soi

•fe.

«>

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

'^o

f/j

1.0

i.l

If IIIIIM
t IIIM

|M
IIM

12.0

1.8

1.25

1-4 IIIIII.6

(p^

'S.

^#\.^^

'>.'

^/ /////

^/,

pVinfnorQnhir

Sciences
Corporation

.^N^

♦■^^

». ^

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, M.Y. 14580

(716) 872-1503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Coliection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques at bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filnning. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

□ Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagde

□ Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde

pn Cover title missing/
I I Coloured maps/

D
D

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartes giographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que blaue ou noirel

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Retii avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distorsion I0 long de la marge intdrieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas AtA filmies.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppldmentaires:

L'Institut a microfilrr^ le meilleur exemplaire
quit lui a iti possible de se procurer. Lee details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bcbliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduiie, ou qui peuvent exiger <jne
modification dans la m^thodtt normale da filmage
sont indiquis ci-dessous.

r~~| Coloured pages/

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommag^es

Pages restored and/oi

Pages restaurdes et/ou peiliculdes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxe<
Pages d^coior^es, tachet^es ou piqudes

r~l Pages damaged/

n~| Pages restored and/or laminated/

I 1/^ages discoloured, stained or foxed/

Lkf p

□ Pages detached/
Pages ditachees

r~V3howthrough/
L!^ Transparence

I I Quality of print varies/

Quality inigale de I'impressicn

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponibie

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissue i, etc.. have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6X6 filmdes 6 nouveau de facon 6
ob^enir la meilleure image possible.

The cc
to the

Their
possib
or the
fiimini

Origin
begtni
the lai
sion, I
other
first p
sion, (
or iiiu!

The la
shall <
TINUi
which

Maps,
diffen
entire
begini
right )
requir
meth(

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

ISA

26X

30X

23X

32X

lils

difier

ine

age

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Metropolitdn '"'oronto Library
Canadian History Department

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
ot the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated in.pres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or iliustrated impression.

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce h la
ginirositi de:

Metropolitan Toronto Library
Canadian History Department

Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmi, et en
conformity avec les conditions du cont^'at de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimie sont fiimds en commenpsnt
par le premier piat et en terminant soit per la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, scit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol -♦- (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to bu
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V signifie "FIN'".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmds d des taux de reduction diff6rents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmi A partir
de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

ata

ilure.

kf--

•!.

'Vf'-.

^ PUBLICATION ENTITLE J»
BELIEVER IMMEi|siON,

« • AS OPPOSED TO

UNBELIEVER SP

\^. .

TO . J

RINKLlNCfJf.

.#"

■ - ■\

■ \

TWO LETTERS ADDRESSED, T;C^
ALEXANDER CBATTFORB,

By DUNCAN ROSB.

Ye do err, not knowing the ^^^V^^^ ^

tmamt^HUnk himtelf to be ^^^l^ff'
^hi^ is nothing,^? '^^''^'^^ ■*- "Lrf,

goose-r^£^;g^ af /Ae fTeir Durham Pre$is.

low. ^

of yo 1828. ' ■ f^^

1 1

A I ■

fmm^mm

mtm

LETTER I.

SIR,

When I perused your letters at first, it oc-
curred to me, that an answer would be quite
needless ; as your mistakes are so evident, as to
render a refutation useless to any intelligent per-
son : but on second thoughts, I find that you afibrd
occasion for clearing more fully, several topics
mentioned in my former letters. Besides, whe^i
I wrote my letters to Mr. Elder, T laboured un-
der one mistake, I then thought, that the law of
Moses contained no express precept for circum-
cising infants ; and when Lev. xii. 8. was shewn
me by a friend, I was surprised. The reason is
plainly this, as we are free from the rites of the^
Mosaic dispensation, I concluded, that it would
afford little edification to my congregation or fa-
mily, and be of little service in my private stu-
dies, to pry into all the circumstances of Israeli-
tish females during their confinement. I there-
fore seldom read such passages. This accounts
for the above \Qxi not occurrino. to me, wheu

\'\v)ri(ing those letters.
^^" 1 li

have no intention of following you in all your
wanderings, which would lead to a real wild-
goose-chase, which few would be willing to fol-
low. I shall, therefore, review the first section
of your reply to my letters, as a specimen of what
might be done, and then clear up the leading to-

'.S.i8fc.j

pies which you have laboured so hard to darken.
You, p. 74, give the following quotation from

my letters, " Any special purpose of mercy and
grace, toward man in general or lue church in
particular, is in scripture language termed a
covenant; and the revelation of such a purpose
is called making a covenant. Hence, the word,
as found in the sacred records, is of greater
extent than in other books. It includes not
only agreement by mutual consent, but like-
wise any arrangement by decree, command,
promise, or even testament. Inattention to
this has given rise to much needless controver-
sy. The system of ordinances given to the
church of Israel, is by Moses called the cove-
nant; by Paul in his epistle to the Galatians,
the law ; and in the epistle to -the Hebrews, ac-
cording to our version, sometimes covenant,
and sometimes testament. The terra in the o-
riginal is the same."

You add, " If the same original term is render-
ed indifferently covenant and testamenf^ why
do you say in stating what it includes, or even
testament? Was it because you did not know
that the two words, being indifferently the
translation of the fiame Greek word, in the
same epistle, from the same pen, in reference
to the same transaction, must in those writings
be synonymous ? or was it because you were a-
fraid others would know it, and then look into
Heb. ix. 16, 17. and see your view of a Qoxi-i
nant completely overthrown by the apostiVT
Or even testament, as if it was a great wonder
the word covenant should ever mean testament,
and therefore we should seldom meet with it in
that sense. No\r the word testament, as used
among men, comes much nearer the sciiptuie

((

. ^ UIIWIflV^IIHmpRpi''

)

« covenant thati the word covenant itself, m itfe
^« common acceptation. Allowing a covenant
" might be revealed in the form of a promise,
<« command, &c. still it is of no force till ratified.
« But the very design of making a covenant is to
^* bind forcibly by that covenant : therefore what
" has no ^orce to bind, is not a covenant. It is
» impossible to separate the divine covenants
" from the confirming victim. This at once de-
" stroys your idea of two covenants with Abra-
'* ham What you call the second covenant, and
^' which only you allow to be everlasting, not be-
'' inff separate from what you call the first, ratiii-
'' ed according to scripture is of no force.
'• There must of necessity be the death of the tes-
^« tator. See the preceding essay on the Abra-
" hamie covenant."

As you refer to the preceding essay, I shall
take a look at it, before proceeding to review
the above assertions.

You, p. 3. say '' The principal parts of a co-
'' venant are three : a promise, a ratification sa-
^' orifice, and a token .'' J ust before these words,
vou cite a number of texts containing the term
Covenant, and it is rather remarkable that they
are all deficient, as not one of them has all the
principal parts, yet you say - As far as 1 re-
*' member, these are all tlw covenants that Jeho-
'« vah ever made with, or revealed to man.
^ Whence, Sir, did you learn your notion ot the
^' parts of a covenant? If youlook Exod. xxxiv.
Is you will find these words, And he wrote up-
mi ike tables the words of the covenant, the te^i
commandments. Here is a covenant which .las
neither promise, confirming: sacrifice nor token.
About the blessings of the covenant, y^u had
not any fixed view3 when you wrote your es*ay.

SVi

for p. 4. you say, *' The Abrahamic covenant de-

*' serves our serious consideration, because it is

'* intimately connected with all the spiritual bles-

** sings we can enjoy, either in time or in eterni-

**ty/' And again, p. 9. you say, *' By referring

** to the covenant itself, as described in Genesis,

'' it appears to be just the land of Canaan and do-

** thing else." What, are all the blessings we can

enjoy, either in time or in eternity, confined to

the land of Canaan and nothing else? You are

not pleased with this, and p. 17. you say, '' The

'• third blessing in the covenant is, Jehovah to be

" their God." This is something different from

the land of Canaan and nothing else. Had you

dropped the term third, we would now perfectly

agree, and as this will seldom be the case, 1 make

no more remarks on this part of your essay.

You, p. 21, enter on another title, namely,
"The ratification of the covenant," and say
" There is good authority for saying that, while
" the ratification sacrifice liveth, a covenant is of
*' no force, Heb. ix. 17." Before proceeding far-
ther, it is necessary to remark that in every Ian-
language, as far as I know, the same term has
often different meanings. In English for in-
stance, the term pound signifies the sum of twen-
ty shillings, and likewise aiiinclosure for confin-
ing cattle. To mistake the one of these for the
other would lead to very absurd conclusions.
When you hear that a man's cattle are put into
a pound, do you suppose they are confined iui
twenty shillings? Yet the conclusion would b^
quite as rational, as the one you endeavoured to
establish.

The Hebrew term berilh signifies, as I re-
marked in my former letters, both a covenant and
a testament, yet they are quite distinct, and no

one t
men i
while
while
tweei
^ woul

«onclnsion can be drawn from the n'.t"re of the
one to th.^ other. A testament is of force after
men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength ^t all
whUe the testator liveth. A covenant is ot force
while the parties live : so was the covenant oe-
tween Abraham, Aner, Eshcol, «"d Mamre^ It
, would have been of little service to the Gebeon-
' ites, that Joshua made {benth) a covenant w.tli
them, if it were to be of no force while they lived.
Your reference therefore to Heb. ix. 17. is no-
thing to the purpose ; for the apostle is not speak-
ing of a covenant, but of « ^e^'^^^*- ,,X;^
1 have referred you to two covenants I'^l'ich were
of force, while the parties were I'ving; ^^^ ^f
that will not suffice you, a -1- «r .noreare at
your service, and all of the-
cation sacrifice. You refer
what purpose, I do not under*
ter however we have an accoui.
and a covenant;but by consulting v. 18. y^amn
find them mentioned as distinct transactions, m
these words. In Hie same da;, God made a cove-
nant with Abram. These^words imply some-
thingelse taking place that day, as wl'en it is aid.
The same day that Lot went otit of i>odom, u
rained fire and brimstone. from heaven. Agm.i
the day" that Pilate sent our Lord to Herod, t is
M, The same da,, Pilate and H^rodn^ere
made friends. You refer in the -'""^f^f '«"'*''
Jer xxxiv. 18, 19. 1 remark here, that the co-
%enant mentioned by Jeremiah is the only one,
which I recollect, having a ratification sacrifice,
and it was worst kept of any on/.«''?//- , >,°^
Sinaic covenant will be considered in its proper
place. 1 1 is certainly no ordinary effort ot ge-
nius, to bring the testament mentioned by the -

MJt a ratifi-
•^v. 6. for
hat chap-
sacrifice

..A fV nnvpnnnt mentioned by Jeremiati

m^Kwmm.

to bear on the same subject.

This is sufficient to shew what light the essay
can cast upon the subject, and so I shall return
to review the long quotation given above. The
reader has it before him in its connected form. I
shall now consider every part of it.

ic /®" ^J' " '^*h® ^^^ original term is ren-
•Mered indifferently covenant and testament,
" why do you say, in stating what it includes,
" or even testament V

I said, that the term is sometimes rendered co-
venant, and sometimes testament; this no intelli-
gent person can deny, that the term is rendered
60, indifferently, no intelligent person would as-
sert. You justly remark, p. 85. that *« True ca-
nons of criticism ever tend to precision." It
IS a pity that you never made use of those canons^
It you know them. Your remarks are thrown
before the reader in such a jumbled manner, that
the reader must be at a loss to know what yoa
intend. Do you grant or deny my assertion?
Your words do neither, but instead of this make
a supposition, that the terms covenant and testa-
ment are used indifferently. The translators were
too well acquainted with the use of terms, to be
guilty of such a blunder. You ask, « Why did
you say-even testament?" My reason waf^,
that the reader might pay particular attention to
this meaning of the term, as it is very uncom-
mon You proceed, " Was it because you did
not know that the two words, being indiiTer/
ently the translation of the same Greek word,
m the same epi ^tle, from the same pen, in re-
ference to the same transaction, must in those
writings be synonymous?" I really did not
Know that covenant and testament were indiP
^ — ,^j ^^..^ „iicii ^uu iuiorm me oi it».fc

..i...

)

^0 not believe it, for I hav^ shewed above they
are «o essentially different, that none would use
them indifferently, unless one whose «PP«^t«;y
was to let nfurnished. You add, "Or was it
« because you were afraid others would know it,
"and then look into Heb. ix. 16, 17. and see
«' vour view of a covenant completely over-
.' thrown by the .pestle?" If I wanted to hava
my readers'kept in the dark, 1 took a very un-
common way of accomplishing it. But b; t'vik-
ing into the text referred to, my v.ew is no-wise
overthrown, but confirmed. If you mean the
English term covenant, the apostle is not rea-
soning concerning such. As has been shewed a-
bove, covenants are offeree while men I've. If
you intend the term in the ori^^nal, then the text
proves that it means or includes even a testa-
ment. You add, " Or even testament, as if it
•« were a great wonder the word covenant shoud
.'ever mean testament, and therefore we should
' seldom meet with it in that sense. The word
covenant never means testament, but the Hebrew
term berith frequently means covenant, and
sometimes, but very rarely, testament. 1 he co-
venants mentioned in scripture, are many in
number, and various in tlieir natures, as every
one who reads his bible may observe : whereas »U
the Testaments on record amount only to two,
the former of which was never confirmed by ttie
death of the testator, and therefore is superseded
I bv the latter. We have, therefore, but one in-
stance in the whole scriptures, of a testament
confirmed by the death of the testator. You
proceed, " Now the word testament, as used a-
« mong men, comes much nearer the scripture
••covenant than the word covenant itseli, m it«
.. ™„„ oooonfnfion." I take vour me&nmK

iti

to be, that the term testament would be a better
translation of the Hebrew term berith, than thft
term covenant. This I question. Jacob and
Laban made a beriih, was it a covenant or a tes-
tament? Abraham and Abimelech made likewise
la berith, and the reader may judge whether they
made a covenant or testament. Do you sup-
pose, that the Gibeonites sent to Joshua to ad-
vise him to make his testament?

You proceed, "Allowing a covenant might
be revealed in the form of a promii^e, command
" &c., still it is of no force till ratified." 1 would
have thought no christian could have made such
assertions. What ! is not faithful i> he thai
hafhpromised, sufficient ground of confidence
for a christian? and is not this saith the Lord,
enough to enforce a command ? But you add,
** The very design of making a covenant, is to
" bind forcibly by the covenrnt ; therefore what
" has no force to bind is not a covenant." God
made a covenant with Noah ; pray, Sir, who is td
be bound forcibly ? Is God to be bound forci-
bly not to send another flood ? Or was Noah
bound forcibly not to suffer another flood?
Who is now bound forcibly by this covenant?
But perhaps you reckon this a testament. If so
God is the testator ; and you know a testament
IS of no force while the testator liveth. When
will this testament be of force? Some of our
readers will jtill be disposed, after all you have
said, to prefer my account, and think it was a re- ;
velation of God's gracious purpose not to send
another flood. You say farther, " It is impos-
** sible to separate the divine covenants from the
* oonfirming victim." You, p. 3. of your es-
say, give an enumeration of aii the divine cove-
Daats you could recollect. Consider them affain.

)

and 6

eonn

help

cone

diffe

ther<

.c^r

**dc

viev

Yoi

««ol

pec

liev

pre

I si

nai

)

.n^ see if thev tre al!, or ho<r many of them art
connected ith coulinning victims. 1 cannot
help rem«^Ui«g that your -"^-^^"Pf^f*
conrernlnK the divine covenants, p. 3. are veiy
S?fferent from those under revievr You say
JhS!" All Jehovah's covenants with men, are
"gracious intimations of his .nerc.ful designs of
" dolnir Kood to man." Had you retained theM.
vier tlfere would be no diflerence between us.
Ymi'Droceed, " This at once destroys your idea
"o two cov;nants with Abraimm." You ex-
D^t that your readers will be all very gr^t b«;
?i^e. * and take your bare word for sufficient
f w I Pxnect that some of our readers
Cddfike o-ealUrtionssnppor,ed therefor,

rrall shew why 1 distinguish these two cove-

"""l ' Thev were made at different times. 2. They
confer different privileges, the former a right to
the aid of Canaln, tl.c latter a peeuhar relation
«n God 3. The former was made with Abram
as St ther of a numerous seed constituting one
natk.n the latter as the father of m^ny ".f,X
When Paul says to the Galatians, And ifje be
ChrLsCs then «re ;,e Abraham^ s .eed, and heirs
aZrding lo Ihepromi.e, »he .^derwj J«Jse
whether he means, you have the God ot Abra
ham for your God, or you have a "gh* ^o the
uZ of Canaan. 4. The privileges of the latter
are vastly more important and ex^nf.'^^' **'^"
\ tho^of aie former fit was by confounding thm.
^ thafyou fell into the contradictions noticed a-
bove^ When you say, p. 9. " I* «PPfa- t«^
« the land of Canaan and nothing else. Gen, xv.
18 vou would not been far wrong, had you m-
LVeSand a seed to inherit it, before the words
«« and nothing else." Again, when you say.

I'l r

JI't'I' " J'!'*.*''''"^ blessing in the covehanf fs.
the term third,' the sentiment would be correct

The latter of these privileges extends, and will

tlZ:. **• f- ''^"f «°«. but all christians cannot
be crammed into the land of Canaan

cond, and which only you allow to be ever-

. ^ fi^*°° .^«^'5^ separate from what y6u call

i'f f '*' '■''•^^f «* according to scripture, is of

"death of the testator."

h„rmV''\''''* P"t of these sentences I meddJe
but little, because 1 do not understand it. the
one half contradicting the other. 1 only remark
thatmstead of saying ratified according to scrip-
<ure. you should have said, ratified aocordiugTo
my essay: for the general manner of ralifvina:
covenants recorded in scripture, is by oath- but
m your essay, is by a 'confirming vicHm'. I
shall suppose that your meaning is, what you
express in the next section, in (hese words "I

:: Znr'''"u " *" if ""^ ""'^ *"« --e cove-
nant. It seems then, those covenants, or that
covenant, cannot 1^ confirmed without tledeaU

wheS^in vf *"'• ^ "•" "*»* ^ ""'« ^"'•prised,
when in your essay you menlioned the principa

parts of a covenant, you did not give one head

upon the testator of the covenant.^ In the cS

before us, I am really at a loss where to fix 1

itaham' ?/' '""* t'* r'^ " covelt will '

will ihTL ^""i r"''"" *"■" '*■« **>«'«*«"•' «'h«n
will the covenant be confirmed and of force »

h«f;ff I ^."^ °° ' *'" ^ «""' y"""- book, ever
hear of a he.ler making a covenant, or even a tes'

lament. But allowing for once that this heifer
made a testament, it adds not a little to the won-
der, that she made a part of it about fourteen
years after she was divided in the midst. I have
Darned the heifer only because you say testator,
perhaps the other animals have as good a claims »
^ If I have injured them, you will do them justice
no doubt, when you write again.

This is a fair specimen of what might be done,
were I to review the whole of your performance :
but I fear, if I had patience to proceed, few
would have patience enough to read, and even
you would be very tired^before you would come
4o the end.

1 shall therefore make a few remarks on some
of the leading topics.

Your plan through the remaining part of what
you say concerning the covenants, is to jumble
them all together, and if you can find one of
them come to an end, then conclude they are all
^nded. I shall therefore make some remarks on
them.

1. Each covenant which I mentioned in my
former letters, has a definite privilege attached to
it. The covenant with Noah you call ' a cove-
nant of safety ' properly enough. The first co-
venant with Abraham, conferred on him and his
seed a right to the land of Canaan ; the second,
the privilege in your own words, of having Je-
hovah for their God ; the Mosaic covenant gave
the church a system of laws and ordinances^
This covenant was more complex than any of
the former ; it contained a body of laws, a system
of ordinances, a formal covenant, and partici-
pated of the nature of a testament, and is ther€P«
fore called by each of these names. The kingly-
dignity conferred on David, and continued ki

H
kU Imc, |£| distinct from each of the former cov««

^. All these were in full force, when David
ras king. Israel had possess^ion of the land of
Canaan, had Jehovah for tlieir God, the law of
Ifloses in force, and David for their king. Not
one of these covenants interfered with or super-
seded another.

3. A new covenant was revealed by Jeremiah,
which dittered from these, in that it was to su-
persede, and when turned into a testament by
the death of Christ, actually did supersede one,
and but one. Both the prophet and apostle
shew which it was, plainly mentioning the cove-
pant made with Israel upon taking them out of
Egypt. You needed not have been at so much
pams to shew that this covenant is superseded,
all christians will grant it; and you have done
nothmg to shew that the relation between God
and his church is dissolved. This is what you
should have done, had you met my argument.
Ihis leads naturally to enquire into the duration
of these covenants.

You say p. 76, '' As a linguist, a controver-
' siahsr, and a teacher of the scriptures, you are
doubtless prepared to inform us what is the
meaning of Gen. xvii. 8. The land of Canaan
Jor an everlasting possession ? Yes, Sir, per-
fectly prepared. You justly remark, p. I:g8. '* It
IS mcumbent on those who write for the public
•' to elucidate, not to darken." As vtu have
succeeded to admiration in darkening the sub-
ject, I shall endeavour to elucidate it. Then
the reader has both before him, and may choose
tor himself. You say, same section, p. 76. of the
term everlasting, " In its literal sense,~itha8an
end : in its spiritual sense-^it has no end '*

Now this is glaringly false ; for every one knowi
that the literal meaning of the word everlasting
Is, perpetual, without end. Again, this is leav-
ing the reader completely in the dark, if it have
an end, when is this end to come ? besides^ lite-
ral and spiritual is no proper division of meah-
) jng; literal is opposed to figurative, and spiritual
to carnal. That you should l>e at a loss re-
gpecting the meaning of a Hebrew term, is nd
matter of wonder or reflection, but that yaiBL
should be so positive, in a matter you do QOt
understand, is not quite so excusable.

I remark, then, that the Hebrew terfn, rendef^
ed everlasting and for ever, just as it suits the
idiom of the English language, is, in scrit)tnref^
Applied to durations of different lengths^ and
meanSj

1. During natural life. Exod. xxi. 6. And he
$haU serine him forever, Heb. to everlasting'.
1. Sam. xxvii. \2. Therefore he shall be my
servant forever, to everlasting.

2. During the Mosaic dispensation. Exod.
xl. 15. For their anointing shall surely he an
everlasting priesthood. Heb. vii. \2. For the
priesthood being changed, there is made ofne*
cessity a change also of the law. This shews,
that the Mosaic dispensation and the Aaronic
priesthood were of equal duration.

3. During the political existence of Israel as
a nation. Gen. xvii. 8. All the land of Canaan
for an everlasting possession. This was tbn
country given to Israel, while out of it they are
strangers in a land not their own, and, in mf
opinion, will continue so, till restored td their

own.

M-

4* Diino^ Kio

^1.,^ w^'—A!

.^A!^^. Mff 4K^

WU%*a«u«*»A%#a* <u>«

i^!

stAie of this world. In this sense we read <tt
the everlasting hills, everlasting mountains.

5. Duration absolutely without end. The c-
verlasting God . Everlasting life.

From this view of the scriptural meaning of
the term everlasting, its signification may ap-
pear to a superficial observer vague and uncer-
tain ; but upon a closer review it will be found
definite and plain. It means the longest dura-
tion of which the subject is capable. When the
body mouldered in the grave, the everlasting
covenant in the Jiesh ended ; death ended the
service of him who was to serve his master for
ever; and the dissolution of the Mosaic dispen-
sation put an end to the Aaronic everlasting
priesthood.

The question now submitted to your consider-
ation is, Does the relation between God and hij8
people still continue, or is it ended? If you
grant that the relation continues, then the Abra-
hamic covenant, by which infants were admitted
into the church, or, in other words, into the as-
sembly of God*s people, is still in force ; but if
you hold that this relation is ended, then there is
not on earth a people who have a right to be
called God's people.

You may now see, why I paid more attention
to the term everlasting when connected with
some subjects, than when connected with others.
There is a great difference between the period
which one man could serve another, and the du-
ration of the everlasting hills

You proceed, p. 85. to give your views of the
people who stand in this relation to God, or in
o^l^er words of the church. It is a little remark-
able, that when you make such a shew of ^ccur

racv in afinppfAinin»> *Krw »««^»>^:~_ „i» ju_ j-. "

((

church, you cite only two texts of scripture. On
the first of those, I make no remarks, the second
vou introduce thus, " In Acts vii. 38. we read
" of the church in the wilderness. This means
'' the Jewish church. " It would have been a
little more accurate, had you said the Israelitish
church. You add, *' It was a visible, earthly,
t " temporal model of the invisible, heavenly, eter-
'' nal church above mentioned." Please inform
me when you write next, of what service it is to
give a visible model of an invisible church. It
however answers your purpose, as it will prevent
some of your renders from comparing the church
and model. But as the model contained persons
of all ages, from the infant on the breast to the
hoary head, the church, if it answer to the model,
must do the same. You add, " To this body,
" the term church is applied but this once m the
" whole bible." This is rather a rash assertion.
The Greek term rendered church occurs, as
often, at least, in the Greek versions of the Old
Testament, as in the New: for instance, m^.
Chron. xxx. it occurs four times ; v. 2. All the
conqreqatic n (Greek, ekklesiu church) in Jerw
mlem; v. 17. There were mam/ in ike congre-
nation (church) that were not sanctified; v.^o.
The whole assembly (church) took counsel to
keep other seven days ; v. 25. All the congrega^^
Hon (church) of Judah. Accordingly, we find
it so rendered in Psalm xxii.22. as cited by Paul,
Heb. ii. 12. I will declare thy name unfv my
brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing
praise unto thee. Though you cannot read the
Greek, yet you can consult Parkhurst ; and he
would have afforded you sufficient information
on this subject, as he takes eleven of his examples
nf the meaning of the term (ekklesia) church

'■rj

mm-

[■1 .1

"When' ?hf Tf '"""t"*- u ^°" P'«<'««d and «ay.

" whole £dv o7 .*},''"'■'''!, •^""^ "°* '"«'«' the
" Christ it Z • ^''^ redeemed as united in

" in he' wiw:r;r;s ^^r^' ^ ^'•"-'^

" l!o,r<...=, '*""*'™«ssj a particular socetv of be-
'< rfne e^er i^*^ ""* of .spiritual darknesJby dl
" united toEhr^^P^^y'"^ the divine word ;
" "he worU^K t^' 'u " ^*«*« «f separation from

" al Lhv. t'f^e gospel begets in the heart of
•' i t„ r'' *"•* ""^ "instant habit of meet-
., ng together on the first day of the week

" fn«llJ-fl S ™1' ""'^ «n ea''nest desire of mu-
" whth rf '?"' ''y ""itedly observing all th^SL
" s^Jv?" M ' T™™""^^'! his disciples to ob-
•io you foun?2' T"" y°"' "Pon what authority
church fnr ft ■' ""■""^^ definition of the term
wl ^' u '* "^'■^es neither with the Ene-li«h

rr7n^Lten'L^'f '^.^ ^^^ term eS:'
allagee w»h fi''«*f churches, and see if they
■1 agree with the definition. You sav " NT,.
. ;'f le society which does not answer this des
evlTreZ't:'::'^ "«"«•' '-^-hureh." You how."
- church „%*•"!, '^^f t'»« ^hen you say, " tl>e

" are ever 'f^H *7 "'"u^'''^ "^ ^^^^^^ societies
« ber Knt K ^ a church in the singular num-
" thJ,; '•"^^henever two or more are referredT,.

" a'rLrbir""^^ ^'""!f '^'^'^^^ - thTpiS

prove thTs T mi^w' y?" *''°"^'''* " needless to /
as^rtion ' S l^^i'""''"*^""'' '^^"y'"^' *''e '
oftiiemeaninrof /h ? ^''^'■' ?'"* "°"ther view

renl mei^o7!hrf '"'"" ^''^P^^' *« **■« ''«'-
luedniDg: 01 the lanffuae-e in whinh li^«r.u^.

f23

iV'f-

<rl

au-

f" ^

and such phrases as the church of England, the

ch jrch of Scotland, &c. are in use ; and it would
require a good deal of authority to banish them

from the English language, yet they will in no-
wise agree with your definition.
The signification of the Greek term ekklesia,

fis still more extensive ; for it means, i. An as-
sembly of any kind. In this sense it occurs
three times in Acts, xix. V. 32. The assembly
(ekklesia) was confused, v. 39. It shall be de-
iermined in a lawful assembly, (ekklesia), v. 41 .
He dismissed the assembly, (ekklesia), 2. A-
mong christians, and in the scriptures in general
it is confined to a religious assembly, and means,
either the professed christians belonging to one
place, as the church (ekklesia) of Ephesus, of
Smyrna, &c., or the collective body of chris-
tians in the world. Mat. xvi. 17. Upon this
rock I will build my church, 1. Cor. xii. 28.
Ood hath set some in the church, (ekklesia)
first apostles, secondarily prophets, <!^c. Your
definition of the term church is liable to many
objections ; I shall notice only a few of them.

1. You confine the meaning of the term when
used in the singular number, to one assembly
which meets regularly in one place. The texts
cited above are a sufficient refutation of your
notion, for the privilege of being founded upon
the rock, cannot be confined to any particular
church, neither were the apostles set in any par-
ticular church ; to these, many more examples
of church in the singular might be added ; such
as, Eph. i. 22, And gave him to be head over
all things to the church, Co), i. 19. And he is
the head of the body the church, v. 24. For
his body's sake which is the church, ^c, ^c,

2. You confine the term to an assembly of real

J 1 •

believers possessed of saving grace ; bat fbe
church has always contained some ;ho were
VlTr^ "Si^ "" P'-«fe«sio„. Christ says, Mat.

aJ /J' /!'^. *^"'" "'^ kinfidom of heaven
be Itkened to ten virgins, uhich took their

AnTd.Tf.rr*^'"'"' '". '"''' '*^ bridegroom.
Andji,^ of them were wi.se, and Jive were fool-

to fivp h*"". "'""I'' •■',""*'' *''" '^'"^f'^""' of heaven
to hve, but our Lord says ten. Your notion is

oircf *rV:'*' ^^.^-^P-'^lio exhortation to the
Church, 2. Cor. xni. 6. Examine yourselves
-whether ye be in the fallh ; prove yZlown-
selves: ^ni warning, 2. Peter ii. 1. But there

ZXniFrff' r "^'^ "'^ Veople, even as
there slum be false teaehers among you, who
prrvdy shall bring in damnable heresies, even
denying the Lord that bought them. It is con^
trary to the best authenticated facts. Read the
epistles to the seven Asiatic chu relies, and see if

o V " *'"*'^«'' your description
nf f hnlf^'h""/'?" '' ""*** 'langerous to the souls
ll !b»!f ," •^'''^^^ y""-" ''°<'t""«- You have,
toin^l^r r^'^y""" P^n-PWet-an addresJ
Ihev h. r'r'^'^?'?y discrimination, whether
I Zr * i^uJ'*'' ^™inian^S Socinians, Uni-
veriT ' ,^^abbatarians, all are on the wa; to e-

• ci^l !n^'"f .*? ^''^"''"^ lliemselves, no reason to
vou otV/l„ r'?,^ repentance. What think

first d«v nf /. ^''T' u*''*'y •^'' "°t m««t «n th«
ohfL.f^?''/, *''^ ^^^'^' b"t on the last, are they
churches? they are Baptists. ^

from ChH f^'r!,'"' ^u""' ""^^'^^^ *" Ihe Baptists,
from Christ s to the churches of Asia, Rev ii iii

' JrZ:rrrf '" ^^^P-^^heaven he calls t'e
greater part to renpnfnnno qr^.i i.-j ..

•addresses with /i.^A«7^-«;A «:;t;X;irLt

>»

y #

t»

f- '•>

^frhal the spirit saith unto the churches ; to him
that overcometh will I give <^c. Do you be-
lieve that the Baptist churches of the present
day are purer, than the christian churches of the

Apostolic age? , ^ , j

You proceed to review what I advanced con-
cerning the continuation of the church, but, with
no common degree of ingenuity, contrive to
keep the subject in debate out of view, or rather
shew plainly, that you do not understand it ; lor
you ask, p. 81 . - Why is not tlie church of Scot-
ia land a continuation of the Rome?" The very
proposing of such a question is enough to ma^e
the reader stare, and enquire, does he understand
what he says? Did the church of Rome end at
the commencement of the church ol ^cotland.^
if not, how could the one be a continuation ot the
other? Your answer is of a piece with your
question. You say, - Because their po^^y, their
« laws, and their offices are different, Conti-
nuation does not depend upon any or all ot
these, but upon succession.

From a person who could propose such a
question, and give such an answer, accuracy on
the point of continuation cannot be expected.

You say, p. 86. " When you attempted to
'' prove the continuation of the same church un-
*' der the Jewish and christian dispensations 1
^' should suppose your first attempt ought to be,
, - to ascertain what is essentially necessary to
'' constitute any body of people a church. it
is a little surprising, that you should answer .i
letter without reading it; and if you read it all,
did you not see these words, p. 8. - By this co-
- venantaiine of distinction was drawn between

. ,. ^ a? f^.^?.>,>. w^Qrki^\a nnd the world f

It has been shewed above, that the Greek term

•■■a-

■ n

I J

rendered church, means an assembly, and amon^
christians, an assembly of God's people by pro-
fession at least.

Relation to God, is what is essential to consti-
tute any body of people a church. This relati-
on is in some saving, in others mer ly profession-
al. This line is recognized in scripture. Is. Ixiii.
19. fFe are thine, thou never hearest rule over
them, they were not called by thy name. You
find feult with this line, because it does not an-
swer your notion, and make a separation be-
tween the righteous and the wicked. If you
consult your bible, you will find, that in every
age, and under each dispensation, there were
wicked persons on the church's side of the line ;
you will hardly deny, that there were such in the
church in the wilderness, and, if you consult the
second and third chapters of Revelations, it will
be no easy matter for you to shew, that the
church under the New Testament is free fsam
them.

You propose nine s ibjeets of eTiquiry in order

to ascertain wheths r ihe ohrisUan church be a

continuation of that which existed among the

^^ews, or a new and distinct one. Now the point

which I maintain is, that the church under itie

present dispensation, stands in the same relation

to God, in which she stood under the former;

and is to be considerec? the same society or b:/dy

politic in every age from the days of Abraham.

To this relation you pay no attention, though

.stated with sufficient plainness in the ninth page

of my former letters. This truth may be further

confirmed and illustrated by considering what

Paul says. Gal. iv. 1, 2, 3. '' Now, I say. That

thejieir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing

from a servant, though he be lord of all ; But is

u:.

wnder

pointe(

were <

ments

pares i

of the

and ui

ed at

persoi

When

you a

door^

attenc

certai

Apos

ham's

of the

nant

!^ay,

*' fro

chur

II ant

cent

subi(

argu

pron

bodi

lege

was

|tov

it m

I A

mer
can

j»

nnder tutors and governors until the time ap-
pointed of the father. Even so we, when we
Were children, were in bondage under the ele-
ments of the world." Here the Apostle corn-
wares the church under the tutors and governors
of the old dispensation to an heir in his minority,
and under the present, to the same having arriv-
ed at majority; but still an heir, and the same
uerson, though in different circumstances.—
VVhen this heir's privileges are called in q«esl.oii
you are for enquiring. Does he enf, the same
door? does he keep the same servants? does he
attend the same schoolmaster? &c I am for a.-
certaininghis relation to the granter. This i>tlK.
AiVostle'f way, for he says, " then are ye Abra-
ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

YouTLc'ond argument for the discontinuatum
of the same churcl, is dra^n from the new cov.-
nant recorded Jer. xxii. 31, 32,^3, 34. »o"
.av " Here is a new covenant diherent in kind

" Lm fhe Sinai covenant." Granting this, the
church did not commence with the Smai cove-

uant.nor end when " ^'»^ «"P«^f "Itt.t th
contrive to say a good deal round about thi»
subiec %ut keep at%ufficient distance from tlie
aSment. 1 hold that the new covenant was
"prSed, and the promiseperformed to the sa^e
Ldy: according to your view^^^^^^^^^^^

wi: nCT p rform^d but Lt privilege is be-
Jtowed upo^ another society or church to wh.ch
if npver was uromised. ,

. AgaTn, you will not deny, that christians on-
ioved this privilege from the very commence-
S of the chriltian era, therefore to them ,t
Lannot be new; but considering the church as
^'"°«1 from the days of Abraham, the m-

ab±i.'r-,«*.ji

j^-^"

■ ^wr iiiia't,i ii

f.'

f I

) ^

troduction of Christianity was something nevr.
You have not told vour readers how the Gen-
tiles have a right to the privileges of the church
of Israel. Paul, however, explains the matter,
he informs us, that the Gentiles, in their heathen
state, were aliens from the commonwealth of Is-
rael, and strangers to the covenant of promise ;
but by embracing Christianity, they became fel-
low-citizens with the saints, and were of the
housholdof God. Eph. ii. 11, 19. Again, he in-
forms us, that they were grafted in among the
natural branches, Rom. xi. 17.

Your next argument is, if possible, more ab-
surd. You say, " When the Messiah should
•' ccme, he was to act as a purifier,'' and add,

" When a church is so purified, it is not

'' the same church.'' The clauses which 1 have
omitted may have hidden the meaning of your
words from yourself, and from some of your
readers ; but what is given above, in your own
words, contains your assertion. If this be true,
a thing may be so purified, as not to be what it
really is, but something else. Any further re-
marks would be an insult to the reader.

You, p. 96. quote these words from my letters,
«' The spirit of inspiration denominates baptism
« circumcision." You add, '' If this were not a
*' direct falsehood charged on the spirit of inspi-
*« ration, we might at once give up this part of
*' the contest." Before you bring such a heavy
charge against another, you should have exar
mined the text cited. Paul says to the Colossi-
ans, " Ye are circumcised," will you say, they
were not ? He tells us, it was with the circum-
cision of Christ, or, which is the same, christian
circumcision. Will you tell what christian cir-

<«

ctimcjMnoii ia? they had it by baptism, What c«ii

be plainer? ,

You add, " I have fally discussed the |>hfftse
« made without hands." In the Greek, it is not
a phrase but a word, and you have explained it
as well as 6ould be expected of one who did not
know this. If one were to explain the terms m»-
dw and sUmd separately, woisid he give the
meaning of the term ufider stand '^

The following quotations from two of tm
Greek fathers, will shew how the term was iwed
by those who spake that language, They will
answer as a comment both on tte text, aiid the
term made-without-hands, ■

Basil says, " A Jew does not delay cfrcu«M5i-
a sion,--and doest thou put off the circnmoisiGrn
'« made-withont-hands, which is performed m
'« baptism.'* ChrysoStom says, «' But our cir-
'« cumcision, I mean, the grace of baptism, one
" that is in the beginning of his age, or &*ie t&at is
'' in the middle of it, or one that is in his old age,
" may receive this circumcision made-without-

*' hands." Your's &c.

_ ^ D. ROSS.

/•

LETTER II.

&1R,
1 You, p. 97, begin to rerview my reasons

for admityng infants into the church, and seem
displeased with my pleading antiquity and pos-
sesion of privUege. This is prudent in you,
who cannot prove the existenee of a angle socie-
ty which you ©all a chiistianchureh earlier than
the eleve»th century. See Wall's Hfet. Inf. Bffip.

■ J-

y i"

From my letters you dte ttee wo^^^'jj^j!
.. certainly incumbent on those wno
..elude them, to ^^fw their author..ty.

& principle 2 seem no^^^^^^^^
r^^CCuen'y 'mention, '. the qualifica

tinder the former dispensation. ^nd when

You make two ^"PP^f 1^' ^i^^^^^
,r/.« nnn shew such restricting clauses m uu
Lord^ Ltrent, as you have put into yoj ^t
im alter the case. You ^e™ Xfi^^^^J^ute!
and add. " I refer you ^r point blan^^J^X;
.' divine authority, to Gal. iv. 30. va

:;ri prr^h^tio^ThoZ prove is, t^^^^^^

fontsKot follow /eir pa-nts ; b^t in tlu te^^^^
it is the woman and her son. It was "'^ °du ,
'then Oie unbelieving Jews were broken oft, the

Children were b-l^- "^ -f .^^^^^^^^^^
sides, as you maintain that ^ne ^on «
woman never v?as in, how ^^^s he cast out

Von D 100. cite these words, At wiiat po
«. rTod'vvas the church of God not the gospel
" church?" You do not answer the question,

f'^^Vorr.^^'^^^^^

" word'" Very far from it; our viewso the
s^r ofthe IhuU under the old t^auient are
very different. This you shew by ask>"f.. ^

.' you believe that the gospel P^^acted " t^^^l
..Lrness,^.^sexactlythesameast^^^^^^^^

<' to US?" 1 dobeheve it. me gusp^i i°

It is
d ex-
This
xpect
J this
h that
thori-'
lifica-
t have
(hurch
t, than

L when
n our
ur's, it
►f this,
jsitive,
out the

seems
thatin-
tiis text
I same,
off, the
Is. Be-
le bond
It?
hat po-

gospel
uestion,
•al ques-
[e on a
v^s of the
nent are
ig, " Do
I the wil-
preached
is essen-

tially the same in every age, Acts xv. 11. ^' We
Se that, through the grace of our Lord Jesas
Chrlt we shall be saved, even as they. T^
ti ^Lched to Abraham in these words. In
lAalltna^^^^^ he Messed, is continued
mder each dispensation,. though und^^^^^^^ new

^qlvLTthe new covenant was promised, and
c.St as believers, and as believers on Y- T^-

is an error of no «.«^f ,«^^f||L^^^^^^^^^
covenant is promised ^?^^^}lZ'^^^
believers, how is any "nj'^^]^^^^ J^wsTn these
never ? When Paul addressed the J ews iii

»„„st be b«f»^« I^J'X^eUing the words of our

giving your «»r««^«'^^°'r/^here reasons influen-
•''"^'^rrateiSs' Wy murhrve a foundation

:: L truth ''What^^^^ <i» y- r^^' *''?^'''

1 airciS" were HgU-„d their Lord ^^^^^^^^^^

You come, p. 100, 1" ;•*<»" ^ cite these

"the 'singular number," ««d fu add, 1 r.,ly
« so, because tetVA governs all h'* ho"^« ' ° ,J
Sir! there is neither with nor /.o«*-e m the GreeK

\yi

»'

text, only panoi/d ^n ftdvefb. Here I must re»
mark, that there is no English term ijft u^ which
answers the Greek term; Mr. Edwards trans-
late* it domeitically, and were this term in cur-
rent use, it would answer exactly. The words
of Luke would then run thus. He rejoiced do-
mesticaUy, believing in God. Compare this with
what he has x. 2. A devout man, and one which
feared God (fsyn panti to oiko auto) with all his
house. The mere English reader has not an op-
portunity of observing the difference, but you,
who^pretend to know Greek, should have con-
sidered the matter. You ask, <* Do you feel no
** guilt in thus disposing of the words of inspira-
** tion?" Pray, wherein does my guilt consist?
I said, that with all his house, as we have it in
English, is expressed in the original by panoiM
an adverb ; you, on the other hand, have thrown
out tills term, and substituted five other terms in
place of it. The reader will determine on which
side guilt lies. You add, '' An ounce of com-
*'mon sense is worth a pound of learning."
Common sense is very useful, but one who
writes on controversy, should have as much
learning, as to be able to distinguish the singular
from the plural, especially when the argument
rests on that circumstance. Now, Luke says,
He rejoiced, you say, They rejoiced. One of you
must be in a mistake.

You proceed, p. 108. to the argument from
1. Cor. vii. 14. and cite these words, " The chil-
•' dren of married heathen were quite legitimate,
*« but still unclean," and add, ♦'pray, who told
"you that?" 1 reckon the ounce of common
^nse you mentioned quite sufftcient. You pro-
ceed, '* Your reference to Tit. i. 15. will help
'*you nothing; for lo apply it totliecase in

€f

si re*

vhioh

■rans-

cur-

id do-
g with"
johich
ill his

anop-
t you,
I con-
feel no
igpira-
>nsist ?
re it in
%noiM
brown
irms in
I which
f com-
ning."
e who
much
ingular
^ument
ke say

»i

! of you

it from
'he chil-
itimate,
rho told
lommon
ou pro-
ill help
(case in

*" hand it will run thus : To the pure or believ-
'* ing partner the impure or unbelieving partner

*' is pure or holy. He is holy to his belie v-

** Ing partner i, e, as far as his relation to the be-
^* lieving partner is concerned, he is sanctified to
** and for the use of the believing partner." This
is just what I mean, and what do you say to the
contrary? You again cite the following words,
*« The terra holy is applied to what was dedicat-
" ed, or ought to be dedicated, to the Lord," and
you ask, " Cannot you tell which? or were you
<' afraid of inspection?" I was not very much
afraid, providing the inspector had " an ounce of
" common sense" ; and if you inspect Lev. xxvii.
S2, 33. you will find both called holy.

You proceed, and p. 110. referring to Rom.
ix. "i, 8, you say, '' I challenge you to produce
" a single passage in the new testament, where
" the phrase The children of the promise iii-
" eludes any but real believers." The passage
quoted above will answer the purpose. Pleaj^e
read the next verse and you will find these words,
For this is the tfoord of promise. At this time
will I come and Sara shall have a son. Abra-
ham's children descended from Sara are the chil-
dren of promise, and you will hardly say that
they were all real believers ; they were all the
fruit of this promise.

You, p. 111. cite these words, *' Yourprinci-
^« pies place a barrier in the way of accomplish-
^ " inn: the promises made to Abraham and his
« seed Christ," and you add, " All the promises
<* you refer to relate to nations, and you suppose
" that as nations include infants, the promises
*' can never be fulfilled to them a« nations un-
«» less infants are included in the promises, and
<* regarded as members of the church. This is

^*ii

, ^^^IPK^

1I>

II f !

« the pith of your objection." So far, you are
correct: but when you add, " Now, Sir, 1 ap-
«* prehend the promises are to be accomplished
'* individually, not nationally," we differ ; for I
maintain that promises are to be accomplished
just as they are made, such as respect individu-
als are accomplished to individuals, and such as -
respect nations, to nations.

You, p, 115, 116. cite these words, *« Does not
** the spirit of inspiration call the children of be-
** lievers holy," and with great humility add '* So
" are the children of unbelievers, just in the same
*« sense." You forgot however to tell us where
they are so called ; I regret this because I am
unable to find the passage in which persons out
of the church are called holy. You yourself
likewise seem to reckon the term peculiar to
members of the church, when you say, " See the
'' address in the beginning of all the apostolical
** epistles." I have seen the address in several
epistles, and find that the apostles style the ntem-
bers of the church Hagioi, the very term ap-
plied to children in the text to which I referred.
Now as relation to God is implied in the term, I
conclude that relation belongs to children. The
nature of this relation will be shewn in its place.
Connected with this, I referred to Paul's ad-
dressto the churches of Ephesus and Colosse,
and you, after some genteel scolding, say,
*« Take your concordance and turn to the word
" children, and you will find that, in the infalli-
*' ble standard, it is as frequently applied to per-
'* sons of twenty or thirty years old, as to those
'' under that age." A concordance is very use-
ful, but the question here may be decided by the
words with which the term children is connected.

n'^i.

__i.1_

A tie apubiiu, i:*|.

JU« VI* TC. UiUCiO Iw WliWa "p t"

j.j.vri>jv^

ou are
, lap.
plished
; for I
plished
iividu-
such as '

oes not
I of he-
ld '* So
16 same
5 where
se I am
[>ns out
rourself
uliar to
See the
jstolieal
several
le ntem-
irm ap-
eferred.
term, I
n. The
ts place,
dl's ad-
Colosse,
^, ^ay,
he word
Q infalli-
l to per-
to those
ery use-
d by the
anected.

children; now, I reckon children of twenty or
thirty years old, are brought up already. Again,
he recommends admonition, and, if you consult
Parkhurst, you will find, ihdii paideiai the term
used by the apostle, means correction, chastise-
ment ; I would suppose that it would be rather
out of season to apply the rod of correction to
a child twenty or thirty years old.

You, p. 124. cite these words, ** Again, when
** your children survive infancy, your principles*
*< cast impediments in the way of their instruc-
•* tion, of which you are not aware," and p. 125.
you give a very good illustration of my position,
for you say, " Were you placed among the hea-
** then, you would have to lay aside the authorl-
*« ty of Christ, except over yourself, till some
<* choose to become converts ; for you wouKi not
*« be so inconsistent as to urge the authority of
*' Christ, or, which is the same thing, the sanc-
" tion of his law, by which he maintains his au-
*' thority, in his kingdom, as a reason why they
" should repent and believe the gospel of the
'* kingdom. Mark i. 15." Now, I ask you, is a
christian parent among his children in this situa-
tion ? The apostle thought othervvise.

I asked formerly, were the children of chris-
tians heathen or christian ; you however did vot
answer this, but raised a huge mass of cavils.
Now, Sir, if you answer that plain question, 1
shall answer every one of your cavils.

I shall now conclude this letter with a few re-
marks, which will in some degree dispel tiie
cloud of darkness in which you have involved

the subject.

In many ordinances of religion, there are two
parts, the one external and visible, the other in-
ternal and invisible: these must be carefully dis-

i'r*!

tingnished. Under the old testament there were
the circumcision of the flesh, and the circumci-
sion of th3 heart ; in like manner, under the new
testament, there are baptism with water, and bap-
tism with the Holy Spirit: under each dispensa-
tion, many had the former, who never attained
the latter. When these two ordinances are com-
pared, this distinction should be kept in view,
and the circumcision of the flesh compared with
baptism with water, and circumcision of the
heart with baptism with the spirit. You have
taken a contrary course ; in circumcision you
consider nothing but the carnal part, and in bap-
tism you keep your eye on the spiritual part.
Now, the present controversy is concerning the
external ordinance only. Agreeably to this,
there is a two-fold relation to God recognized in
scripture, the one merely professional, the other
real and saving, Isa. Ixiii. 1% TVe are thine:
thou never barest rule over them ; they were not
called by thy name. None will suppose, that
all the people of Israel stood in a saving relation
to God in the days of Isaiah. The same is the
case under the present dispensation. All the
members of the i^even Asiatic ciiurches stood in
external relation to Christ, and were called chris-
tians after his name ; but can you suppose, they
all stood m a saving relation to him ? There is
a plain contrast between your address to Bap-
tists and Christ's to the churches. You send all
the Baptists to heaven, but Christ confines sal-
vation to him that overcometh, and adds He thai
hath an ear, lei him hear tthatthe Spirit saith
unto the churches. Compare Rev. ii, iii. with
your address, and admire your own faithfulness
to your fellow-prof(6>ssors if you can. I may
here answer one of your cavils, as a soecLmen af

■--«

ewere
jumci-
le new
dbap-
pensa-
tained
B corn-
view,
d with
Df the
1 have
m you
Q bap-
I part,
ng the

> this,
ized in

> other
thine :
?re not
S that
elation
is the
il the
ood in

chris-
j, they
lere is

> Bap-
md all
es Sal-
le thai
I saith
i. with
[ulness
I may
ini>ii fvf

ft-

what might be replied to them all. You, p. 1 19.
say, *' If any of them perish, — Jehovah'sbeinga
" God to a person is no security to him from ru-
** in." If you mean mere external relation, it is
granted ; for Jehovah was the God of all Israel,
yet many of them went to ruin. For a reply to
the other part, " The everlasting covenant is
*» broken," consider Rom. iii. 3, 4. and you will
find, that the stability of God's covenant does not
depend on the faith of any, neither can it be af-
fected by their unbelief.

You have recourse, on almost every occasion,
to types, a subject which you do not understand.
Undt ' the old testament, you find every thing
typical, and under the new, you allow none.
Now there are typical persons and. ordinances
under the new testament, as well as under the
old, though not so many ordinances. LTim.
ir. 12. Be thou an example (^Gveek typos ix type)
of the believers. Phil. iii. 17. As you have us
for an ensample, (Greek typon type). When
you find the dispensations of God towards his
church denominated typical, you, from this con-
sideration, attempt to deprive her of all reality
and reduce her to a mere shadow. Would you
do the same with respect to Timothy d^^^ the

apostles?

There are likewise typical ordinances under
the new testament. The bread in the Lord's
supper is a tyoe of the body of Christ broken for
his people ; the wine is a type of his blood shed
for the remission of sins.

Again, there are several things connected with
religion which cannot be represented by types,
such as infinitude, immensity, eternity, therefore,
when you speak of a period typically everlast-

jug^, ^'uu use »v

k Ui5 iV «T i.&iV&« iAX

AAA^VS&A&a<«S

9ES=9Mifi

*h,

\ ^\t

attached. The rest of Israel in Canaan may re-
present the rest of the church in heaven, but any
limited duration cannot represent duration with-
out end ; for how can what has an end, represent
what has no end, and the very essence of which
consists in having no end.

Your manner of treating the scriptures de-
serves severe animadversion. Some instances
of this have been given, and I shall only add two
out of many, as a specimen.

You give an instance of your critical powers
in the application of scriptures, p. 22, Your
words are, ** The verb translated confirmed
" Heb. vi. 17. is derived from the noun translat-
" ed mediator, and that again from the noun
" rendered middle. Christ as the ratification sa-
«' orifice, was the confirmer, interposer, or medi-
" ator between God and sinful man." Any per-
son reading the above quotation, would suppose
Paul was referring to the death of Christ in the
text cited ; but notice his own words, God, will-
ing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of
promise the immutability of his counsel, con^
firmed it by an oath. Is the death of Christ and
an oath the same ?

Again, p. 81. speaking of the covenant of roy-
alty, you say, " In examining this covenant,
** neither the token nor the confirming sacrifice
" being given us, all we have to do with is the
*' promise," What a pity that you did not give
the inspired writer a friendly hint, and say, as
there is neither token nor confirming sacrifice,
this is no covenant, see my essay.

Yet this is not quite so bad when taken by it-
self, as when connected with what you say p. 75.
*' Allowing a covenant might be revealed in the
*' form of a promise, command, &o. gtiil It is of

the

" no force till ratified." So you reduce the co-
venant to the form of a promise, and then the
promise is of no force I ! !

You, p. 93. say, ''As the blessinj^s of the
" Abrahamic covenant did not run in the female
" line, a token was given which was inapplicable
'Mo females."

This reason for the nature of the token, I ques-
tion. The first distinction in the line of the bless-
ing had a respect to the female line, the son of
the bond maid, and the son of the free woman ;
and our Lord is the son of David, the son of
Abraham in the line of the virgin Mary.

You, p. 129. tell your readers of " A Baptist
" minister in the United States, who, on a cer-
'* tain occasion, advertised in a newspaper, twen-
" ty dollars reward to any person who would
" produce, from the new testament, any passage
*' proving infant baptism. A certain minister
*' gave the editor of the paper a passage which
" was published. He then demanded his re-
" ward. The Baptist replied he had not fulfilled

" the condition. After going through the

" regular process, the court brought in the ver-
'' diet. The condition had not been fulfilled ; for
" it was impossible a text could prove what was
*' not mentioned in it." This story has strong
marks of being a mere fabrication for the purpose
of imposing on the thoughtless, I however shall
give you another rather better authenticated.
We are informed, Mat. xxii. 23, That the Sad-
duoees, who say that there is no resurrection,
neither angel nor spirit. Acts xxiii. 8. came to
our Lord with a cavil, and our Lord cited the
following words avS a refutation of their error, I
am the God of Abraham, and the God of IsaaCy
and the God of Jacob ; God is not th'i God of

ll>.

vtilTf ' *"' Y "'^ii^in!,. What rerdict would
you and your Aaifirican eo.irt bring in this case^

or rather future state of existence. If the orin-

S^st T ""'°'r "^ *^"«' there are ^ny
S.T "^'^ testament which need cor-

tvhSfr'h"/^ ""5^ **"•"•" '■» y»"^ pamphlet to
Tre o? 1!T P"!"* ""* 'Attention. Some of them
fror? thrit""**"^' **' """''"^ '««"» the reader far

liar facultv „r ' •**' y**" ^^-^ »° ^ave a pecu-
liar faculty of running away from the point un-

t mSX " r?'*'"°^ «'*' -hich^ has "ot
forn^rLff /*'"*T *"'*= ^<»'- instance, in my
Jormer letters, I produced Roir. xi IG J97 Z

* Jevs sH^ ^ argument thus, '« When the

" into their n^nr''^';'*''' ^^^^ '^'» ^ grafted
■ inio tneir own ohvo tree. Rnt it <i,„ „^-:-,!._

" tree aiain . f«,^ .u . "•*" '''^''' <"«« oK^e
you came to the arffumen vn„ *'^«* «^«««n «»••

«re correct; but instead i^J^fZ - ^^^ ^^'^

«r5, how the wfi? fh • ""'"^ >^^^

grafted into t^ ^wn olT'TT^*"'^ T ^« '>^
^>n your imnch^lo Jr J""^^ ^^"S" after it i.s,
^'tL 1!™^}V^^^, extinct, you e-ravelv ^av
A ho period from the. hi.iu £r . P'^^^^V s^a>,

** birth nffcao« " "* AMimael to the*

O'r.h of I..,,c, corresponded to the period from

t would
is case ?
•rection
le prin-
emany
ed cor-

lilet (o
>f them
der far
pecu-
nt un-
las not
,111 my
27. as
lurcli,
QU the
rafted
'istian
riJl be
oKve
;s not
5 you
?fore,
ona«
hort.
Yes,
^iiev-
hose
' the
you
Gftd-
o l)e

it KS,

the
roiTi

•* the Sinai covenant to the birth of Christ. The
** period of Isaac's remaining on the breast, cor-
** responded to the period from the birlh of Christ
** to the famous day of Pentecost." &c. <fec.
These correspondencies may amuse the fancy,
but how can they account for grrafting: the .lews
Y again into their own olive tree ? To pay any at-
tention to such stuff, could answer no good pur-
pose.

You say, in the conclusion of your pamplilet,
" My first care was to apprehend the precise
** meaning of my opponent." If this was the
case, none could tail more completely ; for the
whole discussion respects Abraham's federal
seed: you frequently mention his natural and
spiritual seed, and under the former dispensa-
tion, your eye is upon the former of these, and
under the present dispensation your eye is on the
latter, so that the federal seed, which should be
kept in view, is entirely overlooked. You con-
sider all which are in the church as Abraham's
spiritual seed. This is however a very incorrect
and dangerous mistake. That there were false
brethren in the church in the apostolic age, can-
not be doubted by any who believe the new tes-
tament, it is to the members of the church that
the command is addressed. Examine yourfidves
whether you he in the faith. It is of church-
members that Christ saith, Mat. vii. 22, 23. Ma-
ny will say to me in that day. Lord, Lord, hare
^ne not prophesied in thy name? and in Ihy
7tame hare cast out devils? and in ihy name
done many wonderful worlcs ? And then will I
profess unto ihem^ I never knew yon: de'parf
from me, yj that work iniquity. You teach
that all who are in the mediator's kingdom must
he saved, but mark his own words. Mat. viii. 12.

,.'■ ^^1

•

The children of the kingdom shall he cast out
into outer darkness. It is a dangerous thing to
flatter the members of any church with the no-
tion that their state is safe, because they are* in
the mediator's kingdom ; and faithfulness cannot,
be used witliput shewing the difference between
an external federal relation, and an internal sav-
ing relation ; but of this necessary distinction, I
cannot find a trace ii> your letters. Now an ex-
ternal ordinance, such as circumcision of the
flesh, can be the token or seal of aa external re-
lation ; it requires circumcision of the heart or
baptism with the Spirit to form a saving relation.
Now, it is the former of these which is the sub-
ject of dispute, ajid to it I confined myself ; for I
do not know that evangelical Baptists and evan-
gelical Pe'^obaptists have any dispute concern-
ing the necessity ob nature of baptism with the
spirit generally called regeneration.

If y®u enquire then what alK^antage has the
church from this federal relation ? Paul answers
the question, Rom. iii. 2. Mmh every way :
chi^y, because that to them were committed
the oracles of God, ix. 4. To whom pertainelh
the adoption J and the glory y and the covenants^
and the giving of the law, and the service of
Qod, and the promises. These are the privi-
leges which the Jews lost, and which the ohris-
tian church now enjoys. These are privileges
peculiar to the church, yet many enjoy an exter-
nal dispensation of them, who have no saving re-
lation to God.

Your's Ac.

D. ROSS.

U-*!