. 
 
 The present is, on various accounts, a favourable time for 
 both ministers and private Christians to labour in this cause. — 
 There are many indications in Providence favourable to efforts 
 of this kind. There is already a more liberal feeling among the 
 different churches than there was formerly ; revivals of religion 
 are more frequent and powerful ; and £< the set time to favour 
 Zion" seems to be rapidly approaching, when the knowledge 
 of Jesus shall fill the whole earth. Moreover, many are ex- 
 tremely tried on the subject of close communion, and are anx- 
 iously looking for the period of its removal ; and the example 
 of open communion is already worthily set by those missiona- 
 ries of different denominations which have gone to heathen 
 lands. I believe it is a well authenticated fact, that Baptist and 
 Pedobaptist missionaries commune together on the shores of 
 India. (And, surely, they would make a forbidding appear- 
 ance among the heathen, if they did not.) And if ministers 
 and members of these respective denominations can commune 
 together there, why not here ? Why not in every part of the world ? 
 
 Moreover ; there is an increased spirit of inquiry prevailing, 
 and knowledge is increasing ; and former customs and prejudi- 
 ces are giving way. Many things which once seemed imprac- 
 ticable have been achieved ; and small, but well-directed efforts, 
 have eventually met with astonishing success. There are also 
 great overturnings both in the moral and political world. 
 
 Now all these things evince the present to be an important 
 period for Christian effort. The interest of the churcli should 
 be regarded with more intense feeling than has heretofore been 
 possessed ; and all should labour more assiduously to remove 
 the stumbling blocks ; to cast up the way ; and to restore the 
 church to her primitive purity. 
 
 The principle which I have advocated is, unquestionably, 
 desirable. Every humble follower of Christ would be delight- 
 ed to see the church one : he can but long to see the time when 
 all that love our Lord Jesus Christ can consistently sit down 
 together and commemorate his dying love, and when they shall 
 truly regard and treat one another as brethren. 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 201 
 
 Believing that the true principles of open communion have 
 been stated and defended in this work, it is my ardent desire 
 and prayer that the effort may be successful ; that it may be the 
 means of exciting more attention to the subject ; and of calling 
 forth the labours of more able pens ; that each denomination 
 will dulv examine the points of difference between them, and 
 remove tliem 'as far as practicable, by renouncing each its own er- 
 rours; that minor differences which, in this imperfect state, 
 cannot be wholly removed, may be borne with so as not to break 
 their fellowship in Christ ; and that there may be a continual ad- 
 vance in doctrinal purity, and practical godliness in the church., 
 until the whole earth is filled with the glory of our common Lord. 
 
 And, here, 1 must take the liberty to state, that it is manifestly 
 the duty of the friends of the system whch has been illustra- 
 ted, to come out, and take a more firm and decided stand than 
 heretofore. 
 
 It may not be their duty to secede from their respective 
 churches, provided they can have their just influence therein, 
 and be permitted to labour in the cause of reformation ; and, 
 provided their continued connexion with them will best advance 
 their individual and the publick interest. 
 
 But, it is manifestly important that the light should not be hid . 
 
 These brethren have an equal right of speaking and acting, 
 in regard to what they believe to be truth and duty, that others 
 have, and they are under the same obligations to the Redeemer 
 to make his will known, and to correct whatever is amiss. 
 
 The portion of the churches who imbibe the preceding 
 views, is very considerable, and they have been silent long 
 enough, and long enough satisfied with mere toleration. It is 
 time that their voices were heard in defence of believers'* baptism 
 and open communion. 
 
 The period has, manifestly, arrived, when every friend to 
 this cause should declare himself as such, and openly and firmly 
 defend it. How are the evils of infant baptism and close com- 
 munion to be put away, except by a strenuous and united effort 
 of those who see them to be unscriptural, relying on the bless- 
 ing of God ? Shall their being placed in a delicate situation 
 deter them ? Shall the fear of displeasing their brethren of the 
 opposite opinions, or of making a breach in the churches, or of 
 incurring loss, inconvenience, opposition and reproach, keep 
 them from bearing testimony in the case ? What would have 
 become of the church, if such motives had kept the friends oi 
 reformation from advocating it openly and boldly ? If we are 
 to make no attempt at reformation but what can be done quietly 
 and peaceabhj — without hurting the feelings of brethren, and 
 
202 OPEN COMMUNION, 
 
 without making any divisions, depend upon it, we shall never 
 do auy thing of consequence. Was ever any material errour 
 corrected without a struggle ? Was ever any attempt made at 
 reformation, either in doctrine or practice, but what met, from 
 some quarter or other, with opposition and reproach ?. How 
 was it with Luther and Calvin ? How was it with the Dis- 
 senters in England ? How was it with Edwards, Bellamy, and 
 others in our own land, who laboured to reform the errours in- 
 troduced into the church, in regard to the qualifications for the 
 Lord's Supper, and in regard to the half-way covenant plan of 
 baptizing children ? All these reformers were opposed ; yea, 
 opposed with concert and determination. 
 
 It does not appear to be the intention of Providence that truth 
 should prevail over errour without a conflict. If reformers 
 should wait till the church generally should admit their plans, 
 without opposition, they would never proceed at all in any case 
 of material importance. 
 
 But, in order to success, errour must be attacked boldly, with 
 the expectation that it will be defended to the last. The point 
 or points of reformation must be plainly stated, and faithfully 
 supported, and pressed, and all consequences be left with God. 
 
 The several considerations, therefore, just stated, should not 
 deter the friends of the cause herein plead, from exerting, and 
 coming out boldly. Believing these doctrines to be important, 
 they should prepare to support them, and claim the natural, 
 civil, and Christian right of being heard in their defence. — 
 While all hard aud uucharitable feelings and opprobrious epi- 
 thets should be carefully avoided, they should speak clearly 
 and persuasively ; gird on the harness; and advance coolly and 
 resolutely forward, whatever may oppose. They should avoid 
 injuring the feelings of brethren, or disturbing the publick 
 peace, as far as may be consistent with advocating the truth ; 
 but they must not conceal the knowledge which they have of 
 the Redeemer's will ; nor forbear to labour, vigorously and 
 unitedly, to put away the aforesaid evils ; and to break down 
 the middle walls of partition between the friends of God. 
 
 I repeat the observation, that the period has come to defend 
 the scheme illustrated and advocated in this work. Already 
 the number of its friends is very considerable, who are spread 
 abroad through the land. Why should they keep any longer 
 concealed, or remain inactive, and under bonds? Why should 
 they forbear to show their opinion, when others of the opposite 
 class do not hesitate to show theirs, and to maintain it with all 
 their strength ? Must they keep in the dark, and continue to 
 weep in secret over these evils, till their brethren permit them. 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 203 
 
 to come forth, and till they will consent to make no opposition 
 to their plans of reformation ? Must the multitude, who this 
 moment desire gospel baptism, without consenting, either to 
 the baptism of infants, or to close communion, be obliged to be 
 deprived of the privilege of this ordinance, or be impelled for- 
 ward where they do not feel free to go ? Must the many who, 
 though baptized in infancy, have an ardent desire, and feel 
 strong impressions of the duty of being baptized on their own 
 faith, be left to grieve and lament, because they cannot have 
 the privilege, and, at the same time, be allowed to retain the 
 right of communing with all evangelical Christians ? Or, shall 
 the foregoing system of reformation be openly advocated by its 
 friends, and measures be prudently adopted to carry it into 
 effect ? No candid and enlightened mind will hesitate to say 
 that the latter is the true course. Even our opposers will ac- 
 knowledge the consistency of this course, or be obliged to con- 
 demn their own. 
 
 What if the cry of breaking covenant and disturbing the 
 peace of the church is raised ? What does it amount to ? Is 
 it to be supposed, that the instrument called a church covenant 
 binds Christians to walk with the church in their errours, and 
 to make no efforts to correct them ? Or, if these efforts fail, that 
 they must, at all events, continue their relation to the church, or 
 be liable to the charge of breaking covenant, and of causing 
 divisions and offences ? Or does it, merely, bind us to walk 
 with the church so far, only, as they follow Christ, not prohib- 
 iting us from reforming errours ; but requiring us to do it when 
 we discover them ? And, if we cannot peaceably and profitably 
 remain in our respective churches, does it not manifestly allow 
 us to ask to be dismissed, and, if this is denied, to secede ? — ; 
 Surely, " a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case." 
 
 We may even be the innocent occasion of u divisions and 
 offences," provided we do not believe, or act, " contrary to the 
 doctrine which we have learned," i. e. contrary to the blessed 
 doctrine of Christ. 
 
 Therefore, none ought to be deterred from coming forward 
 in this cause, firmly believing it to be the cause of God and 
 truth, because of any connexion which may exist between 
 them and other churches of different sentiments. Coming out 
 on the side of truth, is no breach of a church covenant ; for we 
 did not, and could not, bind ourselves to do wrong, or to forbear 
 to do right. 
 
 Therefore, I would make a solemn appeal to the enlightened 
 understandings, the Christian sympathies, and the benevolent 
 wishes of this class of Christians, and admonish and entreat 
 
204 OPEN COMMUNION. 
 
 them to come to the help of the Lord, and to " show themselves 
 men." The cause is too precious, and involves interests that 
 are too dear, to permit it to lie buried and unplead. 
 
 You are called upon, ray brethren, to claim only a common 
 privilege with that of your other Christian brethren, and \o dis- 
 charge a similar duty to what they all d^em binding on them- 
 selves, viz. labouring for the defence and purity of the gospel. 
 
 Come forth, then, with warm, cheerful, and united hearts, and 
 labour faithfully, and leave the event with God. Who can tell 
 but the Lord will regard and bless ; and though our efforts may 
 appear as diminutive and inefficient to our opponents, as those 
 of Nehemiah and the Jews did, when rebuilding the walls of 
 Jerusalem, to Sanballat and Tobiah, the work, like theirs, may 
 eventually prosper. 
 
 And to the ministers and churches both of the Baptist and 
 Pedobaptist denominations, I would respectfully observe, that 
 if the points which have been discussed have been supported 
 from scripture, it is of high importance that you should respec- 
 tively receive conviction, and adopt this plan of reformation 
 and union. I do not aim any opposition to you, but to your 
 respective err ours. I assure you of my affectionate regard to you 
 as ministers and as Christians. But believing that you have 
 adopted either the one or the other ot the errours which have 
 been pointed out, 1 am under indispensable obligation to ex- 
 pose them. And I invite your candid attention to my remarks 
 and reasons. I ciaim no regard to any thing that I have said, 
 further than it is based on the truth. 
 
 But if the scheme is true, you are bound to adopt it ; and 
 each denomination to give up its own errours, and meet the 
 other on the middle ground. You will not fail to see that if this 
 scheme be true, its adoption will, at once, wholly relieve the 
 subject of communion and Christian and ministerial intercourse. 
 
 May you, therefore, be enabled respectively to examine and 
 to understand it, and, if it comports with the scriptures, to adopt 
 it ; and, henceforth, to become one in affection and practice, as 
 you belong to one Lord, and are animated by one hope of the 
 high and heavenly calling. 
 
 To readers in general, who have not yet adopted the foregoing 
 scheme of baptism and communion, 1 would earnestly recom- 
 mend a patient and candid investigation of the subject ; a dili- 
 gent comparing of every thing with the scriptures ; and fervent 
 prayer for divine direction. And as you receive the light, walk 
 in it, ascribing all the glory to God through Jesus Christ oiu 
 Lord. 
 
 THE END. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUB ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WIU. BE ASSESSED FOR FAILUIW: Tn 7 
 THIS BOOK ON thc Wl^JT E TO RETURN 
 
 W.LL , MC Rw" ;o E SO C«« «m'? E PENALTY 
 DAY AND TO si on „J J ° N ™ E F °URTH 
 OVERDUE. ° N THE SEVENTH DAY 
 
 — QECLjl2J8SB 
 
 \ 
 
 *P 
 
 LD 21-100ro-7,'40 (6936s) 
 
£s\Zo 
 
 
 YB 29192 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
I