il^ 
 
 M 
 
 .fi"-^' 
 
 J 
 
I\ V 
 
 VV 
 
 K- 
 
 ^ 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 # 
 
 (0 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 Ic 
 
 
 
 
 £9 h> 
 
 Q- 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 «?5 ^ 
 
 "o 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 3j 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ S 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 I 
 1 
 
 «^ O 
 
 e>o 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 •S5 tj 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 m n 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 iz; 
 
 E 
 
 « 
 
 S! 
 
 -1 
 
 «i M 
 
 (0 
 
 '!^ 
 
 ,§ 
 
 
 •ss p; 
 
 CO 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 -^ Ph 
 
 t-T 
 
 -5 
 
 '-h 
 
 i^ 
 
 -^^ 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 Ct 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 *a 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 sec. 
 
•HtKEBREW.-R JEWISri; an r^ CHr:S~IAN C^TU?^.CH the SAME] 
 
 ILLUSTPwATED AND APPL:ED, 
 
 I>! PP.OOF OF THE DLTV 
 
 INFANT-BAPTISM; 
 
 AND THE MOST WEIGHTY AND PLAUSIBLE 
 OEJECTIONS ANSWERED : 
 
 THREE SERMONS. 
 
 BY GILES H/COWLES, a. m. 
 
 fASTOK, OF THE FIRST CdURCH IS SRiSTOi, (cCN.) 
 
 Puilished at tht Request of the Hearers. 
 
 TO WHICH 13 ADDED, 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 4 
 ♦ / 
 
 ON tHE 
 
 MODE OF BAPTIS?.!, . ^ 
 
 sYjONATfI.V:J MILLER, a. rt. 
 
 PASTOR OF THE CHURCH IN WEST BRITAIN. 
 
 ^NEWARK— 
 
 PRINTED r.'{ JOHN V/ALI,I7, OPPOSit : yKt cov?.T-;; TU ;!;. 
 
 l2,02. 
 
THE fubflance of thefe difoouifes was deliveiecl in twc 
 Sermons. — But as they have been confidei ably enlarged, they 
 are now divided into three. 
 
 I. Contains the illuflration, and arguments 
 in proof of the doctrine, that the Jewifh 
 and Chriflian Churches are the fame, 
 
 II. Anfvvers the objeclion againiT: this doc-- 
 trine. 
 
 III. Applies the fubjed in Proof of the duty 
 of Infant-Baptifm and anfwers objections 
 againfl: tliis pradice. 
 
S E R M ON I. 
 
 R^JMANS xl. 17, i8» 19, and 2 3. 
 Ar-^ if fome of the branches hi broken #, and thou, being .' nvu.: 
 'dlJe tree Lrt graffed in among them, and 'tvith them par- 
 t-k'fl oftherootandfatnefsofthe olive-tree; boajl not again Jr 
 thebravcf^es : But ifthouboaj}, thox beareji not the root, but 
 the ro'A the'>. Thou -Jji It fay then, The branches ivere br>skcn 
 off, that ' I may be graf^d in. Well, becaufe of unbelief tkcy _ 
 ^jjere broken off, and thou Jlandeft by faith. 
 
 THE- olive is 3 very beautiful and ufeful tree, yieldiij^g 
 oil, which, hj the inhabitants of the ' eaitern coun- 
 tries, was muchuled in fed, and in.fupplying their lamps. 
 Olive yards therefore were much cultivated m the land ot 
 CaiiaanJ Olive leaves or boughs alfo were conlidered as em- 
 blems of peace among tlie ancients. God therefore repre- 
 feats his church or people as an ohve^tree. Ihus, [pea»cu^.g 
 of the Hebr.w church, Jer. xi. 16, he fays, "For the Lord 
 called thy name, a green olive-tree, fa.r Yi"^:fufj 
 frviiL." Again, Hofea.xiv. 6, he fays of IlraeU K-.s blan- 
 ches (hall fpread and his beauty Ihali be as the ol-'^^rf^^^' 
 God's church or people may widi great propriety be liccened 
 to a fair, fruitful olive-tree ; becaufe when they aft in charac^ 
 ter,and bring forth the fruits of religion, they are beaut.tu 
 i-i the view Sf all holy beings, and feek the « things that 
 make for peace," as the olive is an emblem of peace— and 
 becaufe tiiey are ufeful by their pious, exemplary lives, and 
 fhiae as lights in the world ; as the olive by its oil fupphes 
 mankind with light. 
 
 When therefore the apoftle here fpeaks or the olive-tree, 
 from which the Jews were broken off by unbelief, and into 
 which the believing Gentiles were grafied by t^th ; he evi- 
 dently mulf have reference to the JewlQi church which was 
 thus called an olive-tree, " fair and of goodly fruit. ihe 
 Tewilh charch then is here reprefented by an o hve-tree, 
 fnringinc. from Abraham or Chria as the root. The bran 
 
(4; 
 
 dies are the members, and thofe v.'hich were broken cff, de- 
 noie the unbelieving Jews ; v/ho were cut off trcm thei? 
 vliihlc Handing in this church becauie of their unbelief, or 
 rejedioa cf Chrift ^nd his goipel. The wild olive-tree re- 
 prefents the Gentiles ; who when they believed, were gralred 
 into this good olive-ltree among the branches which remain- 
 ed, and with them partook of the root and fatnefs of the 
 olive-tree, or of the fpecial blefiings, privileges, and promi- 
 fes, pertaining to the Jevvifli church. Since therefore the 
 believing Gentiles are graff:d into the fame olive-t:es or 
 church, from \yhich the unbelieving Jews were broken oft ; 
 it is manifelt, that the Jewiilx and Chriftian church are ef- 
 fcntially the Hime ; or in other words, that the Chrift:r.a 
 church is but the continuance and extenfion of the Jewifh. 
 To illuPirate, prove, and apply this fi-ntinient, will be the 
 objcit of the enfulng diicourfes. 
 In doing this it is propofed ', 
 
 I. To illuitrate and prove the doflrine, that the Jnvii'li 
 and Chriflian •church arc eifentialiy ths fame. 
 
 II. To anfwer objcCiions againft the doclrine. 
 
 III. To make application of the fubjecT: in proof of tbe 
 duty of Infant Baptifm. 
 
 I. It is propofeJ to illuftrate and prove the doftrine, that 
 
 the Jewifii and Chrifiian church are eiTcnti^illy the fame. 
 
 The term church is fornetimes ufed to ilgnify ail, who are 
 or ever lliall be re«-iewed and faved ; including all the " fpir- 
 itsofj Lid men made parfeft" in Ijeaven, and all real Chrif- 
 tianson earth. This is Chriil's fpiritual houfe, built up of 
 living flones, and is what h termed the univerfal, invifible 
 cliurch. Ail of every a2;e, country, and denorninaiion, 
 •v^ho have been icncwed by the Holy Spirit, and nsne but 
 li:ch, arc members of this invinble church. 
 
 The woi d church is alfo ufed to denote all in every part 
 of theworld who profcfs and appear to be the people of God. 
 This is what is called the univerf-J vifible church ; and ic 
 includes ail who are profelfedly i>r apparently in covenant 
 With God. In this fenfc, tlic Ifraelites, under the ancient 
 difpenj'auon, were his viable church. Accordingly it is faid, 
 Aa? vii; 38, that Mofes "was in the cJrarch in the wilder- 
 nefs.*' And profelTing Chriftians conRirute God's vifible 
 church under the preftnt difpenfation. All particular chur- 
 ches, of every country and denomination, who, as to tiim- 
 tials, are eilablifhed, according to the conftitution and rules 
 of God's word, are but parts tf ChriiTs great vifible church 
 
( 5 > 
 
 or family here on earth ; however they rr.ay diiTci- \n rlceSy 
 modes, orthina;s not fundamental, 
 
 V/hen therefore it is faid that the Chriftian and Jewidi 
 church are e.Tentially the fame; the meaning is, that ths 
 Jews w?re required to profefs, and adually did profefs, to 
 be the real people of God ; or in other words they p.cfelTed 
 eOenilally the fi:me religion— the fame love and obedience, 
 v.'hich the members of "Chria's church nPw do. Thofc of 
 them who were really what they profefled fco be, were as n.uch 
 entitled to falvation, as fmceic profeffors now are. .The 
 Jews continued to be the vifible church or prof effing people 
 cfGod, and fome of them were fo in reality, until the com^ 
 ing and death of the Saviour. Then thofe, v-ho rejefted 
 his goirei, w.sre broken otF from their vifible funding la that 
 chuich" becaufe of their unbelief. But thofe Jews, who, 
 3ik.,- the apofiles and others, profeffed cordially to receive -ue 
 IsIeilLih, flill continued to be God's vifible church. And 
 the believing Gentiles were graifed in among ihem into^^the 
 old olive-tree or Jewilh church ; and fo both Jews and Gen- 
 tiles were united in one body, called the Chiitlian church. 
 AH the difference therefore betv.'een God's church, under the 
 ancient and Chrillian difpenfation, confuts in cxteinul ntcs, 
 forms, and modes of inliruc^ion, aiiling wholly irom the 
 diiFerent circumflances, In which they were placed. God 
 h\v fit, before the coming of Chrift, to reveal but obfcurely 
 thofe divine truths, which related to the atonement and me- 
 diation of the Saviour, and to other important doctrines 
 ofrelicdon ; and to inftruct his church in ;he(e truths by types 
 :ind emblems, wi-ich fhadowed forth « good things to come.'* 
 But fmce the coming and death of ChriH, thele truth are 
 now more clearly revealed ; and therefore thole rites 
 and inllitutions, vvhich t}-pified thefe, are abclifncd ; and 
 other ordinances, more eafy and f:mple, are introduced m- 
 their itead. To fuppofs then that God's church under the 
 ancient difpenfation was efT^ntially different from what it 
 is under the Chriitiin, becanfe it had lefs light, and was mere 
 obfcurely inftrufted in dii-ine truth, is as unreafonable, as it 
 v/ould be to fuppofe, that the man is not the fame perion 
 he was v.-hen a child : becaufe he then had lefs knowledge, 
 and was governed and inftru<fted in a very different manner, 
 from what he now is- The Jewilh church, according ^to 
 the apoillc's reprefentatTon, Gal. iv. was like a child under 
 tutors and governors, and the Chrillian like a fon and hs.r ixl 
 adult age. '^ This Ihuws, that the Chriftian church is elfendal- 
 
Jy the larae as the Jewifh, being the continuation of the famcr 
 church under a different difpeniation, or under different modes 
 and circumrtances ; juft as the fon, vhen at adult age, is the 
 lame perfon, he was when a minor, but only is in a different 
 fituation. 
 
 Farther, the Hebrew church was the fame as the Chriftian, 
 in this lenfe, that it was the church of Chrlft. It was Chrift, 
 or the fecond perfon of the Trinity, who from time to tim.e 
 appeared to Abraham as the Lord his God, and made that 
 convcr.ant with him, which was the foundation of the Hebrew 
 church. Chrift: was alfo the Lord Cod of Abraham, Ifaac 
 and Jacob, who appeared to Mofes in the bufii, brought the 
 Iliaeiites cut of Egypt, made the covenant with them at 
 Mount Sin;ii, and manifefted himfelf in the tabernacle. For 
 David, in Pfdlm. Ixviii. 1 8, fpeaking of the God ^Aho went 
 before his people in the wildernefs, fays *' Thou haft afcended 
 on high, thou haft led captivity captive,'' &c. And the apof- 
 tle Eph. iv. 8, exprcfsly applies this to Chrift ; which plainly 
 fliows thathe was the Lord God of Abraham & of the Hebrew 
 church — that he was the angel of " the church in the wilder- 
 n.eis." Ads vii. 38. The Hebrew church tb.erefore was the 
 church of Chrift, as much as the Chriftian church now is ; 
 and in this refpect they are the fame, as they ftand in the fame 
 relation to the Mediator, he being the head of beth. Confe- 
 quently fpeaking or thinking lightly of the Hebrew church is 
 evidently defpifing the church of Chrift. 
 
 Having made fome obfervations to illuftrate the dcflrine, 
 that the Hebrew and Chriftian churches are the fame ; it is 
 propofcd to produce feme more diredt arguments in proof of 
 this fentiment. 
 
 1. It m.ay be conclufively argued from the confideration, 
 that they are both founded on the covenant of grace. As 
 many appear to have wrong or cbnfufed ideas ijf this covenant, 
 it may be necefiary briefly to ftate and explain it. The pro- 
 per meiining of the term covenant is an agreement between 
 parties on certain conditions ; or it is fome conditional propo- 
 ial made by tene party to another. A^nd an afTent to this propo- 
 ial by tLe other party is ratifying the covenant. Grace is the 
 exercife of mercy or gocdneis towards the unworthy or ill- 
 deierving. 
 
 By the covenant of grace then is meant God's oiTering his 
 fdv»r or eternal life to unworthy fmners, through Chrift, 
 ■upon conditioE of repentance ai:id faiih. The condition on 
 liian's part is a faith, which will e>frels iifelf in cordial love 
 
(7) 
 
 and obedience. And the promife on God's part to thofe, 
 v-ho comply with this condition, is his favor and life eternal. 
 Whenever therefore a perfon exercifes love iind fiiith towards 
 God, he cordially affents to the covenant of grace, or enters into 
 k ; and all who profefs real religion do profefledly affent to this 
 covenant, and are vifibly in it. It is important, that we dif- 
 tin^uifh between this covenant of grace and the covenant 
 of ^redemption, which many confufedl/ bknd .toge- 
 ther. " The covenant of redemption fubfifts between the 
 ■three perfons in the facred Trinity, containing their propofals 
 and engagements, ref;)eaing the redemption and falvation el- 
 fallen man." God the Father propofes and promifes, to 
 God the Son, th t, if he will undertake the work of redemp- 
 tion, he (hall fee of the travail of his foul and be fatisfied. 
 The Son undertakes, and the Holy Ghott acquiefces, and eu- 
 gages to aiTul in carrying this plan into execution-by renewing 
 the hearts of thofe, who are given to Chrift. The covenant of 
 redemption then fubfiifs between the three perfons in the Trin- 
 ity, and was eternal. But the covenant of grace as has been 
 fhown is between God and fallen man ; and none are brought , 
 into this covenant, until they do in Ibme way affent to its con- 
 ditions, which are repentance, faith, and love. 
 This covenant of grace was revealed in fome degree to Adam, 
 Enoch, Noah, and the other pious patriarchs, who lived be- 
 fore Abraham ; and it was by a cordial compliance with its 
 terms, that they obtained falvation. It was more fully revea- _ 
 led to Abraham in that covenant, which God made v^rith him, 
 andof which circumcifion was the feal or token. For a lit- 
 tle attention to the fubjefl will plainly evince, that the 
 Abrahamic covenant, which was the foundation of the He- 
 brew church, was in fubftance the covenant of grace. When 
 God defigned, in a more public manner than before, to con- 
 ftitute a vifible charch, he called Abraham out from his na- 
 tive country and the idolatrous world. And after Abraham 
 by complying with the divine directions, had manifefted his 
 fiitii and obedience, God propofed publicly to enter into a 
 covenant with him, promifed him peculiar flivors cn^ certain 
 conditions, and appointed a vifible token or feal of ratiti cation. 
 A.braham afiented to the conditions, applied the token accor- 
 ding to the diredion, and thus vifibly entered into covsnant 
 tvith God. Now if it can be Ihown, that this covenant i^equi- 
 red faith or real religion, as its condition, and prcmifed God's 
 favor or eternal life to a compliance with this conditica; i: 
 
(8) 
 
 i»Ill be iindemably evident, that k was efTentiaiiy the tovo 
 nant of grace. 
 
 Th-it faith or real religivon was the condition of the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, is iT5ar.ife;l fronj various conliderations. It 
 is raanifirft from the v^j face of the covenant, recorded 
 Gen. xvii. — God fays to AbrahaiK, vcrfs I and 2, " I iiin the 
 Almighty God ; walk before me and be ihou peried [or 
 .upri^h': and lincercj as the word often means] ; And I will 
 make my covenant between me and thee." l;>!ow it is evident 
 from this accoant, that the condition of this covenant, requi- 
 red en Abraham's part, was to " walk before God and be 
 perfeifi" or upright ; and this certainly implies real religion. 
 Are tl)ere any Chriftians, who now do more than this, which 
 was required of Abraham as the condition of this covenant ? If 
 not, it is evident, that real religion was the condition of the 
 Abiahiimic covenant. 
 
 Further it is maaifeft from what the apoftle fays of circum- 
 cifion, that this covenant was the covenant of grace. It is 
 certain, that circunrtcificn '.vas the token or feal of the covenant 
 God made vvith Abraham. "Ye fliall circumcife the flcfti of 
 your foredun, and it Ihall be a toktn of the covenant betwixt 
 me and you." Gen, xvii. 1 1. But the apoftie declares, Rom, 
 iv, II, ihat Abraham " received the fign of circumcifion, a 
 feal of the righteoufncfs of the fai':h, which he had yet being 
 unclrcumcifed " Here it iDay be obferved, thst by the phrafe 
 " rightecufnefs of faith" in fcripture is me?nt judification by 
 faith in Chr;!l. 
 
 Circuir.cifion, being called "a feal of the righteoufi-efs of 
 the failh," &c. (hows, that it was a feal or token rn God's 
 part, tliat he would pardcm and juRify Abraham, and all 
 other true believers on ccccunt of this faiih. But this is the 
 very fame thing, promifsd in the covenant of grace, which is, 
 that God will jutlify all, who cordially believe in the Saviour. 
 Since therefore circumcifion, the token of the Abrahamic 
 covenant, v/as '* a feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith" or a 
 token, that the faith of believers fhonld be counted unto them 
 fir>r righteoufhefs or juftification ; it is ceicain, that this v/as 
 the covenant of gract. 
 
 Furtlier, fince'ihe circumcifion, v/hich Abrnbam received, 
 is faid to be " a feal of the rightecuiuefrf of the fai'h v^hich 
 h had'' &c. it fliows, that it was a token of faith on his part, 
 as well as a token on God's part, \\vi.X. thofe v>'ho had this 
 faith {liouid be juftificd. lut if this covenant, (.f which cir- 
 euniciiioa v/as the token or leal, did sot rcqiurc irtilh ; how 
 
(9) 
 
 could his circumcifing himfelf and houfehold In compliance 
 with its requirennent be any feal or manifeftation of his faith? 
 For his receiving or applying the token cf the covenant could 
 not be a f;al or manlfeftaticn of any thing more than the 
 covenant required. If therefore, faith v.'as not the condition 
 of this covenant ; then Abraham's receiving the fign of it could 
 be no feal or token of his faith. But fince the apoftle calls 
 his circumcifion, " a feal cf the faith nvhich he haJ," Sec. it is 
 certain, that faith was the condition of the Abrahamic" cove- 
 nant. Accordingly it is fald verfe 13, " For the promife 
 [w^hich was made to Abraham in this covenant] that he fliouhi 
 be the heir of the v.'orld, [or the father cf many nations or qf 
 all the believing world] was not to Abraham, or to his feed 
 through the law, but through the righteoufnefs of faith. And 
 the faith here fpoken of by the apoftle, and of which circum- 
 cifion was a feal, was that faith, which was accounted unto 
 Abraham for righteoufnefs, and made him the father c£ 
 " all them that believe." Is it not therefore abundantly 
 manifeft, that faving or jaftifying faith was the condition cf 
 the Abrahamic covenant ? 
 
 This is further evident from the conHderation, that w:Lr~ 
 liif debarred perfons from the bleflings, promifcd in this 
 covenant. One of tlaefe promifed bleGTings, was the land of 
 Canaan. But the apoale fpeaking of the Ifraclitcs, "whofc 
 carcafes fell in the wildernefs" fays, They could not enter 
 into the land of promife *' becauie of unbelief." 
 
 If therefore, they could not cbtain the blefTings, prcmifed 
 in this covenant becaufe of unbelief, it is manifeft, that faith 
 was the condition of the covenant ; ctherv.ife, how could 
 unbelief cut off from its bleffings ? ITiis truth is alfo evident 
 from the v.-ords of the apoftle Rom. xi. 20. The Ab:a- 
 liamic covenant all allow was the foundation of the Jewiih. 
 church. But the apoftle there declares that the Jevs were 
 broken off from this church or oUve-tree " becaufe of unbe- 
 lief ;" which proves iiicontrovertibly, that faitii vras the 
 condition cf the covenant, on which tki:t church vvas founded. 
 Since therefore, the condition of cne Abrahamic covenant 
 was faith or real rehgion, itmuftbe eflentially the covmant 
 of grace. 
 
 This is ftill further evident from what is promifed in ti;i'> 
 covenant. For among other favors God pronifes Abrahviii, 
 " to be a God unto him and to his fsed aft-ir him." .Gen. 
 ivii. 7. lu this covenant then God promifes ic give hira- 
 i^Mi. -f and \^, there any tlving greater piojiTiiffJ to b(J.T»A'f?<^. lu 
 
(10) 
 
 ia-2 covenant oi' grace ? " It is remarl^able, that the hrr.v 
 " phrHfeoiOgy is prellrved In the new Tedarnent, v.'here the 
 « bleffings of the covenant of grace are expreffed." Thus 
 the principal promif^ in what is called the '* new covenant," 
 Heb. viii. lo. is, " I will be onto then) a God, and they fl'iiiH 
 b->j to me a p-ople." " And all the blefrednefs and glor^^ 
 •• which will finally be conferred on believers in heaven is 
 " t' U5 exprelff.d. «' Ke that overccrceth fliall inherit all 
 " thin^o ; -Av^d I •will be his God." Yea, God cannot prornifc 
 real Chriilians any thing greater or more defirable than 
 liivifdftix that he will be their God. P:% therefore God, in 
 the Abrahamic covenant, prornifed to give Himfelf, which 
 is ihegreateit of all Ipiritual bleiling'', and the fame that is 
 pToniiled to believers in the new Teftaiuent ; and as the cor.- 
 d-"i,ion cf this covenant was faith or real religion; it is evi- 
 dent beyond all rational coiitradidion, that it was a difpen- 
 f'aticn of the covenant of grace. 
 
 Accordingly the apofiie fpeaking of the promife made to 
 Abraham, exprefcly declares, Rom. iv. i6. " Therefore it is 
 of failh, that it might be by grace." In Gal. iii. 14. he alfo 
 fpeaks cf the bleilings of Abraham coming on the Gentiles 
 through Jeius Chriil. But if the bleffings pvomifed to Abra- 
 harn in tiie covenant which God nnadc v.'ith him, are the 
 fair.e, which now come on the Gentiles through Jefus Chriil j 
 then this covenant mull he the covenant of grace. 
 
 Again, GaL iii. 29. it is faid, ** If ye be Chrift's, then are 
 ye Abraham's feed, and h'jirs according to the promife." 
 tlere it may be obl'erved, that it was by this covenant, of 
 which circnmcifion WftS the i'eal, that Abraham was confti- 
 tared the father of many nations, or of them that beheve.— • 
 For the apoille ciprcfsly declares, ihat he received this, " feal 
 of ihc rightebuinels of faiih, chat he might be the father of 
 all diem that believe." It is therefore by this covenant, that 
 behe vers become the feed of Abrjiham, and heirs according 
 to the promife. But if this covenant was not the covenant 
 of grace, and did nd'tpromiie ffiiritual bleffings ; how could 
 it conRiluce believers Abraham's feed, and he'rs of the blef- 
 fiogs which it piomifed. For all Gentile believers certainly 
 do not inherit the laud of Canaan and other temporal blel"-- 
 fint;s hfre promifed to Abraham. They cannot then in any 
 fcale be the heirs of ihe proujiie of this covenant, unlefs ir 
 prouiiied fpiritual bleflini^s. 
 
 Since th..rei()re, Chrilli.ins become Abrahan.'s feed by this 
 coi'cnaac, ;u:d ait hciis of iis blc(iing>- iiccuiding to the pro- 
 
c_^2 
 
 mife, that God would be a God unto him, and to his fisd ; 
 i: is manifell that this was efTentiaily the fame covenant of 
 grace, in which all Chrilrians are now inttrefted. All vho 
 were p^ofdhdlj in this covenant,' were profeiledly in the co^ 
 venant of grace. Is it not ftranpe, that anj, who attsuuvel/ 
 confider the fubjeft, can, in dircO oppofuion to all thefe plain 
 proofs from the holy fcriptures, deny, as many do, that the 
 Abrahamic covenant was the covenant of grace, and promi- 
 fedfpiritual bleffings ? As therefoie, the Abrahawic covenant, 
 on which the Hebrew church was founded, was the covenant 
 ofgrace, and as all allow, that the covenant of grace h tiie 
 foundation of the Chriltiun church; it ii manifeft, that 
 they are efieniially the lame. 
 
 2. Another argument in proof of this dodlrine is, that the 
 fame qualiSrations were required for membcrlhip in the^He- 
 brew, as zre now required in the Chriftian church. That 
 right affedions of heart towards God, or faith and a holy 
 obedience, are the qualifications, which God n,ow requires 
 for memberfhip in the Chriftian church, is genei aliy allowed. 
 And that ihefe were required in the members of the Hebrew 
 church, is certain from the fcriptures. Thus when the 
 church wasfirftfet upor organifsdin the perfon and family 
 of Abraham j the ' qualihcatir.n required of him was, to 
 « walk before God, and be perfed" or upright, which, as 
 before (hewn, implies real religion. And his circumcifmg 
 himfelf and family, v;as a vifible token or profcffion of his 
 faith and obedience. Now if God required laith or real re- 
 ligion, as the condition of this covenant, which he made \^ ith 
 Abraham, as the father of the Hebrew church, and on v/hich 
 this church was founded ; then it is certain, that this fame 
 condition or qualincatiou was required of all, who entered 
 into this covenant, and became members of this church. 
 For God faid to Abraham, " Thou fualt keep my covenant 
 therefore, thou, and thy feed after thee in t^eir generations," 
 which thews, that the covenant was the fame, in its condi- 
 tions or requirements, both to Abraham, and tn all his poi- 
 terity, who entered into it in their fucceeding generations. 
 
 Farther, circumcifion was the known, Handing token of 
 the Abrahamic covenant, which has been Ibewn to be the cO'. 
 venant of grace. The token of a covenant is fom.ething, 
 which denotes an aifcnt to it, and is a ratification ci it. 
 When therefore any perfon applied this kncwfi, Jlatidtng to- 
 ken of God's covenant to himielf or children, he did by this 
 ttama<aicn profefs or engage lo comply v.ith its conditions; 
 
^ 12 } 
 
 as much as a perfon now does, when he bews hisaHent to t^c 
 avoids of a covenant. As therefore, all the members of the 
 Hebrew church were acquired to apply this token of the cd- 
 Tenant to their children ; it is manlfeit, that they were re- 
 quired to exercil'e that faving or jnftir)ing faith, of vhich 
 circumcifion was the token. For certainly God did not re- 
 quire them to apply this token in a hypocritical manner. 
 Thele considerations plainly evince that true faith was le- 
 quired by God as the condition of the Abrahamic covenant, 
 ar,d of an approved (landing in the ancient church. Accor- 
 dingly the apoftle declares, that the Jews were broken ofT 
 from that church by unbelief, and that believing- Genlilts 
 were graffed in, and flocd by faith ; which (hews beyond all 
 reafonable difpute that faith ^vas required as a term cf an 
 approved Handing in the Jewifh, as well as in the Chiiftian 
 church ; and that therefore the qualifications of memberfhip 
 were the fame in both churches. 
 
 Again, God inade a covenant with the Hebrew church cr 
 people at Mount- Sinai, in which he promifed peculiar bleffings 
 on cei tain conditions. To this they profeffedly gave tlieir 
 affent, and thus entered into covenant Vv'ith God. And this 
 covenant was the conditution of the Jewifh church until the 
 death of Chrift. If therel'oie, it can b/ fliewn, .that the con- 
 dition of this covenant, was real religion and holinefs of 
 heart ; it v.'ill be manifell, that this was the qualification of 
 church memberfliip — 'Or was required of, ard prcfeiied by 
 the members of the Jewifli church. 
 
 When God had brought them out of Egypt to Mccr.t- 
 Sinai, he faid unto them, Exod. xix, 5, "l\ow theiefcre if 
 ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then 
 iliall ye be a peculiar treafure unto me above all people." — 
 This Ihows, that the condition on their part was to obey his 
 ■voice and keep his covenant. God then proceeded in tlie 
 Xi:. — xxiii. chapters 10 declare 'o them the com.mands and 
 ftatutes, which conflituted the covenant that they v.ere to 
 keep. Among ihefe were the ten commandments or moral 
 law., And the fum of thefe as explained by cur Saviour, is 
 to love God with all the heart, foul and mind, ar.d cur neigh - 
 houvs as o-urfelves. As llierefore this covenant, included the ten 
 coirm/andments or moral law, which requires us to icve God 
 with all the heart and our neighbour as ourlelvcs, it certainly 
 required real religion or holinefs of heart. This cannot be 
 denied without contradicting our Saviour's ophnatinn, and 
 afier ting, that the moral law docs not rccuire houn-^fs of i.rar:. ^ 
 
And as th2 Hebrew church did promifvi to obey and keep thiJ 
 rovcfianc ; fo ic is evident, that they did profels real rehgion. 
 For iSloles wrote all the words of the Lord. " And he took 
 the book of ih.i covenant, [containing the ten c-jmmands and 
 other (latutes God had given] and read in the audience of the 
 people : x\nd they faid, all that the Lord hath fald will we do, 
 and' be obedient." Then farther to ratify the folemn covenant 
 ^between God and the people, " Alofes took the blood and 
 fpriakled it on the people, and faid. Behold the blood o( the 
 covea:\nt, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all 
 th;fe words." Exod, xxiv. 7, 8. This (hows that leal religion 
 was b:)th required of, and profeiTed by the Hebrtnxi church- 
 That true holinefs was required of this church, is further evi- 
 dent from Levic. i:ix. 2. God, being about to enjoin a nutn- 
 bii- of religious and moral inllitutions upon his church, intro- 
 duced thsm with thefe words, « Ye (hall be holy: Foi 1 the 
 Lord yor God am holy ;" fhewing, that the fame moral ho- 
 linefs was required of them, which condituted the diwne cha- 
 racter. i\ter therefore qi'.otes the fame command, and ad- 
 dreite:: it to the Chriitian church, i Pet. i- 16. *' Becaufe it is 
 writtc;-!. Be ye holy, for I am holy." This plainly teaches, 
 that the fame moral holinefs was required of the Hebrewj as 
 of the Chrilliau church. How then can any imagine, thac 
 nodiino- but a ceremonial or typocal holinefs was required of 
 the Hebrew church ? 
 
 Further, that God did require real religion or light affiflions 
 of heart, as the condition of that covenant, which he made with 
 the Hebrew churcii or people, is abundantly manifeft: from 
 many paff.iges in Deut. where Mofus rehearfed to the people 
 the commands or requiiltions of this covenant. Thus it is faid. 
 Deut. vi. 3, 5. " Hear therefore, O Ifrael, and obferve to do \\-> 
 that it may be well with thee, and that ye may iccreafe 
 mightily, as the Lord God cf thy feathers hath promifed thee 
 in the land that fiowcth with milk and honey. And thou 
 fhalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all 
 thy foul," <Scc. Here we fee that one requirement of this cove- 
 nant, and a condition, on wjdch temporal bleffings in Canaan 
 were prornilfd, was, that they fliould Icve God with all tlieir 
 heart and foul. And is anything more than this now requi- 
 red of the members of the Chrillian church ? So chap. x. 12. 
 "And now Ifrael what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, 
 but ta fear the Lord thy God, to walk in his v/ays, and to love 
 and liirve him nith all thine heart and with all thy foul." 
 Ch.ip, 'xi, 13 a'ld' ij- '' .Ard :r (hrill come to pafs, if ye vviJ! 
 
C H ) 
 
 Ix-^itkcn diligerielf n^xo my commandments— to lore tiie Lord 
 7oar God, and to ferve him with all your heart and foul ; that 
 i will give you .he rain of your land in due feafon," &c. which 
 teaches, as before ohferved, that loving and ferving God with 
 all the heart, or real- religion* was the condition, on which 
 «ven temporal favors were promifed to the Hebrew church or 
 people. The fame idea is clearly taught in the zzd verfe of 
 iliis chapter, '* For if ye will diligently keep all thefe com- 
 laandments which I command you to love the Lord ycur 
 God, to walk in his ways — Then will the Lord drive out all 
 «l!iefe nations from before you." Every p>acefrom the wilder- 
 mefs, and Lebanon, from the river Euphrates, even unto the 
 wttermolt fea, Ihall our coaft be. Then ihall no man be able 
 fy tland befor** you." Here loving God, and keeping his 
 commandments is the condition, on which God promifes t» 
 |Tvethem the pcfitffion of Canaan. They had therefore n» 
 tfiivenant title to tlie land of promife without love to God or 
 ireal religion. Agreeably to this, God faid, Judges ii. 20, 21, 
 ** Becaufe this people have tranfgreiTed my covenant, which I 
 commanded their fathers, and have rvot hearkened unto mj 
 Toi'ce ; I will not henceforth drive out any from before them 
 cf the nations, which Jofnua left?" luch words plainly Ihcw, 
 aLat the poffeffion of Canaan was promifed them on condition 
 ■sf keeping God's covenant, given by Mofes : vhich, as has 
 Sstcn already (hewn, required real religion, or fupreme love to 
 God. 
 
 So it was commanded Joftiua, that he (hould obferve to do 
 sccording to all the law, which Mofes commanded, and that 
 le ihouid do according to all that is written therein ; for then 
 sJiou ihait make thy way proiperous, and fhalt have good fuc- 
 cefs." Jolhua i. 7, 8. Here alfo fuccefs in taking poffef- 
 ^on of the land of Canaan was pron?ifed Joftiua on the con- 
 C-tion that he would obferve the law of Mofcs, which required 
 feve to God with all the heart and foul. Ele therefore, in a 
 iolemn charge to the Reubenites, Gadites and half the tribes of 
 Mana.Tah, when they were returning to the land of their pof- 
 /cfTionjfaid, " take diligent heed to do the commandment and 
 law, which Mofes, the iervant of the Lord charged you, to love 
 ihe Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, and to ferve him 
 with all your heart and foul." Jofhua xxii. 5. Do not thefe 
 words teach in the cleareft manner, that God, in the law or 
 tovenant which he gave by Mofes, required fupreme love, 
 or holinefs of heart, .. s its conditon ? 
 
 Again, Deuu xxx. 3, 5, 10. Mofss by direaion of. Jeho- 
 
( »5 ) 
 
 v-'h, promlfed, tha^ God would turn the captivity of his pjopl^ 
 and brins them into the land, which their fathers poffeffcd, 
 ani multiply them, &c. " If thou ihalt hearken unto the voice 
 cf the Lord thy God to keep his ccnimandmenti and ftatutes, 
 tvhich are written in this book of the law, and ii thou turn uii« 
 to the i ord thy God with all thine heart and fonh Ihis 
 rafFaee ckarly proves, that God in his covenant with that peo- 
 ple, conuined in the book of the law, required them to love 
 hirn with all the heart, and that this was the conditon, oa 
 which he promiled to grant them, even temporal bleffings and 
 deliverances. . . ^ i j "ti. 
 
 The requirements of this covenant, which God made wita 
 the Ifraelites and what was p.-ofelfed by them, are very clear- 
 Iv exprefTed chap. xxvi. i6, 17, 18, 19- "^'^s day the .Lord 
 thy God h tth commanded thee to do thefe ftatutes and judge- 
 m^nts : i'hou (halt therefore keep and do them with all thine 
 heart, and with all thy foul." This is what God reqmred of 
 his ancient church ; and does he now require more of the LhrU- 
 tian church than to keep his commands with all their h^^t - 
 The ne^t verfe expreffes what they promifed or profelied. 
 «' Thou halt avouched [or profeffed] the Lord this day to be thy 
 God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his ftatutes, and 
 commandments, and to hearken to his voice." And does any 
 ' Chrillian church now profefs or promlfe more than this ? And 
 i.rconftqa-nce of this their profcffion it isfaiJ, " And the Lord 
 hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he 
 hath promifed thee : And to make thee high above all nations, 
 in praiic and in name, and in honor, tkat thou mayeft be a holy 
 people unto the Lord thy God." V\ hat then can be more 
 evident, than that real religion was required of, and protef- 
 fed bv God's ancient church, and that it was required ot 
 ?hem'in that covenant which was the conftitution of that 
 church ; , 
 
 This is confirmed beyond all rational difpute by what took 
 place in ihe days of Jofiah. The laws and commands, which 
 were delivered by God 10 his people in the wildernefs, and 
 rdiearfed by Mofes in Deuteronomy, were written in a bock> 
 called the book of the law, and the book of the covenant j 
 becaufe it contained the requilitions and promifes cf the cove- 
 jiaat, which God made with his peopk. This book was found in. 
 the houfc of the Lord in the days of Jofiah, and he aifembied 
 the people of Judah to renew covenant with the Lord, 2 
 Kings, xxiii. 2, 5. ** And he read in their ears all the wordv 
 of ths bock of the covenant. And the kiao- made a c^ve- 
 
r i; 
 
 nuTit before the Lord, to \valk after the LerJ, snd to keep 
 his cointriaiids, and tcfi-imoniei;, and ftatuces wnih all their 
 heart and foal, to perform all the vords of this covenant 
 that were vritten ia this book: : And all the people flood to 
 rhe covenant." Heie we may notice, that when they renev.-- 
 ed covenant, they promifed " to v/alk after the Lord, and to 
 heep his commandments with all their heart and foul," and 
 that they did this *' to perform the words of tliis covenant.'' 
 This clearly ftevfs, that this covenant required the heart or 
 real religion. This is further evident from the 25th verfe 
 of tliis chapter. There i: is fuid of Jofiah, "And like unto 
 him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord 
 with all his heart and with all iiis foul, according to all thi 
 laws of Mofes." Hero his tuiiiing to the Lord with all his 
 heart and foul is declared to be according to the Mofaic la'A 
 or covenant, teaching, that this was its requirement. Ac- 
 cordingly the Ffaliiiill: fpeaking of their promifes, fays, 
 Pfalm Ixxviii. 36, 37. " Nevcrthelefs they did i^atter him 
 wliIi their mouth, and lied unto him with their tongues. 
 For their /jetiri was not riglit with liim ;" ftiowing that they 
 profelfed to have their heart or affedtions right vith God ; 
 otherwife they would not have been guilty of lying in their 
 profeffions, becauie their heart was not right. 
 
 This ft-ntiment is alfo corroborated by the words of thi 
 apotlle, Rom. ii. 28, 29. " For he is not a Jew, who is one 
 outwardly. But he h a JeR", Vvho is one inwardly." Thefe 
 words plainly Ihow, that real piety was required cf, and pio- 
 telTed by the members of the Jtwilh church, and therefore 
 none were reyl Jews, or what they profeffed to be ; unlefs 
 they had real religion, or were fo inwardly. For if true pi- 
 ety were not profefled by them ; how could it be faid, that 
 jirne were real Jews, who were rot fo inwardly or at heart ? 
 If mere external obedience v.as v.hat God's covenant . requi- 
 red of that church, as fome imagine ; then .all v.culd have 
 been real Jews — or what they profeifed, who were fo cuv- 
 v\ a.'.dly, or yielded an extcrnid obedience ; v.hlch if, ciredlly 
 contrary to the declaration of the apoftle. /•gieeabiy to 
 this, Chrift calls Nathaniel "an Ifraelite indeed," becanfe 
 truly pious. Does not this plainly teach, that none were 
 Jfws or Ifraelites indeed— were what iliey prcfctled and 
 Were required to be, uuiefs like Nathaniel they pofieiFcd 'real 
 pi-ty. 
 
 Omitting many otlier paiTages which might be r/.ent;cnec, 
 js it not abundentlv evJd;nt, 'h:'.t jeal reli.cioi: t;r rieht viki.- 
 
(17) 
 
 tions of heart were as really required of, and profeflTed bf the 
 members of the Jewifli, as of the Chriftian church. And a$ 
 the fame qualifications were required by God for memberftiip 
 in bodi churches, it is raanifsft, they are one and the fame 
 church. 
 
 Is it not fnrprifint», that any, in diretfl contradl^flion to all 
 thefe plain declarations of the word of God, can imagine, as 
 the Baptifts generally do, that God did not require real reli- 
 gion in the covenant, which he made with his ancient f^eople^ 
 and that they might according to God's requirements Ijecome 
 members of his church, and fo perform the conditions of his 
 covenant as to be entitled to its promifes without any reli- 
 gion of heart ? This covenant required tkem to love and 
 ferve God, and to keep his commands with all their heart 
 and foul ; and if this does not imply real religion, what 
 does ? Are there any pafTages in the bible, which more clear- 
 ly or flrongly express true piety ? God fpeaking of his co- 
 venant, Pfalm 1. 1 6. fays to the wicked, "What haft thou 
 to do— that thou (houldefl take my covenaat in thy mouth ?" 
 This plainly teaches, that the wicked had no right to take 
 God's covenant into their mouth, or profefs to ad'ent to it 5 
 and that confequently this covenant required real holinefs as 
 its condition. For if it did not, then the wicked nn'ght con- 
 fiftently enter into it — yea, might fulfil all its conditions 
 while impenitent. It appears therefore, from this paflage, 
 that God viewed his covenant very differently from what they 
 do, who fuppofe, that it did not require holinefs of heart, 
 and that impenitent fmners might confiftently take it upon 
 them, and even comply with its requifitions. Befides, if it did 
 not require the heart, how could they be guilty of lying and 
 flattering in profeffing to comply with its requirements, be- 
 caufe their hearts were not right ? And how could the a[of- 
 tle declare, that he was not a Jew who was one outwardly, if 
 external obedience was all that was required for memberfhip 
 in the Jewifh church ? And why did God finally break off 
 the Jews from their church-ftanding " becaufe of unbelief," 
 if faith was not required by him, as the term of memberfhip ? 
 Many bewilder themfelves in this matter by looking at 
 the praftico of the Hebrew church rather than at God's re- 
 quirements. They fee, that the Ifraelites all proftffedly en- 
 tered into God's covenant, and became members of his 
 church ; although the greater part, probably had no real re- 
 ligion. Hence they conclude, that this v/as not required as a 
 qualification for covenaBting, or church-ftauding under th:u 
 C 
 
( >8 ) 
 
 difpenfation. But might we not as well argue, that real re- 
 ligicn is not reqaiied as a qualification for memherlhtp in the 
 Chrinian church.; bcxaufe in feme ages this church has been 
 very corrupt, and bi^t verf few of its niennbers nianifeued 
 any true piety ? But thus to look at the pradlice of the church, 
 inftead of the divine inftitution or requifitions, leads to in- 
 mimerahle errors and miftakes. If we would difcover the 
 trath, v/e mufl look at God's requirements, which cannot be 
 in the lead invalidated by the, practice of a church. What- 
 ever then may have been the coridud of profeiTors in the 
 Jewifh or Chriftian church, it is manifert, that God has always 
 required hollnefs of heart Jis the term of covenanting under 
 both difpenfat'ons. And from rhe famenefs of the qu alifica- 
 tions for memberlliip under both difpenfations it appears, 
 that Lhie church is the fame. 
 
 Since njany,who allow, that real holincfs or religion is 
 required of the members of the Chriftian church, very ftrenu- 
 oufly denj,^, that it was required in God's covenant viiih his 
 ancient church ; let us compare the terms or profefllon, re- 
 quired in both churches. Under the new Teilament difpen- 
 iation after Chrift v/as manifeiled ia the flefh, faith in him 
 or a believing in him with all llie heart was required as a term 
 of admifilon into the Chi illian church. The terms required 
 in the Abrahamic and Mofaic covenants, and profefled bv 
 God's ancient church, were to " walk before God and be per- 
 fe«^l (or hncere) — ^^to love him, walk in his ways, and keep 
 all his ccmmaudments with all the heart and foul!" Now 
 thefe requirements of God's covenant with the Hebrew 
 church, are certainly quite as extenfive, and as exprelfive c f 
 real holinefs or religion ; as believing in Chrift %vith all the 
 lieart, which is required as the term of memherfnip in the 
 Chriilian church. How ilranee then that any can fuppole, 
 that real religion was not as much required in God's cove- 
 rant v.'ith ihii Hebiev/ church, as it is in his covenant with 
 the Cbiiflian.? 
 
 3. The rules of moral conduit, and of difcipllne which 
 God enjoined upon the Jewlfii and ChrilHan churches are in 
 many refneils very fimilar ; and this is another evidence cf 
 their being elTentially the fame. The ctmmand to the He- 
 brew church was " Thou fiiak love thy neighbor as thyfelf — 
 thou [halt not vex, nor cpprcfs a fiianger — thou fhalt love 
 him as thyfelf. li'thou m^et thy enemy's o;c or afs going 
 aftrav, thou fhalt furely bring it back'' — teaching that they 
 ought to be diipofeU to do gccd to thtir QV.-zvnica. And the 
 
Ci9) 
 
 diredlions to the members of the Chriftian church ar?, «' Love 
 (Jne another— do good to all, as yc have opporttinity- Love 
 your enemies, and do good to them that hate you/' Sac. 
 God in his laws and commandments to his ancient church 
 ftriclly forbade adultery, forr-ication, fodomy, idolatry, uitch- 
 craft, theft, lying, falfehood, fraud, opprtffion, prof^me fwear^ 
 ing, revenge, grudging, and other firnilar iminoralities, fee 
 Exod. xxi.— xxiii. chap, and Levit. xix. and xx. chap. And 
 thefe fame vices are exprefsly forbidden by the new Tefta- 
 ment in the Chriiliarv church. The direflions concerning 
 the difcipline in the ancient church were «' Thou (Ivalt not 
 hate thy brother ; Thou (halt in any wife rebuke thy neigh- 
 bor [or brother] and not fufFer fm upon him." By this 
 command they were obligated to rebuke or reprove their 
 neighbors, whenever they fell into Cm, and thus to endeavor 
 to reclaim them. Agreeably to this, Chrift's command to 
 the Chriilian church is, *« If thy brother trefpafs^ againft thee, 
 [i. e. be guilty of any open fin] go and tell him his fault," 
 and endeavor to reclainri him. And if the offending broiher 
 repents, and makes confcHlnn and fatisfadion for his offence, 
 he is to be forsivea and received again into the Chriftian 
 church. So wlien an Ifraelite tranlgrciTed any of God's com- 
 mands, or inixitutions, moral or cerem.onial, which was not 
 punifliable by death, he was commanded to bring his fm-of- 
 ferin:' — to lay his hand on the head of it as a token of con- 
 feffion and repentance ; and the prieft -was to make an atone- 
 ment for him by offering it, and thus he was to be forgiven. 
 See Levit. iv. v. and vi, chap. If an offender in the Chrif- 
 tian church remains obflinate and impenitent, or perfevercs 
 in his fms ; he is to be ea": off and excomm^inieated. If he 
 will not hear the church he is to be unto you a5 an h-eathcn 
 inan. — They are to withdraw from every one, that walketii 
 diforderly, and purge out fiom among them fiich wicked 
 perfons. ' So in the Hebrew church, " The foul that doth 
 ouo-ht prsfumptuoufly, [which doubtlefs implies all obflinate 
 perfeverance in difobedience to, or th^ neglc6i: of, any divine 
 command, as well as more grofs heinous fms] the fame re- 
 proached the Lord ; and that foul fhali be cut oiF from his 
 people. Becaufe he hath dcfpifed the word of the Lord." 
 Numb. xiii. 30. It appears then, that all inimor'al conduct 
 and tranfgreffions of God's commands were matters of dif- 
 ciphne in the Hebrew, as weii as in the Chriftian church. 
 Since therefore the rules of moral conduit, and of difcipline^ 
 in both churches were fo fimilar in many refpeds, it ccrrcbo- 
 
(20) 
 
 fates the evidence already exhibited, that thef are eirentiallr 
 the fame church, under two different difpenfations. 
 
 Had therefore the requirements of God's covenant been 
 attended to in the admiffion of perfons into the Hebrew 
 church, and had the difcipline God enjoined, been ftridly ob- 
 ferved, that church would have been as vifibly holy or fpirit- 
 nal, and free from corruptions, as the ChrilliaH church ever 
 has been. The reafon then, why the Hebrew church at 
 times became fo formal, corrupt and degenerate, was, that 
 thefe rules of admiffion and difcipline were not ftriclly at- 
 tended to. God therefore fpeaking of the corruption and 
 degeneracy of this church, fays "Her prieas have violated 
 tny law, and have profaned mine holy things: They have 
 put no difference between the holy and profane." Ezek. xxii. 
 26. And it is owing to a fimilar negled of the rules of ad- 
 miffion and difcipline, that Chriilian churches often become 
 Tery corrupt. ' 
 
 4. The fcripture gives the fame charader both of the 
 Jewifh and Chriftian churches, which fhews them to be the 
 fame. God faid to the Hebrew church, Exod. xix. 5, 6. 
 *'Nowtherefore,ifye will obey my voice indeed, and keep 
 my covenant, then ye fliall be a peculiar treafure unto me 
 above all people- And ye Ihall be unto me a kingdom of 
 pnefts, and an holy nation." And in Deuteronomy it is faid, 
 *• The Lord hath chofen thee to be a peculiar people unto 
 himfelf." If this is compared with the defcription given of 
 thcChriflian church, i Pet. ii. 9. it will appear to be almoft 
 cxaftly the fame. « Ye are a chofen generation, a royal 
 priellhood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." I'his ehar- 
 ader of the Chriftian church was evidently quoted from that;, 
 given of the Hebrew, and is eifentially the fame ; confequent- 
 Ij they are both the fame churcli. 
 
 Again, God, or rather Chrift( who in the fcripture was the 
 God of Abraham £nd of the Hebrew church) was repre- 
 fented as the huHjand of his ancient church or people, and 
 tbey as his wife or fpoufe. Thus Jer. iit. 14. "Turn, O 
 backiliding children, faiih the Lord, for I am married unto 
 YOU." Ahbchap. xxxi. 32. " They brake my covenant, al- 
 though I was an hufband unto them." Thus Chriil was 
 reprefented as the hufband of the Hebrew church, and they 
 ashisfpcufe, on account of their covenant obligations to be 
 his. Agreeably to this, the Chriftian church in t! c new 
 Tellament is called, " the bride, the Lambs wife," and 
 
Jhrift is fald to be the head of the church, as the hufband Is 
 ihehead of the wife. 
 
 Since therefore the Hebrew and Chrlftian churches are both 
 repreler.ted in a marriage relation to Chrift, as being his 
 fpoafe, and he as being a hulband to tiiem j it is a proof, that 
 they are cne and the fame. 
 
 Chrift alfo is filled the llaepherd cf his ancient church.— 
 " Give eaij O fnepherd of Ilrael, thou that leadeft Jofeph 
 hke a fleck." Pfalrn Ixxx. i. And is he not reprefented as 
 ftand'ng in the fame relation to the Chriftian church ? '* I 
 am the good faepherd, and know my flieep." If then, Chriil 
 h the Ihepherd of both the Hebrew and Chriftian churches, 
 and ihey are boih his flock or Iheep, does it not fhsw, that 
 they are eirmtially the fame church ? 
 
 5. That the Hebrew and Chriftian church is the fame, 
 may be argued from the conSderation, that the facraments 
 or ordinances of the church, under both difpenfatioDS, are 
 finiilar in their import and defign. Thus circumcifion and 
 baptifm, and the pafTover, and the Lord's fupper, aredefignei 
 to anfwer the fame ends in the church under diiSFerent di£- 
 penfations. 
 
 ift. Circumcifion was a token of the covenant of grace 
 between God and thofe who applied this token to theinfelves 
 or children, as has been already fhown. It denoted, that they 
 gave thtir affent to this covenant, and thus was a feal or token 
 cf their faith. Accordingly the apoftle calls it, " a feal oiT 
 the righteoufnefs of the faiih which i^lbraham had being yet 
 uncircumcifed ;" (bowing, that he. fail believed, and then cir- 
 cumcifed himklf and houfehold in token of his faith. So 
 baptifm novv' is a token of faith in Chrift, and thus a feal of 
 the covenant of grace. For Philip told the eunuch, that 
 he might be baptized, if he believed with all his heart ; which 
 plainly fhows, that baptifm is a tuken of faith, M-hich is the 
 ccndition of the covenant of gi ace ; and thus it is a feal of 
 this covenant aad a token of affent to it. When therefore a 
 perfon dedicates himfelf or children in the ordinance of bap- 
 tifm, it is a token of his faith, and fo ®f the covenant cf grace 
 betweea God and him. In this refped circumcifion and bap- 
 tifm appear to be of the fame import and defign. 
 
 2diy. Circumcifion, by taking away a part of the ilefli, 
 denoted the nsceffiiy of a change cf heart, and thus it taught 
 the native d-pravity cf mankind, and their need of fpiritual 
 renovation. Mofes evidently underftood it in tliis knk, and 
 .theicfrre fiiys to the Ifraelites, Dcut. x. 16. *' Circurncife 
 
the foreikln of your hearts, and be no more ftifF-necked.'''' 
 Deut. XXX. 6. " The Lord thy God willc ircumcife thine heart 
 and the heart of thy feed to love the Lord thy God with ali 
 thy heart and foul.'* Accordingly the apoille declares, 
 " that circumcifion is that of the heart, in the fpirit." Cir^ 
 cumcifion then evidently denoted renovation of heart, and fo 
 the natural corruption of mankind. When therefore a He- 
 brew circumcifed his child, it taught, that the child was pol- 
 luted, and needed fpiritual renovation. So baptifm novr 
 Itrikingly denotes the pollution of the human heart, and the 
 neceffity of being cleanfed by the " vpafliing of regeneration, 
 and the renewing of the Holy Ghoft." Hence the pouring 
 forth of the Holy Spirit upon perfons is called baptizing them 
 with the Holy Ghoft, as in Ads xi 15, 16. So alfo in Ezek. 
 xxxvi. 25, God fays, «« 1 will fprinkle clean water upon you, 
 and ye fhall be clean ;""referring to the fan<5tifying influences 
 of the Spirit, denoted by baptifm. When therefore, baptifm 
 is applied to infants or others ; Hke circumcifion, it teaches 
 their native depravity, and need of being cleanfed or renew- 
 ed by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 3dly. Circumcifion might typify or point to the blood ef 
 Chriil, which cleanfeth from all fin, and fo be defigned to lead 
 the Hebrew church to feel the neceflity of the fliedding of 
 blood for the remiffion of fin. Baptifm now anfwers the 
 fame end. It is adapted to imprefs the mind with a ferife cf 
 the neceflity of being fprinkled with the blood of the Redee- 
 iner, " the blood of fpi inkling," as the only ground of pardon 
 and juftiiication. 
 
 4thly. Circumcifion was the initiating ordinance or door 
 ofadmiflion into God's ancient church in this ht\{^, that no 
 nne could become a miember of that church, be entitled to its 
 privileges, or partake of the paffoverf unlcfs circum.cifed. 
 " For no uncircumcifed perfon Ihall eat thereof." So now ne 
 perfon can rightly become a member of the chrifiian church, 
 or be admitted to the Lord's fupper, the Chriftian pafibver ; 
 unlefs baptifed. 
 
 In thefe various particulars the import and deSgn of cir- 
 cumcifion and baptifm are fimilar, and they very evidently 
 anfwer the fame ends in the church of God under different 
 difpenfations. 
 
 The refemblance alfo between the pa/To ver and the Lord's 
 fupper is very plain and ftriking. The pafchal lamb typifi- 
 ed Chrift, the Lamb of God. Its being killed, the fprinkli«g 
 of its blcod upon the door to fave from the deftroying angel, 
 
(23) 
 
 Toaftinglt in fire, &c. ftrlklngly denote thediftrefTmg fufferings 
 and death of the Saviour^ and the falvaticn of thofe who are 
 fpririkled \rith his blood. And are not thefe fame truths rep- 
 refented in a lively manner by the Lord's fupper ? In this, 
 there is a reprefentation of the broken and wounded body of 
 Chrift, and of his blood Ihed for finners. Hence the apoftie 
 fpeaking of the Lord's fupper, ufes figuratively the very Ian- 
 guage of the pafchal feaft, " For even Chrift our palFover i? 
 lacrificed for ws." Therefore let us keep the feaft, not .with 
 old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickednefs | 
 but with the unleavened bread of fincerity and truth." Cor. 
 V. 7, 8. The chief difference between the paflbver and the 
 Lord's fupper is, that one pointed to a Saviour to come, and 
 the other to a Saviour already come. Since therefore the fa- 
 craments under the old and new difpenfation fo perfectly agree, 
 as to their deiign and import ; is it not abundantly evideiTC, 
 that the Hebrev/ and Chriftian church is the fame ? 
 
 6. We (hall adduce further proof of this doflrine from 
 plain exprefi paffages of fcripture. Thus Heb. iii. 2, 3, ^, 
 6. both the Hebrew and Chriftian churches are called God's 
 or Chiift's houfe, and are fpoken of as the fame houfe. Spea- 
 king of Jefus Chrift, it is faid, " Who was faithful to him 
 that appointed him, as alfo Mofes was faithful in all his [i. e, 
 God's or Chrift's] houfe. For this man, [referring to Chrift] 
 was accounted worthy of more glory than Mofes, in as much 
 as he who hath builded the houfe hath more honor than the 
 houfe." 
 
 By Chrift's houfe here is evidently meant his church, which 
 in fcripture is frequently called his houfe. And as it was 
 that church, in which Mofes was faithful, it muft mean the 
 Hebrew church. This church is here declared to be Chrift's^ 
 for it is faid, that he built it. '< And Mofes was verily faith- 
 ful in all his [i. e. Chrift's] houfe as a fervant, for a teftimo- 
 ny of thofe things v;hich were to be fpoken after ; but Chrift 
 as 3. fon over his own houfe : whofe houfe are we" referring to 
 profeffrng Chriftians- 
 
 Here we may obferve, that Chriftians or the Chriftiar. 
 church are called Chrift's houfe, and fo is the Hebrew church j 
 and that Chrift, is declared to be the builder of the Hebrew 
 as well as of the Chriftian church ; v.'hich (hows, that they 
 are the fame ; as they are both Chrift's church. 
 
 Further our Saviour fays to the Jews, "The kingdom vi' 
 God (hall be taken from you, and be given to a nation briiig- 
 ing forth the fruifs thereof." Matt, xxl. 43. By the king- 
 
(24) 
 
 dom of Gcd here k meant the^r church or covenant privilfges, 
 which have long fince been taken from them. Since there- 
 fore that very " kingdom of God" which was taken from the 
 Je\ts "becaufe of their onbelicf/' has been given to the be- 
 iieving Gentiles ; it plainly manifefts, tliat the Chri'lian church 
 is efientially the fame as the Jewilh — is but the coatinuance 
 of that under a new difpenfation. 
 
 Again, in the prophecies concerning the calling of the 
 Gentiies, they are reprefented as being added to God'e 
 andejst church and £lHng the place of the Jews who were 
 hrclen off and fceccming cne church with them ; which 
 fhows, that the Chritlian church is but a continuation of the 
 Jewifh. Thus Ifai. xliz. i8 — 22. God fpeaking of Zion, 
 his ancient chui ch, fays, " Lift up thine eyes round about, 
 znd behold ; all thefc gather tliemfelves together and come to 
 thee : As I live faith the Lord, thou fiiak furely clothe thee 
 •with them all as with an ornament> The children which 
 thou fiialt have, after ihou hsft loft the other, fhall fay again in 
 thine ears, The place is too ftrait for me : give place to me 
 that I may dwell. Then, thou llialt fay in thine heart. Who 
 hatli begotten me thefe, feeirg I have loft my children, and am 
 defolate a captive, and removing to and fro ? Thus faith the 
 Lord God, Behold, I v/ill lift up my hand to the Gentiles — 
 and they feali bring thy ions in their arms, and thy daughters 
 Ihall he carried iipon their liioulders." It is evident from 
 this pa£age, that the chuich to which the Gentles were ga^ 
 thered and united, was one, that had loft her other children 
 or members, and had been defolate, a capdve, Sec. And this 
 defcription exatflly applies to xlie. Hebrew church, which h^d 
 been frequently defolate and in captivity, and which, upon 
 the introdndicn of the Chriftian difpenfation, loft the greater 
 part of her other children or members, v.-ho were broken off 
 became of unbelief. And their place, according to the pro- 
 phecy, was more than tiled with Gentile converts. Ibis 
 prophecy therefore exactly corrcfponds with what the apoftle 
 fays Rom. xi. about the unbelieving Jcv. s being broken yoff 
 from the olive tree, and the believing Gentiles being grarled iu 
 aniop.g the remaining branches ; and it clearly lliQws, that 
 the Gentile converts would be incorporated into the ancierit 
 Jevviih church. Confequently the Chriftlan and Jewifa 
 churches are but one and the iiime church under tv.o different 
 liifpenfafions. The fame fentiment is plainly taught in msny 
 odier fimilar prophecies concerning the calling in of the Gen- 
 tiles. It may alio be obfervedjihat v.he:i.^;c{e Csntiles wtre 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 united to God's anc'ent church, they are reprefented as bring- 
 ing the children of ihe church in their arms. This may inti. 
 mate that children of Gentile Chrirtian parents are to be de- 
 dicated to God, and to enjoy the fame place and privileges in 
 the Chriftian church, that diildren of Jevvifli parents did in the 
 ancicHt church. 
 
 That the believing Gentiles were thus aflually incorporated 
 into God's ancient church is clearly taught by the apoftlcc 
 Eph. ii. Reminding the Gentile converts of their former un- 
 happy fituation in tircie paft, he fays — " At that time ye v^ere 
 vithout Chrift, being aliens from the commonwealth of Ifrae!, 
 and ftrangers from the covenant of promife, having no hope 
 and without God in the world," Then mentioning how 
 Chrift had broken down the middle wall of partition between 
 Jews and Gentiies, that he might reconcile both unto God ia 
 one body, he fays, to the believing Gentiles, " Now therefore 
 ye are no more ftrangers and foreigners (ftrangers from the 
 covenants of promife, and aliens or foreigners from the com- 
 monwealth or church of Ifrael) but fellow-citizens with the 
 faints (of God's ancient church, belonging to the fame com- 
 munity and partaking of the fame privileges) and of the houfe- 
 hold of God" — " And are built upon the foundation of the 
 apoftles and prophets, Jefus Chrift himfelf being the chief 
 corner- ftone, this fhows that the Hebrew church, to whom 
 the ancient prophets minlftered ; and the Chriftian to whom 
 the apoftles miniftered, are built upon the fame foundation, 
 Jefus Chrift himfelf being the chief corner-ftone, v.hich 
 fupports and unites both in one. Confequently the Chriftian 
 and Hebrew church muft be elTentially the fame. 
 
 This truth is alfo abundantly evident from our test and 
 context. Thus, in verfe 17th it is faid, that fome of ths 
 branches, denoting the unbelieving Jews, were broken off, and 
 the believing Gentiles were graffed in among the Jews or 
 natural branches which flood ; and with them partook " of 
 the root and fatnefs of the olive-tree." Now what church can 
 this be, denoted by the olive-tree, from'which unbelieving Jews 
 were broken off, and into vvhich the believing Gentiles were 
 graffed in their room ? 
 
 The Baptifts fay that it was the Chriftian church. But the un- 
 believing Jews were never in that cliufc]i, as diftin^ft from the 
 Jev/ifn, ei'.her really or profeiTedly, and fo could not be broken 
 off from it. Would it not be very improper and uniatelligible 
 for the apoftle to fay, that the greater pait of the Jev/s v.ere 
 broken off from the Chriftian cliuicij becaufe qF wnbelief, when 
 D 
 
(26) 
 
 te merely meant, that they had never joihed thdrnfclves to it? 
 Yea it would hare been juft as improper as to have fa id, that 
 all the unbelieving heathen had been broken -off from the Chrif- 
 tian church, bac;iure they had never belonged t« k. It is ma- 
 nifeft then that it muft be tlie Jewifh church from uhich the 
 unbelieving Jews were broken off ; for of this church they were 
 •vihbly or profefTedly members. 
 
 Since therefore the believing Gentiles were grafFed into the 
 vifible lewifli church among thofe who remained in it, to par- 
 -take vi-ith them in its bleffings and privileges, it is certain, that 
 the Chriftian is but the continuance and extenfion of the 
 JewiOi church. 
 
 Further, verfe 20. "Well, becaufe of unbelief they (i. e. 
 Jews) were broken off, and thou (i. e. believing -Gentile.) ftind- 
 eft by faith." I'his (hows, that faith was a condition offtand- 
 ing both h.i the Jewilh and Chriftian church. For the Jews 
 were broken clF froin their chuich ftanding becaufeof unbe- 
 lief, or for want of faith, and the Chriftian ftands by faith j 
 which cleiiily proves, that they are boih one ar.d the fame 
 church. 
 
 /^. gain, verfe 23, it is faid, that the Jews, "if they abide 
 net ftiU in unbelief, ihall be^grafted in ;" and verfe 24, " how 
 much more (hall thefe, which be the natural branches, be graf- 
 fed into their own olive-tree." — Now the Jews, who had been 
 -brokenofr, v.'ere, upon their believing, to be received into the 
 Chriftian church. Their being received into this church is 
 call'id being grafFed into their own olive-tree, and it is repre- 
 fented, that they were graff^d into the fame olive-tree or church 
 from which they were broken off. This clearly fhow's, that 
 the Chriftian church is but the costinuation of the Jewifb 
 church. For if I'le Chriftian church is eifentially different 
 from the JewKh, and not a continuation of it, as the Baptifts 
 imagine, what propriety would there be in calling the Chriftian 
 chi'i'ch " their own olive-tree," ftnce tliefe unbelieving Jews 
 never in any fenfe belonged to this church, either vifibly or 
 really ? And how improper to reprelent their being received 
 JKto the Chriftian church, as being graffed into the iame olive- 
 tree, from which they are broken off for their unbelief? Befidcs 
 theyiire called the natural branches of this olive-tree or church 
 into which they were to be received if they did not abide in 
 unbelief. But if the Chriftian church is not the continuation 
 of the Jewiih, but entirely different-; what meaning or propri- 
 ety could there be in calliiig thcie unbelieving Jews the naiurnl 
 br'unciicjs of the Chriftian^ church, or olive-tree? For upon 
 
tFits fupporition they could in no fenfe be the natural branches 
 ©f this c'mrch. Bat if accordini^ to the apoille'b, reprefentAtioa 
 ve conlider the Chriftian church the -{ame ;is the Jewllhj being 
 the Cimi church continued und^r a new dirpenlation-; we can 
 eafily fee the propriety of caUing the' unbelieving Jews the nat- 
 ural branches of the Chritlian church or olive tree ; as they are 
 the natural defcendants of this church under the old difpenfa- 
 tion. As therefore the Chriftian church, into v/hich the Jews, 
 if they remain not in unbelief, are to be grafFed, is called ;heir 
 own olive-tree, and they are faid to be the natural branches of 
 it, it is very evident that this church is but the continuation 
 andextenfion of the Jswifh. /Accordingly the apoflk. Gal. 
 iii. fpeaks of the bleffings of Abraham, (thofe blefTuigs pro- 
 mifed in the Abrahamic covenant, and enjoyed by the Jewifh 
 church) coming on the Gentiles through Jefus Chriil : and 
 fays, " If ye are Chrift's, then are ye Abraham's feed, and 
 heirs according to the promife," fhowing that allbeiievers ar?. 
 the children of Abraham ; and that therefore he is the father 
 @f the Chiiftian as well as of the Jewifh church. All the truly 
 pious both in the Jewilh and Chriftian church are the real 
 children of Abraham ; for he is the father cf all v.'ho believe, 
 whether circumcifed or uncircumcifed, as the apoftle declares. 
 Confequently, all profelTors of religion under both difpenfations 
 are profelTedly his children. But as all, " which' were of 
 Ifrael," or members of the Jewifn church, " were not Ifrael,'* 
 or the true children of Abraham, ; but many were Jevv^j out- 
 wardly who were not fo inwardly ; fo at prefent there are 
 undoubtedly many members of the Chriftian church, who are 
 outwardly or profeifedly Chriftians and Abraham's children, 
 that are not fo at heart. But omitting many other pafTages 
 that might be mentioned, is there not very clear and abundant 
 evidence, that the Jevvifli and Chriilian church are eifentiaily 
 one and the fame ? But, 
 
 Laftly, lince the Baptiils in general very conddendy deny, 
 that real religion was required in the covenants, which God 
 madfe with Abraham, and with the Hebrew church In the 
 wildernefs ; it may be v/ell to examine this fentiment, and' 
 confider fome of its confequences. 
 
 I ft. In the Abrahamic covenant God required as the con- 
 dition, that Abraham ftiould " wal'tc before him, and' be per- 
 fecT:." And in all the revelations he made to the patri- 
 archs before the days of Rlofes, there is no requirement more 
 expreffive of real religion than this in thj Abrahamic cove- 
 naato if therefore real religion was not required in tlie 
 
(23) 
 
 Abrahaniic covena-iit, it will follow, that God never reqai-» 
 red, or even mentioned real religion in any of the revelations, 
 that he communicated to mankind before Mofes, which was 
 a period of about 2500 years. 
 
 And in the covenant, which God mad^ with the Hebre"^ 
 church in the wildernefs, he required them to fear the Lord 
 their God, to walk in all his ways, and to love and ferve 
 him with all their heart and foul — to circumcife the fereskiii 
 of their heart and be no more ftiff-necked. Deut. x. 12, 16. 
 They were alfo required to worlliip before the Lord their 
 God, and to keep his ftatutes and judgments v/ith all their 
 heart, and foul, Deut. xxvi. 10, 16. And on condition that 
 they would obey his voice, and keep his covenant, God pro- 
 mifed to blefs them, be their God, and take them for his pe- 
 culiar people. Now there are certainly no requirements in 
 the Old Teftament more expreflive of real holineA or religion 
 of heart, than thefe in this covenant. If therefore God did 
 not require real religion as the condition of his covenant 
 with the ancient church, he has no where required or en- 
 joined it in the Old Tedament. But can any one imagine, 
 that God, in all his revelalions to mankind for 4000 years, 
 never required real religon or right affections of heart ? as 
 niuft be the cafe, if it v/as not required in the covenants, 
 made with Abraham and the Hebrew church. This cer- 
 tainly is very contrary to the reprefentation of our Savitjur. 
 For he declared, that the fum of the law or Mofuic dif- 
 penfation and the prophets is to love God wiih all the heart, 
 and our neighbor as aurfelves j which is the effence of all 
 real religion. 
 
 Further, it has been univerfally allowed, that the book of 
 Ffalms is as exprellive of true piety and devotion, as any 
 part of the bible. But there is not one paifage in all that 
 book, which more ftrongly expreffes real religion, than the 
 requirements of the covenant " to love aad ferve God, walk 
 in his ways, and keep his ftatutes with all the heart and foul." 
 Confequently there is not one word faid in the book of Pfalms 
 about real piety or religion, if It was not required in tke co- 
 venant, made with the Hebrew church. 
 
 Therefore it muft be allowed eilher that real religion was 
 required of, and profelTed by the Hebrew church, and fo this 
 church is eilentially the fame. with the Chriftian ; or elfe it 
 mull be denied, that God ever required, or even mentioned 
 leal religion in all the Old Tcftumcut. .But which of thsie 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 propofitJons is true, no perfoti acquainted with his bible cag 
 doubt lor a moment. 
 
 2d. It appears as if it vould be incoiiflflent with the divine 
 holinels and perfediions to enter into a covenant with moral 
 beings, which did not require real holinefs or love to God 
 as its condition, and to promife them peculiar favors upon 
 mere external, unholy obedience. It would in fa<5t be lay- 
 ing, that real love to God was a hard requirement, anii 
 therefore he was willing to difpenfe with it. There have 
 been great clamours and cavils againft God in this wicked 
 world, becaufe he requires depraved creatures, who are whol- 
 ly oppoled to his holy character, to exeVcife fupreme love to 
 liim, and to do whatever they do to his glory. Sinners con- 
 tend, that this is a very hard and unreafonable requirement. 
 But God in his word infifts, that thisisjuft and fit, and that 
 his law, which requires this, is holy, juvt and good. This is 
 cna great part of the controveriy, which fubfifts in this world 
 between God and finners. 
 
 If llierefore God in fuch an important covenant as that, 
 which he made with the people of lirael, and which was to be 
 known thro' his vail dominions, had relinquiihed his claim on 
 the heart, by requiring nothing but external, heartlefs obedi- 
 ence, and had ftipulated to grant them peculiar bleffings on 
 any condition, fticrt of holy obedience ; it would have been, 
 in a very public manner, giving up in a great degree the 
 ccatroverry of Tinners. The language of fuch condud ia God 
 v.'ould have been, that love to him or obedience of heart was 
 rather a hard, unreafonable requirement, as fmners objedled ; 
 and that theiefore he was willing to difpenfe vviih it. How 
 derogatory would fuch condu»5t be to the divine chara6ter, and 
 how would it countenance the cavils of the wicked, that it is 
 hard to require the heart? How alfo would it have encou- 
 raged the liiatlices in a formal unholy obedience ? For if God 
 did not require the heart or real religion in thofe lava's and 
 comrrands, which conflituted rhe requirements of his cove- 
 nant, and which were all that he pretended to require of 
 them ; they might juftly conclude, that he did not mean to 
 infill on the heart. For in all the revelations and directions 
 which God gave his people by Mofes, or by the prophets af- 
 terwards, he never intimated to them, that he required, or even 
 wiOied any thing more of them, than to fulfil the requirements 
 of his covenant. It is faid that tlie Lord teftified againd 
 Ifrael and Judah by all the prophets, faying, turn ye from 
 your evil ways, and keep my coznmandments and ftatutes, 
 
(so) 
 
 according to the law, which I commanded your father?* 
 If therefore this covenant did not require the heart or a holy- 
 obedience, then he Ifraehtes had jult reafon to conclude, that 
 God did not mean to infill on the heart, and thus it was di^ 
 reiftly calculated to" encourage them in a heartlefs unholy- 
 obedience. 
 
 What an impeachment then would it be of God's holy 
 chai-after to fuppofe, that his covenant with his ancient church 
 did not require the heart or real holinefs, and fo had a direft 
 tendency to encourage a mere formal, unholy obedience, by 
 giving them reafon to conclude, that he did not mean to infift 
 on the heart ? How different is this idea of the requirements 
 of the covenant from the reprefentation, which Mofes gave of 
 it, when he fays to the people, " And now Ifrael, what doth 
 the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear him to walk in 
 all his ways — to love and ferve the Lord thy God with ail thy 
 heart, and with all thy foul." In this and many other paiTa- 
 ges Mofes exprefsly tells them, that Gcd's covenant with 
 them required them to love and keep his commands with all 
 the heart, and that it was on this condition, tiiat they were 
 to be his people and be entitled to temporal bleffings. Thus 
 h^carefuUy guards them againft the idea that God did not 
 mean to infift on the heart, and that his covenant did not re- 
 quire a holy obedience as its condition. 
 
 Further, if God did not require holinefs of heart in his cO' 
 venant with Ifrael, as t>.e condition of the promifed bleffings; 
 then he in fad promifed to blefs and revfard them for doings, 
 which might be pei formed with an impenitent heart, or, in 
 other words, for fmful, unholy doings. For there is no me- 
 dium in moral adlions between fm and holinefs, and all mo- 
 ral adions, done with an unholy heart, muft be finful. " A 
 corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit." Had God 
 therefore, in his covenant, promifed peculiar bleffings to fuch 
 doing or obedience, as might be performed with an impeni- 
 tent heart; would it not have been rewarding and encou- 
 raging impenitence, and thus have been the foundation of a 
 high impeachment of the (Uvine charadcr ? Would it not 
 i Tiply, that impenitent fmners may do what is pleafing in the 
 fight of a holy God, and thus contradid the declaration of 
 the apoflle, that " without faith it is impoffible to pleafe 
 him ?" Did not the Moft High exprefsly declare to his an- 
 cient church, that the facrifices of the wicked were an abom- 
 ination to him ? Did he not alfo manifeft a high difapproba- 
 tion of the unholy obedience and religious fervices of the 
 
(30 
 
 Vic"ked ? Ifa. i. chap. " To what purpofe is the multitude 
 of your facriSces unto me ? faith the Lord. Bring no more 
 vain oblations ; incenfe is aii abomination unto me ; the new- 
 moons and fabbaths ; the calling of affemblies, I cannot away 
 with, it is iniquity, even the folemn meeting. Your new- 
 moons and appointed feafts Kij foul hatetk." Now fince all 
 the impenitent aft from tlie fame unholy felfifh temper, and 
 are equally deftitute of all holineft, and fmce God here mani- 
 feftad fuch a difapprobation of the unholy obedience and-fer- 
 vices of the w'cked ; the fuppofition is mod unreafonable, 
 that his covenant required nothing more than fuch an external 
 unholy obedience, which he .thus condemns ; and that he even 
 eovenanted to reward fuch external unholy obedience. 
 
 Again, the Pharifees and Jews, in general, in the days of 
 our Saviour, a time when the Jewiflx church had become very 
 formal and degenerate, had imbibed this very idea, that God 
 in his covenant or laws, given by Mofes required nothing 
 more than a drift external obfervance of all the moral 
 and ceremonial laws. When therefore our Saviour mention- 
 ed to one of them the requirements of the moral law, he fays, 
 " All thefe things have I kept from my youth up : what lack I 
 yet ?" It feems, that he verily thought, he had fulfilled the re- 
 quirements of God's law or covenant, becaufe he had yielded 
 an external obedience, and therefore thought he was by cove- 
 nant entitled to God's favor. Paul alfo fpeaking of his old 
 Pharifaical I'eligion, Philip, iii. 6. fays, that touching the 
 righteoufnefs, which is in the law, he was blamelefs, becaufe 
 by a ftrict external obedience he had fulfilled the requirements 
 of this law, as it was generally underftood by the Jews and 
 Pharifees. But what did the Lord Jefus, who is the faifhful 
 and true witnefs, fay on this fubjeft. When one aflced him, 
 " Maikr, which is the gre-at commandment in the law" — Jefus 
 faid, " Thou fhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart., 
 foul and mind. This is the firft and great command — The {".-, 
 cond is like unto it, thou flialt love thy neighbor as thyfelf— 
 On thefe two commandments hang all th« law and the 
 prophets." 
 
 Here the faviour exprefsly declares, that love to God and. 
 man, or real religion, was required in the law of Moies, 
 which conftituted the requirements of God's covenant with 
 Ilia ancient church. Is it nor ftrange then that after our 
 Saviour has i'o plainly decided the quellion, that any who pro- 
 fil's themfeives Chriilians fhould again imbibe the old Pha:i- 
 f-iicai fenniment, that this law or covenant rzquh'id nothirg 
 
(30 
 
 IT/Ore than ^neiftemal obedience, and might be complied witla 
 by impenitent finners. 
 
 Since, upon examination, this fentinicnt of iht Bapt'tjls^ that 
 God did not require real holinefs of heart, as the condition 
 of his covenant with the ancient church, is diredly contrary 
 to fo many plain reprefcntalions of the bible, and leads to 
 fo many abfurd coafequcnces, it is certain, that it is falfe ; 
 and that real religion was required in God's covenant with 
 that church, as much as it now is in the Chritlian. 
 
 Is not the proof from the various arguments which have 
 been adduced, full and unanfwerable, that the Jewifii and 
 Chriftian chsrch are cfl'entially the fame ; or ihat the lattei 
 is but the continuance and extension of the former under a 
 different difpenfation ? 
 
 Prv/bably more has been faid on this fubje^, than may be 
 thought ntce/Tary by feme. But as the fentiment we have 
 been proving is (irenucufly denied by the Baptifts, and their 
 ftrongeft arguments and objeftionr, ag?an(l Irfant-Baptifm 
 are grounded on the idea, that the Abrahamic covenant was 
 riot the covenant of grace, and that the Jewiih church was 
 ^^fientially different from the Chriftian ; it was thought expe- 
 dient to elhibliih thefe points beyond all reafonable difpute. 
 
 But hovvever clear the proof, which has been exhibited, 
 doubtlefs, various obje<5i:ions witl be urged againft the doc- 
 trine we have been iiluftrating and eftablKhing. V/e fhall 
 proceed therefore to obviate fome of the moft plauuble of ihefe 
 obje(riions, as was propofed under tJic fecond general head. 
 
(33) 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 BUT here It may be well to obferve, that very plaufible 
 objections may be raifed againft the moft certain 
 truths of reafon and revelation ; and that perfons may have 
 very full, fatisfadory evidence of a truth, and yet not be able 
 clearly to anfwer all the objedions and difficulties, which may 
 be urged againft it. Since therefore we have fuch diredl, full 
 and abundant proof, from the facred fcriptures, of the truth 
 of our doitrine ; it ought by no means to Ihake our behef of 
 it, even where there are objeflions againft it that we could 
 not fully anfwer. But it is apprehended, that the difficul- 
 ties, which are urged againft the fentiment we have been eftab- 
 lilhing, may in general be eafily obviated. 
 
 Objection ift. The Abrahamic covenant, of which cir- 
 cumcifion was the feal, refpeded chiefly the land of Canaan 
 and temporal bleffings ; therefore it was not the covenant 
 of grace. 
 
 Answer. The covenant of grace, as before fliown, means 
 a covenant propofed to unworthy fmners, requiring repentance 
 and faith, or real religion as its condition ; and promifmg 
 God's favor and eternal bleflednefs, or that God will be their 
 God, to thofe who comply with its requifitions. When there- 
 fore a covenant does thus require real rehgion as its condition, 
 and gracioufly promife God's favor to a compliance, it is 
 the covenant of grace ; notwithftanding it may promife tem- 
 poral bleffings in addition to fpiritual. 
 
 And that die Abrahamic covenant did require faith or real 
 religion as its condition, and promife God's favor, or that he 
 would be a God to thofe who complied with it, has been 
 fully proved. Confequently it was the covenant of grace. 
 Granting therefore, that God did in that covenant promife 
 the land of Canaan and other temporal bleffings, in addition 
 to fpiritual, it does not afford the leaft evidence, that it was 
 not the covenant of grace. We might as well argue, that the 
 gofpel d ifpenfation is not a covenant of grace ; becaufe it 
 declares, that " godlinefs is profitable unto all things, having 
 pvomile of the life that now is, and of that which is to 
 come i" and becaufe Cbrift proniires with relped to food and 
 E 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 raiment, "Seek ye firft the kingdom of God, and his nghte- 
 oufnefs, and all tk-fe things flialf be added unto you." 
 
 Befides, if the Abrahamic covenant was not the covenant 
 of grace, and promifed only the land of -Canaan and tempo- 
 ral blefflngs, as inary affirm ; how is it, that they, A^'ho are 
 Chrill's, are Abraham's feed and heirs according to the pro- 
 mife ? " Do all Gentile believers inherit the land of Canaan, 
 arid multiply a numerous pofterity ?" Certainly they cannot 
 in any I'enfe be heirs of the bleffings of Abraham, if the cove- 
 nant, made with him, was not the covenant of grace, but ref- 
 pefted temporal bleiiings only. But viewing it es the cove- 
 nant of gracje, and promihng fpiritual bleffings; we can rea- 
 dily fee, how all V^elievers are Abraham's {&td, and heirs of 
 the fpiritual blefiings, promifed in that covenant ; and how by 
 this covenant he became the father of all them that believe. 
 Thus the blelTmgs of Abraham Jiave come on the Gentries 
 through Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Further; what has now been faid fliows the weaknefs of 
 another fimilar objedion. It is objected, that the require- 
 ments of God^s covenant with his ancient church were en- 
 forced chiefly by promifes of temporal bleifingf, and threat- 
 enings of temporal evils. Hence it is concluded,' that this 
 covenant did not require real religion and piomife Ipiritual 
 bleffings, and fo was not a covenant of grace. 
 
 -In anfwer to thi^ it OT.ay be obferved, that under that dif- 
 p/^nfation, the knowledge, which mankind had of divine things 
 and the eternal world, was but faint and obfcure ; and there- 
 fore it vvas i^iuch more neceflkry to addrefs the fenfes by 
 vifible objeftf!, than it is under the clear light of the gofpel. 
 Confequently their rights and modes of worfhip under that 
 dilpentatJQn wcr£ more pompous, ftiowy, and calculated to 
 impreis the fenfes. Their compliance with the divine require- 
 ments was njore enforced with promiies of temporal gooo, and 
 threatcnines of tiiTj oral evil, by which their external fenfes 
 were mor-e^immediarely addreiied. But this is no evidence, 
 that real religion or holy obedience was not required, and that 
 no fpiritual bleffings were promiied. For God, if he fees fit, 
 may as well enforce a holy obedience by motives oftemporal 
 ■.:;rod and evil, as by thoie of eternal. Yea, God does en- 
 force obedience in the New-Teltamei/t by inch temporal con- 
 fiderations. Thus it is faid, " G<jUlinefs is profitable unto all 
 things, having prcmife of the life li.at now is, and of that which 
 is to come.'" " Ke ihat v.ill love iife, and fee geod days, 
 .et him refrain his loii^ue horn evil, and Lis lipb that they 
 
(35) 
 
 fpteak no guile." ** And who is he th^t will harm ynn, iC- wc 
 be followers of that which is good " Alio Rom. xin. Paul 
 orges ChritHans to do good from the confidenaion, that in 
 this way they would have praife or encouragement of civil ru- 
 lers, and to avoid evil from the confideration, that the ruler 
 is " the minifter of God, a rever^ger to execute wrath upon 
 him that doth evil." Minifters of the gcfpel likewife frtquent- 
 ly urge their hearers to avoid fiiifrom the confideration of its 
 evil ruinous tendency in this world as well as the future.; and 
 to embrace religion, bccaule it w^ill be for their prefent and 
 future good. But this is no evidence, that the. obedience re- 
 quired in the TsSew-Teilament is not a holy obe-dience. Con- 
 feqnentiy it- can be no proof that a htrly obedience was not 
 required in God's covenant with hi-, ancient church, becauf^i 
 this obedience vyas enforced by many promifes of temporal 
 good, and threatenings of temporal evil. 
 
 Obj, 2nd. The Hebrew church was national, the whole - 
 nation being required to circumciie their children, keep the 
 palfover, and thus become members of that church ; otherwiie. 
 they were to be cut off from national, as well as from church 
 privileges ; and the whole nation did thus become members 
 of that church, akho'- the gi eater part of them were probably 
 deftitute of grace. Therefore it may be concluded, that ho- 
 linefs of heart was not required in the cxjvenant, made with 
 the Ifraelitiih church, as a term of communion ; and fo it 
 muft be eilentially different from the Chriftian church, 
 in which faith or real religion is required of all its mera- 
 berSi 
 
 Ans. It will be granted, that God promiJed peculiar blef- 
 fmgs temporal and fpiritual, to his ancient church, and requi- 
 red all the Hebrew nation to eater into, and keep his covenant, 
 obferve his inftitutions, and thus become members of that 
 church upon pain of his difpleafure, and of being cut oiF 
 from all thefe privileges. But does not God now require all 
 nations, v^'ho enjoy the gofpel, to repent, beheve, unite with 
 his church, and Qbferve divine ordinances as much as he 
 did the Hebrew nation ? And does he not promife fpecial 
 bleifmgs to thofe, who cordially comply with- thefe require- 
 ments, and denounce dreadful threaten ings again ll: thcfe who 
 neglect them ; as really as he did with rel'peft to the Hebrew 
 nation ? And are not perfons as criminal for negleding thele 
 duties now, as the Jews were under that difpeHlaiion i Yea^ 
 are they not more fo, as they hn againif greater light i" 
 
 External dilbbedience in negkcling circumciiion, or the.; 
 
 Sir.. 
 
(3<5) 
 
 other divine commands and inflitutlons, was to deprive the 
 Jew of the external privileges of that church, and expcfe him 
 to divine diipleafure. And is it not equally true, that ex- 
 ternal difobedience, in negleding baptifni, and the other com- 
 mands and ordinances of the gofpel, ought now to deprive 
 a perfon of the privileges of the Chriftian church ; and does 
 it not adually expofe him to the difpleafure of God ? And as 
 internal difobedience or impenitence of heart deprived the 
 Jew of fpiritual and eternal bleffings, fo it does perfons un- 
 der the Chriftian difpenfation. All nations therefore under 
 the gofpel are as much required and oWigated to enter into 
 God's covenant, unite with his church, and obferve all divine 
 ordinances, upon penalty of God's difpleafure, as the Jews 
 were, For " God now commandeth all men every where to 
 repent," upon pain of his wrath, and every day's negleift of 
 this command expofes to everlafting deftru-ftion. If there- 
 fore the covenant, made with the Hebrew church, did not re- 
 quire real religion, becaufe the whole nation were required 
 by a certain penalty immediately to enter into it, as fome ar- 
 gue ; it will alfo follow, that the gofpel difpenfation does not 
 require holinefs of heart, becaufe all men are required imme. 
 diately to repent and embrace it upon pain of divine difplea- 
 fure. The objedlion implies that God has no right by penal- 
 ties to require perfons immediately to repent and embrace 
 religion. If he has, as all muft allow who believe the bible, 
 then his requiring all the Hebrew nation immediately 
 to enter into his covenant, affords not the lead evidence, that 
 this covenant did not require real holinefs as its condition. 
 The truth is, God by weighty promifes^and threalenings 
 does now, and always has reqnired all, wherever he has 
 fent his word, immediately to affent to his covenant, unite 
 ■with his church, and obferve all his ordinances. He gives 
 none any permiffion to negle^ his commands a fmgle day. 
 Bmthe always requires them to do thefe things with the heart, 
 or with right afFedions. 
 
 Accordingly as has been fhown, the requirements of his 
 covenant with the Hebrew church were, that they fhould 
 love and ferve God, and keep his commands with all their 
 heart and foul ; he infilled much on the heart, and feverely 
 reproved them, when they entered into his covenant, for lying 
 unto him with their tongues, becaufe their hearts were net 
 right. And he finally broke oiF the unbelieving Jews from 
 this church " becaufe of their unbelief.'* 
 
 Thefe confiderations ftiow, that Gtdnojnore requked, or 
 
allowed the Jews to enter into his covenant, become members 
 of his church, circumcife their children, and attend upon di- 
 vine ordinances with an impenitent heart, than he now re^ 
 quires perfons to do thefe things in fuch a manner. He plain- 
 ly told his ancient church, that the facrifices of the wicked 
 were an abomination to him ; to the wicked he faid « What 
 haft thou to do, that thou fhouldeft take my covenant in thy 
 mouth;" and he often exprefil'd his deteftation of hypocrify. 
 It was therefore as really wrong for a Jew to circumcife his 
 child, profefs to enter into covenant with God, and become 
 a member of his church without real religion, as it would be 
 for a pcrfon now to profefs religion, fit down at the Lord's 
 table, or offer himfelf or child in baptifra with an impenitent 
 heart. 
 
 With refpe(51: to the otlier part of the objeftion, tliat the 
 whole Jewifli nation were members of that church, while the 
 greater part bad no true religion ; it may be anfwered, that 
 this *s no proof that real religion was not required of them 
 as a qualification for member/hip. Is it any proof, that 
 God does not require holinefs of heart as a term of member- 
 fhip in the Chriftian church, becaufe many become members, 
 and attend upon the peculiar ordinances ot the gofpel, while 
 deftitute of holinefs ; or becauft the greater part in fome 
 churches may have no religion ? This is looking at the prac- 
 tice of the church, inftead of God's requirements, which 
 tends to leacl into error, rather than truth. But if we look 
 at God's requirements, which cannot be in the leaft invalidated 
 by the pradice of men ; it will be evident, as has been al- 
 ready Ihown, that real religion was required in his cove- 
 nant with the Hebrew church. And therefore its conftitu- 
 tion was elfentiallv the fame as that of the Chriftian, whe- 
 ther all or part of the nation were profeftcdly members of it, 
 or whether there were few or many hypocrites in it. Thefe 
 things do not at all alter tl*e divine conflitution and require- 
 ments refpedting thi^ church. 
 
 Obj. 3d. The Hebrew children, merely by birlh and be- 
 ing circumcifed, v.'ere brought into covenant with God, and 
 made members of his church under that difpeniacion. For 
 it is faid, Gen. xvii. 14. « And the uncircuniciied man-child, 
 ^vhofefieihof his foretliin is not circumcifed, that foul Ihall 
 be cut oiF from his people : he hath broken my covnant.'* 
 But as children cannot by birth and baptifin be brought into 
 the covenant of grace, and become members of the Chrif- 
 tian churob, in which faith and holinefs are required of all its 
 
(38) 
 
 m^maers, It may be concluded, that God's covenant with the 
 Ht brew church was not the covenant of grace ; and that this 
 church was efTentially different from the Chriftian. 
 
 Ans. If we conuder what is meant by covenanting or be- 
 ing in covenant, it" will be evident, that there is a fenfe, in 
 which Hebrew infants were not perfonally brought into cove- 
 nant, merely by birth and circumcifion. The proper mean- 
 ing c( a covenant, is an agreement betw^een parties, or it is 
 when one party makes a conditional propofal to another ; 
 and the other party, by aflenting to this propofal, enters into 
 the covenant. No one therefore can in thts fenfe be in cove- 
 nant vith another, unlefs he does in fome way afient to the 
 propofol or requirements of the covenant. And that the cove- 
 nant, which God made with Abraham and the Hebrew 
 church in the wildernefs, did promife certain bleffings on 
 certain conditions, and fo was a covenant in the common ufe 
 of the word, lias been already fhown. Accordingly God ex- 
 prefsly told the Ifraelites, that if they would obty his voice 
 and keep his covenant, they fliould be his people, a'nd he 
 would blefs them, &c. But Hebrew infants, merely by being 
 ciro'.mcifed at eight days old, neither did nor could give any 
 a/fent to God's covenant ; for they were wholly ignorant and 
 paffive in the iranfaciion. ^ Confequcntly they cculd not in 
 this fenfe be brought into covenant by circun cifion. 
 
 Should if then be allowed, as the Baptifts fuppofe, that 
 God's covenant v.ith Abraham and the Hebrew church was 
 not the covenant of grace, but a covenant, promifing tempo- 
 ral bleffings on conciition of external obedience, ftill this 
 would not remove the difficulty. For an infant by being cir- 
 cumcifed at eight days old, could no more give his affent to 
 a covenant, requiring external obedience, than he could to 
 one requiring internal, or holinefs o{ heart. There is the 
 fame difficulty in his aflenting to the one, as to the other. 
 
 Let the covenant therefore with the Hebrew church be the 
 covenant of grace, or not ; yet as infants could not by their 
 circumcifiOR give afTent to it, fo they could not in this fenfe 
 be brought into the covenant. They muft in fome way af- 
 fent to the covenant, before they could be perfonally in cove- 
 nant with God in the proper fenfe of the v/ord. Nor could 
 they without fuch an affent to the covenant be juftly confi- 
 dered as proper or complete members of God's church. For 
 the covenant, which God made with Abraham, and with 
 his people in the wildernefs was the conftitution of his vifi- 
 ble church. None therefore eould be confidered as proper 
 
(39) 
 
 actual members of this church, and entitled to all its pnvi» 
 leges ; until they had in ibme way given their aflent to this 
 covenant or conftitution, on which it vras founded. This 
 aiTent was as necelTary to make them members in this fenfe? 
 as the Freeman's oath, or a foleran aflent to our conftitution, 
 is to make a perfon a complete member of our civil commu- 
 rvity. 
 
 We therefore find frequent accsunts in fciipture, where t}ie 
 whole nation of Ifrael explicitly entered into covenant with 
 God by a public profeffion. And every individual of them, 
 when he circumcifed his child, did by this tranfaftion profefs 
 his affent to God's covenant, and engage to keep it. They 
 did this alfo whenever they offered a facrifice, as all were 
 commanded to do frequently. For God fays, Pfalm, 1. 5. 
 *' Gather my faints — thofe that made a covenant with me by 
 facrifice ;" which (hows that facrificing was an appointed 
 mode of covenanting ; and that a perfon did profeffedly 
 aflent to God's covenant, whenever he offered a facrifice ac- 
 cording to divine appointment. And this all the males were 
 commanded to do at leaft three times in a year. For they 
 were all to appear before the Lord at the three annual 
 feafts, and none were to come empty, or without his offer- 
 ing, Deut. xvi. 16- The book of the law or covenant was to 
 be read to all the people once in feven years, that they might 
 know what it required of them ; and probably, that they 
 might publicly give their aflent to it, as they did in the days 
 of Jofiah, Nehemiah, &c. In thefe various ways they were 
 continually profeffmg their perfonal affent to God's covenant 
 and engaging to keep it. The Hebrew church therefore 
 were reprefented as in a marriage relation to the Lord ; which 
 fhows, that they did in fome way perfonally aflent to God's 
 covenant, and profefs to be his : as the wife engages to be. 
 her hulband's in the marriage covenant. When therefore, 
 the Hebrews apoftatized from God, they were charged with 
 breaking covenant with him. 
 
 Again, the Hebrew children were not merely by their 
 birth and circumcifion fo br(?«ght into this covenant as to be 
 entitled to its promifes and bleflings ; even upon the fuppo- 
 fuion, chat it proniifed nothing but temporal bleffings as thj 
 Baptitts fuppofe. For Efau, as well as Jacob, could piei-.d 
 thefe conditions, yet he was exprefsly excluded from the bleC- 
 fings of this covenant. So could the congregation, who thro' 
 unbelief could not enter Canaan, and inherit the promifed 
 bleffings, but v.T^ichsdly periihed in the vviidcraefs— thofe 
 
(4o) 
 
 alfo, vh« in the days of the apoftles were broken ofF from 
 God's church and deprived of all its privileges and blefllngs, 
 and even the great body of the Jewifii nation ever fince that 
 period. Since therefore fo many millions who were born of 
 Hebrew parents and circumcifed on the eighth day, have ne- 
 ver enjoy sd thebleffings, promifed in God's covenant ; it is 
 evident, that merely birth and circumcifion did not fo bring 
 children into this covenant, as to enfare to them its promifes. 
 Something further was required, either of them or of their 
 parent, or of both, in order to entitle them to the promifed 
 bleflings. 
 
 If then the meaning of this objeflion urged by the Baptifts, 
 is, that Hebrew children did by circumcifion enter perfonally 
 into covenant with God, and fo become members of his church, 
 or that merely birth and circumcifion did enfure to them the 
 promifesandbleffingsof thiscovenant,it is evidently a very great 
 miftake. For let the covenant require either internal or ex- 
 ternal obedience, it is evident, that an infant by being circum* 
 cifed could not give any aflent to it. Neither had the Hebrew 
 children, merely by their circumcifion, any more title to, or 
 affuranee of, temporal bkffings than they had of fpiritual. If 
 this therefore is the meaning of the objedtion, it is not only 
 evidently falfe; but it alfo involves the Baptifts in the famediffi- 
 cultyas it does us. For there is the fi-me difficulty in fuppofing, 
 that an inHint could affent to, or perfonally enter into, a cove- 
 nant requiring interoal obedience, as into one requiring exter- 
 nal. And when they fiiall fliow, how an infant can give his 
 affent to an external, graceiefs covenant ; we doubtlefs fhall 
 be able by means of their difcovery to (how, how infants can 
 in the fam.e way give their afient to the covenant of grace. 
 But if this is not the meaning of this ohjedion, then it affords 
 no proof, that God's covenant with his ancient church did 
 not require real holinefs, and was not the covenant of grace. 
 Therefore in pcifeftconfiftence with the fentiment, that God's 
 covenant required real religion of the Hebrew church, and 
 that this church was effentially the fame with the Chrillian, it 
 m.iy be allowed. 
 
 2dly, Thatihe Hebrew infants might in a certain fenfe 
 be in God's covenant; and belong to the chuich. God in his 
 covenant or promifes, might engage or give encouragement 
 to parents, if they would walk before him in the ways of reli- 
 gion and be faithful in training up their children for him, 
 that he would blefs their children and be their God by cir- 
 cumcifing their hearts. God might covenant vv^ith parents, 
 
(41) 
 
 or make fuch promifes concerning their children, and yet the 
 children not be perfonally or adlively in covenant. 
 
 And there are feme paflages, which, if they do not con- 
 tain, abfolute promifes, yet certainly afford parents great en- 
 couragement to hope, that if they are faithful, God will biefs 
 their children. Thus it is faid, Deut. iv. 40. " Thou flialt 
 keep his commandments, that it may go well with thee, and 
 thy children after thee." It is declared that the feed of the 
 righteous is bleffed — that they are the feed of the blefled of 
 the Lord, and their offspring with them — that God's r'ight- 
 eoufnefs is unto children's children ; to fuch as keep his com- 
 mandments. God promifes his church, which promife has 
 a fpecial reference to the Chriftian church. *' I will pour 
 out my fpirit npon thy feed, and my bleding >iipon thine off- 
 fpring." Ifai. xliv. 3. " And I will give you one heart and 
 one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of 
 them and their children after them." Jer. xxxii. 39. The 
 Pfalmifl alfo fays, that the «* Lord eflabiifbed a teftimonyy 
 and appointed a law in Ifrael, which he commanded our 
 fathers that they (hould make known to their children ; That 
 the generation to cofne might know them, even the children 
 which fhould be born ; who fhould arife and declare them to 
 their children : That they might fet their hope in God, and 
 not forget his works but keep his commandTnents." " Train 
 up a child in the way he Qiould go ; and when he is old he 
 will not depart from it." " Thou fhalc bszt him with the 
 rod, and (halt deliver his foul from hell." Such pa/fages 
 feem to promife fpecial bleffings to the children of the godly, 
 and to conned the good of their children with the obedience 
 and faithfulnefs of the parents. — At lead they afford great en- 
 couragement to parents to be faithful and diligent in their 
 walk with God and in their duty towards their children. 1 he 
 promife in the Abrahamic covenant that God would be a 
 God to him, and to his feed after him, may mean, not only 
 that God would be the God of his fpirilual feed, but alfo that 
 God would be the God of his natural feed by civcumcifing 
 their hearts, if he would fulfil the covenant by walking befoie 
 God, and being perfect. The promife may at leall admit of 
 thisconftrudion. 
 
 Should it be granted then, that the Hebrew children were 
 in covenant in this fenfe, that God gave promifes or encour- 
 agements to parents, that if they weie obedient and faithful, 
 he would blefs or renew their children, and thus be their 
 G<)d ; would this afford any evidence, that his covenant with 
 F 
 
•«'«[■ 
 
 (40 
 
 the Hebrew church was not the covenant of grace ? So far 
 from this, that it would rather afford a ftrong proof in favor 
 of it. An if there were fuch promifes or encouragemer,tfi 
 given to members of the Ifraelitifli church, refpefling their chil- 
 dren on condition of their faithfulnefs ; then thefe are ftill in 
 force refpefting the children of believers. For believing 
 Gentiles are engraffed into this good olive-tree or Jewiih 
 church, and partake cf its root and fatnefs, or of its eflential 
 j)rivileges and promifes, refpefting both themfelves and chil- 
 dren. And the»children of believers are now as capable of be- 
 ing in covenant in this fenfe^ as v/ere the children of the Jewiflj 
 .church. 
 
 The Jewifh children 7»igit alfo in a fenfe belong to the 
 church. .When a Jew circumcifed his child, and thus put 
 -the feal of God's covenant upon it, tlie tranfa£tioa denoted 
 that he dedicated his child to God — fet God's mark upon it 
 as his peculiar property, and thus laid himfelf under peculiar 
 obligations to bring it up for God. As the child was thus 
 yivtn up to Godj the church, as being profefTedly God's peo- 
 ple and friends, might be obligated to take care of it for hinii 
 — to fee, that it was properly inftructed and trained up for 
 his fer-vicp — toexercife a fuitable watch and care over it, and 
 to endeavor to imprefs upon its mind a fenfe of the impor- 
 tance of divine things, and of its obligations to devote itfelf 
 to God, and to enter cordially into his covenant. But if the 
 child, when arrived at a fuirable age, was difobedient, cr vi. 
 citms and vrreligious, or if he manifefted an impenitent tem- 
 per by not entering perfonally irrto God's covenant, attending 
 upon his ordinances, and obeying his ftatutes ; it might be 
 the divine conftitution, that he fhould be cut off or be debar- 
 red from all the privileges of God's church or people. The 
 Jewiih children might belong to God in fome fuch fenfe ; 
 as the church might be under obligation, t» exercife a pecu- 
 liar care and watch ever them, becaufe publicly given to God. 
 But ftill thefe children were not perfonally in covenant with 
 God, or aftual members of his church, until they did in fome 
 way perlbnally aflent to his covenant. And this they did, 
 not only by making a public profe.ffion, as the whole nrtion 
 often did, but alfo "by offering facrifices, circumciung their 
 children, and obferving other divine ordlaances; which were 
 covenant transadions, by which they prcfe/Tcd to affent to, or 
 comply with God's covenant. 
 
 It might pi-ob<>!;ly be on account of their being thiis dedi- 
 cated to^God, Iiaving the ftal uf hi& covenant fst upon them 
 
as his peculiar property, and belonging to his church :n th^ 
 ienfe now pointed out, that the Jewifii children were termedt 
 ^ the holy feed,"* the children of the covenantf and that Gad 
 calls them his children whom they had born to him.;}: 
 
 And as believing Gentiles are grafFed into the fame churcH 
 and partakers of its privileges, fo their children may now 
 Hand in the fame relation to God's church, as Jewifti chil- 
 dren did under the ancient diipenfation. And this may. be 
 :lie reafon v.'hy the children of believers are by the apoftle 
 called holy. Alio when the difcipies rebuked thofe who 
 brought little children unto Chrid, that he might lay his hand 
 on them, and bkfs and pray for them ; Jefus faid, "Suffer 
 Tittle chiidi! en, and forbid them not to come unto me j, for 
 ofluchisthe kingdom of heaven." Mat. xix. 14., Now 
 thofe, who thus brought their children to Chrift for his 
 bleffing, were doubtlefs believers or friends to him ; otherwife 
 they would not have brought them to him for his bleffing. 
 It appears, that thefe children were brought, that Chrlil might 
 blefs them, and not to be cured of any bodily difeafe ; for the 
 difcipies would not have rebuked parents for bringing chil- 
 ilren to be healed; And by the kingdom of heaven our Sa- 
 viour in his difcourfes generally meant his vifibie kingdom or 
 church. When therefore he faid, " Of fiach is the kingdora 
 of heaven" it may teach, that the childi en of believers now 
 were in a certain fenfe to belong to the ChriftJan church, as 
 the Jewifh children did to God's ancient church. 
 
 Should it then be allowed, as objedled, that the Jewifh 
 children in fome fuch fenfe were in covenant, and did belong 
 to the church ; yet this would be no proof, that God's cove- 
 nant with that church was not the covenant of grace, but 
 would rather confirm the evidence, that it was. 
 
 And if this was the caf«!, as fome paliages fecm ta intimatej, 
 then the children of behevers may ftand in this fame relation 
 CO God's covenant and church at prefent. 
 
 And viewing the baptifm of children in this light would' 
 tend to render it a ftill more fignificant, important and fo- 
 lemn tranfadion. When a parent dedicates his children in 
 this ordinance, it is a token of his faith, or aflent to God's 
 covenant, and he thus renews covenant with God, and re- 
 newedly obligates himfelf to walk with God in all the duties 
 of religion> as much as when he fits down at the Lord's table ; 
 He alfo in this ordinance profefles to give up his children to 
 God, and binds himfelf to bring them up for him. The to- 
 •E»Ta, U. 2. f A^s Jii, a5. Erck, xv;. 20, a. 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 Icen of God's covenant being put upon them m?ij denote, 
 that they are given up to God as his in a peculiar manner ; 
 and that therefore the church are obligated to fee, that they 
 have a chriftian education and are brought up in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord, and to take care and watch over 
 them for God, as being his peculiar property. And were 
 parents and the church faithful in inftruding, warning and 
 watching over fuch children, and in impreffing them with a 
 fenfe of their obligations to love and ferve God and devote them- 
 felves to him, it would have a peculiar tendency to reftrain 
 them from vice, ferioufly affcft their minds, and influence 
 them to engage in religion. But it is to be lamented, that, 
 thofe churches and individuals, who pradife infant baptifm, 
 are fo negligent of their duty towards their children ; and 
 that there are other Chriftians, who have fo tar deviated from 
 the original conftitution of God's church, that they even deny 
 it to be their duty to give up their children to God by putting 
 the token of his covenant upon them, and thus to obligate 
 themfelves to bring them up for God. 
 
 Obj. 4. Canaan V- as a type of heaven, and the rites, ordi- 
 nances and ceremonies of the ancient church were typical, 
 and pointed to Chrift and gofpel truths. Therefore it may 
 be concluded, that this church was in a typical covenant, or 
 was a type of the Chriftian church, but was not the real vi- 
 fible church of Chrift. 
 
 Ans. The fcripture no where calls the Hebrew church a 
 type of the Chriftian or gives any hint, that it was a typical 
 in oppofition to a real church. It is doubtlefs true, that many 
 of the ordinances and inftitutions of the Hebrew church were 
 typical, and pointed to gofpel truths. But to argue, that a 
 church muft be merely typical, and not a real church of Chrift, 
 becaufe it was taught gofpel truths by types and emblems, 
 is as abfurd as it would be to argue, that becaufe a perfon is 
 taught a truth bj metaphors or parables, therefore he him- 
 felf m.uft be a mere metaphor, and not a real perfon. Many 
 things refpedling the Hebrew church, and God's dealings with 
 it, were doubtlefs defigned for our inftrudioa, and to illuftrate 
 or exemplify God's dealings with Chriftians. According to 
 the declaration of the apoftle, when fpeaking of what befel 
 them in the wildernefs, " All thefe happened unto them for 
 enfamples : and they are written for our admonition." Thus 
 their journey from Egypt thro' the wildernefs to Canaan, 
 and what befel them by the way, &c. may in mixny re fpefls 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 fcfemble the journey of the Chiiftian, thro' the wildernefs of 
 this world, to the heavenly Canaan. But have we any rea- 
 lon to conclude, that the Hebrew was a typical and not a real 
 church, becaufe their conduft, and God's treatment of 
 them, were defigned for our inftru6tion, and to iiluftrate his 
 dealings with Chrirtians ? Is not this an argument in favour 
 of, rathei than againft their being a real cliurch ? Might we 
 not as well conclude, that Noah an^s Lot were not real Chrif- 
 tians ; becaufe there are many things in Noah's falvjitioa 
 in the aikfrom the deluge, and in Lot's efcape from Sodom, 
 which may refemble, or be illuftrative of the believer's f.ilva- 
 tion from divine wrath ? When therefore perfons aflert, that 
 the Hebrew church was not the real church of Chriil, but a 
 mere type of it, and thus eiU-ntially different from the Chrif- 
 tian ; thsy aiTert that, for which they have no proof, and which 
 is diredlly contrary to the cleareft evidence from the fcriptures, 
 which plainly teach, that the Chriftian and Hebrew church 
 are the fame. And fince the condiiion of the covenant, God 
 made with the Hebrew church in the wildernefs was, thac 
 they (hould love Him with all their heart and foul, and the 
 people expreiily promifed or profeffed to Iceep this covenant ; 
 is it not, at belt, iifing words without fenfe or meaning to fay, 
 as fome do, that this was covenanting typically, or entering 
 into a typical covenant. What fenfe or meaning can there 
 be in faying, that they avouched God typically to be th^ir God : 
 and promifed to love him typically with all their heart, and 
 typically to keep his commands v/ith all their foul ? If fuch 
 promiies as thefe, made by the Hebrew church, were cove- 
 nanting typically, or entering into only a typical covenant, 
 where can we find any real covenant or covenanting. Does 
 any Chriftian church profefs more than this ? And v/ere not 
 all the members of that church, who v/ere at heart what they 
 profeifed, as much entitled to falvation, as any now are? If 
 fo, what propriety or fenfe can there be in calling it a typical 
 covenant ? 
 
 Obj. 5. It is afTerted by fome, that the paflage of Jer. 
 which is quoted and applied by the apolile, Heb. viii. 8, 9, 10, 
 11, iq, is a conclufive proof that the gofpel church is materi- 
 ally different from, the Hebrew ; andlhatthe Abrahamic cove- 
 nant was elfentially different from this new and better cove- 
 nant of grace, upon which the Chriftian church is now fcnn- 
 
 • dad. The words of the apnftle, upon which this objection is 
 
 • founoed, are thefe. " For finding fault with them, he faithj 
 behold the davs come— when I v/ill make ans'^v covcnar^t Vvit:a 
 
(46) 
 
 llie houfe of Ifrael, and vt'lth the houfe of Judah : Not accor- 
 ding to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day 
 I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt ; becaufe 
 they continued not in my covenant, and 1 regarded them not, 
 faith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with 
 the houfe of Ifrael after thofe days ; I will put my laws into 
 their mind, and write them in theiT hearts: And I will be to 
 them a God, and they fliall be to me a people. And they 
 fhall not teach every man his neighbor — aad brother, faying, 
 Know the Lord : for all (hall know me from the leaft to the 
 greateft." And in that he faith " A new covenant, he haih 
 made the firft old." This new covenant it is fuppofed means 
 the covenant of grace, on which the Chriftian church is built ; 
 therefore it is concluded, that the Hebrew church could not 
 be founded on this covenant, and fo muft be materially dif- 
 ferent from the Chriftian. 
 
 In anfwer to this objeflion it may be obferved, 
 I ft. Granting this new covenant to be the covenant of 
 grace, on which the Chriftian church is built, can this covenant 
 be m'w in this fenfe, that it was never revealed to m.ankind 
 before the eftaWiftiment of the Chriftian church ? Iffo, then 
 all, who lived before this period, fuch as Enoch, Noah, Abra- 
 harn, Mofes, &c. were loft ; for none can be faved but by a 
 compliance with the covenant of grace. But who that be- 
 lieve the fcriptures, can fuppofe this r Befides, the apoftle ex- 
 prefsly declares that the gofpel, which certainly contains the 
 covenant of grace, was preached unto Abraham, and that the 
 promife to him was " of faith, that it might be by grace.'* 
 And this clearly proves, that the Abrahamic covenant, on 
 •^hich the Hebrew church was founded, was the covenant of 
 grace. And this is further evident from the confideration 
 ♦hat God made the fame promife ro Abraham and the He- 
 brew church, which he makes in this new covenant. He pro- 
 mifed Abraham to be his God ; and to the Hebrew church 
 he fays, Excd. vi. 7, " I will take you to me for a people, and 
 i will be to you a God." 
 
 So in this new covenant he fays " I will be to them a God, 
 and they fhall be to me a people." It is evident then from 
 thefe confideraticns, that the covenant of grace, being here 
 called T.e'u)^ cannot mein, that it was never revealed to man- 
 kind before the Chriftian difpenfation. Confequently it af- 
 fords no proof, that the x\brahamic church, which practifed 
 circurocifion, was not built on the covenant of grace, or was 
 materially different from the Chriftian church. 
 
(47) 
 
 adlf' It may be noticed, that the apoflle in this paffage 
 gives clear evidence, that he did not mean the Abrahsmic 
 covenant, by what he terms the eld covenant. For God de- 
 clares that this new covenant ihall be, " Not according to the 
 covenant, that he made with their fathers ia the day when he 
 took them by theihand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." 
 This ihows, that by what is here called the old CQvenanti is 
 meant that covenant, which was made with Ifrael at Mount 
 Sinai, called the Law or the Mofaic difpenfaiion, which' in- 
 cluded the ceremonial laws and inftitutions, and all thofe types 
 and lh:idovvs, that pointed to Chrift aud gofpel truths. But 
 this legal or Mofaic difpsnfation was entirely diftind from 
 that difpenfacion of the covenant, which God made with 
 Abraham when he fet up his vifible church in his family ; as 
 ise/identfrom Gal. iii. 17, 18. For fpeaking of the pronriife 
 to Abraham and his feed, the apoftle obferves, «« And this I 
 fay, that the covenant that was confirmed before God m Chrift, 
 the law [or Mofaic difpe«fation] which was four hundred and 
 thirty years after, cannot difannul, that it Ihould make the 
 promife ofnoneeffe<a. For if the inheritance be of the law, 
 it is no more of promife : but God gave it to Abraham by 
 promife."- If therefore it Ihould be allowed, that what is 
 here termed the old covenant, made with the Ifraelites at 
 Mount Sinai, was not the covenant of grace ; yet this would 
 be no proof, that the Abrahamic covenant war. not, fmce a^ 
 has been fbown, thefe two covenants were entirely diftinft. 
 But ftili it might be (hown, were it neceflfary, that even the 
 Mofaic difpenfation or Sinai covenant, did contain the cove- 
 nant of grace, obfcurely revealed by types and emblems 
 which pointed to Chrift, and dire<fted the faith of the Ifraelites 
 to him for falvation. Thus the numerous facrifices, enjoined 
 in that difpenfation, pointed diredly to the atonement or fa- 
 crifice of Chrift, taught them their need of his blood, and that 
 without (bedding of blood there was no remiffion. Their 
 ceremonial cleanfings were to teach them their need of inward 
 purity or a new heart. Thus it was the gofpel or covenant 
 of grace under typei and Ihadows. But, 
 
 It may be enquired. Why the covenant of grace, under 
 the Chriftian difpenfation is called ne'vj, if it is efTentially the 
 fame covenant, which was revealed to Abraham, and upon 
 which the Hebrew church was built ? 
 
 3dly. To this enquiry it may be anfwered, that the difpen- 
 fation of the covenant of grace under the gofpei is tacw and 
 dtlFerent from the former di/peufatioos 19 this feofe ^ thac 
 
(48) 
 
 it Is a dirpenfation attended with more light . and fplrituality, 
 in which the great truths of religion are more clearly reveal- 
 ed, and there are more copious effufions of the fpirit to write 
 the divine law en the heart. Under th^ former difpenfation 
 thetruthsof r?l;gicn~vere but obfcurely revealed, and Utile 
 underftood. The moft of the Ifraehtes appeared to have but 
 litttleidea of their native depravity, and of the nature of true 
 religion, or of what God required of them in his covenant. 
 Therefore the whole nation ufed tf enter into God's covenant, 
 and profefs religion, uhile few of them peihaps had any real 
 piety. Of courCe being deflitute of religion " they continued 
 not in God's covenant," into which they profefTed to enter ; 
 but openly apoftatized and fell into wickednefs and idolatry. 
 But faulting them for their breaking his covenant, God de- 
 clares by his prophet in the words, quoted by the apoftle, 
 that it fhoald not be fo under the new and better covenant or 
 difpenfation which was coming ; but that he would put his 
 laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts— would 
 be to them a God, and that all ftiould know him from the 
 leaft to the greatefi. 1 hns the words are evidently a prophe- 
 cy concerning ice gofpel difpenfation, Ihov.ing, that k would 
 be new and different in many refpefts from the Jewifti— -that 
 it would be more fpiritual, and God's law would be more 
 "pi'ritten in the hearts of his profeffing people, and that the 
 time would come under that difpenfation, tvhen all fhould 
 know the Lord ; as we expeft will be the cafe in the Millen- 
 ulum. But it is manifeft, tliat this prophecy or declaration 
 has never yet been fully verified. The covenant of grace 
 then under the gofpel difpenfation is new in much the fame 
 fem'e, that tlie command of our Saviour was, when h« faid, 
 A new command give I unto you, that ye love one another." 
 None can with truth aflSrm, tliat this command was never re- 
 vealed before. For it was exprefsly enjoined by God upon 
 his ancient church. For the fum of the fecond table of ths 
 moral law, given by Mofes, as explained by our Saviour, was 
 " Thju (halt love thy neigbour as thyfelf." This command 
 then, " Ye Ihall love one another" was nriv in this fenfe, 
 that it was now more clearly and plainly enjoined than betore. 
 So the covenant of grace under the gofj-el may be called a 
 ;?£^cw and bstter covenant ; becaufe it is a n>uch more clear and 
 full difpenfation of the great truths of leiis ion, and is at- 
 tended with more fpirituality. And ihofe rites and ceremo- 
 nies,, which were blended with the Mofaic difpenfation of the 
 covcr/.int of £' ace, and which did tut oufcurely teach the 
 
(49) 
 
 truths of the gofpel, did indeed wax old, and vanifii away be- 
 fore the clearer light o f the Chriftian difpenfation. But ftill 
 it is no proof, that the Hebrew church was not the fame as 
 the ChriHian, becaufe it was divine truth in a more obfcure 
 manner, as has been already fhown. As well might we con- 
 clude, that a man is not the fame perfon, he was when a 
 child ; becaufe he is now governed and inftrufted in a dif- 
 ferent manner from what he then was. 
 
 Obj. 6. The Abrahamic covenant cannot be the cove- 
 nant of grace ; becaufe God fays of it, Gen. xvii. 14. "My 
 covenant fhallb»in yourflefli." But the covenant of grace, 
 it is concluded, cannot be in the flefh, 
 
 Ans. All allow, that the Abrahamic covenant promifed 
 the land of Canaan, and various other blefilngs. But none 
 can rationally fuppofe that the land of Canaan, and thefe other 
 bleffings were put into the fle(h of a child, when he was cir- 
 cHmcifed ; and that the covenant was thus literally in their 
 flefti ? This would be quite as abfurd as to fuppofe w^ith rhc 
 Papifts, that we literally eat the flefti or body of Chrift» 
 when partaking of the Lord's fupper ; becaufe he faid in the 
 inftitution, " Take, cat, this is my body." But if the cove- 
 nant could not be literally in thfeir fiefli, wh at can be the 
 meaning of the paflage ? It is clearly explained in but the 
 fecond preceding verfe. ** Ye fhall circumcife the flefti of 
 your foreskin, and it JJjall be the token of the covenant betwixt 
 me and you." Here we are taught that circumcifion is the 
 tokenof the covenant. When therefore it is faid, that the 
 covenant " fhall be in your flefh" it evidently means that 
 circumcifion the token of the covenant fliould be in their flefti. 
 And fines the paffage is thus clearly explained in a prece- 
 ding verfe, it is ftrange that any could ever think of under- 
 ilanding it literally, or could imagine, that it afforded any 
 evidence, that the Abrahamic covenant was not the covenant 
 of grace. Hov/ can it be any evidence, that this was not the 
 covenant of grace, becaufe the token of it was in the flefh ? 
 
 Tht: Baptills therafelves fuppofe, that baptifm is a token of 
 faith ; and thus it is a token of the covenant of grace, or of 
 an aiTsnt to it. Baptifm then is now a token of God's cove- 
 nant on the flsfh, as circumcifion was a token of it in the flefh. 
 No reafon therefore can be given, why the one may not be 
 a token of the covenant of grace, as well as the other. 
 
 But it is objeded by fome of the baptifls, that the cove- 
 n.mt cf grace is fomething internal or fpiritual, and therefore 
 there car; b° no eicrsrnai token of it. 
 
In anfwer to this it may be obferred, that by the teken of 
 a covenant is meant fome token or fign, by which we vifibly 
 give our aifent to it. And furely God can appoint a token 
 or fign, which may be a vifible token of our faith, or affent 
 to the covenant of grace. And if fo, there may be a vifible 
 or external token of this covenant. Yea, the Baptifts thenr;- 
 felves muft allow, that a profeffion and baptifm in adults are 
 vifible figns or tokens cf faith or grace in the heart, and fc 
 of fomething internal and fpiritual. And whatever is a to- 
 ken of faith is in faft a token of an afTent to the covenant of 
 grace. Therefore the objedion, that there can be no vifible 
 token of the covenant of grace, is evidently without any foun- 
 dation. 
 
 What has been faid alfo fhows the abfurdity of calling the 
 Abrahamic coveaant a flefhly covenant, as many of the Bap- 
 tifts do ; becaufe circumcifion tire token of it was in the flefii. 
 We may withjuft as much propriety call the covenant of 
 grace under the Chriftian difpenfation a fleflily covenant, be- 
 caufe baptifm is new a token on the flefh. Or we may as 
 well call any covenant, a waxen covenant, becaufe the feal 
 of it is imprefled upon wax. 
 
 Obj. 7th. Real religion was not required in God's co- 
 venant with his ancient church or as the condition of their 
 being his church or people, as it is of the Chriftian church ; 
 becaufe God called them his people, at times, when they 
 were very degenerate and corrupt, and but very few amon^ 
 them had any real religion. But it is concluded, that he 
 could not confidently do this, had real holinefs been required 
 in the covenant or conftitution of that church. 
 
 Ans. The Lord Jefus in his epiftles to the feven churches 
 of Afia, addreffes them as his churches, although fome of 
 them Vv-ere very corrupt, and tolerated idolatry, fornication, 
 and other grofs vices. When he addrefied the moft corrupt of 
 them, and reproved and threatened them, ftill he called them 
 his churches as much as he did the moft pure of them. Thus 
 headdruired the chiirch of Sardis as being his church, altho' 
 he told them, that they had a name to live, but were dead ; 
 and that there were but few of them, who were not defiled ; 
 leprefenting, ti^at they were generally deftitute cf real reli- 
 gion or fpiritual life. The Laodicean church is rcprefented 
 ftill more degenerate— as being fpiritually poor, wretthed, 
 miferable, blind and naked, which muft certainly imply, that 
 they were generally in a ftate of fm. Yet they were addref. 
 fed as being a chuich of tlnilt, as much as any one of the 
 
( St ) 
 
 fpvsn. We might therefore as well argue from this, that 
 teal religion is not now required by Cliritl, as a term of mem- 
 berfliip in his church ; as v/e can, that it was not rpquired in 
 God's ancient church, becaafe God called them his people, 
 when generally corrupt. Chrift might confrllently addref-; 
 thefc churches as being his, although corrupt ; becaafe they 
 profcfTed to be /^is. iao the Jews might confiftently be cal- 
 led God's church or people, as they profclFsd to be his, ai- 
 though generally corrupt and deftitute of religion. When 
 they grew degenerate, God was continually reproving, warn- 
 ing and threatening them by his prophets, and chaflifiag them 
 rvith judgments for feveral hundred years ; tiii iJie whole na- 
 tionwere finally dcftroyed or captivated by Nebuchadnezzar. 
 Alfo when they became degenerate after their return from 
 Babylon, God waited upon them many years, reproved and 
 warned them by John the Babtift^ Chrift, and his apoflles, 
 Lill at length they were broken off from his church and 
 wretchedly deftroyed. So Chrift warned and threatened his 
 churches in Afia, and waited upon them and chaftifiid them 
 ior feveral hundred years. But as they grew more and mora 
 corrupt, he finally deftroyed them, and removed their can,. 
 dleftick out of his place- 
 Thus God's treatment of them in many refpefls was very 
 fimilar to his treatment of his ancient church, and fo it corro- 
 borates the evidien'SC) that Uj.ey ar« eifentially tlie fame. 
 
(52) 
 
 SERMON IIL 
 
 HAVING, as it is appreliendefl, fully proved, that the 
 Jewifh and Chriftian church is the fame, and ah'b ob- 
 viated the moft weighty and plaufible cbjedions ; it is pro- 
 pofed, 
 
 III. To make applicatiorl of the fnbje<S irt proof of the 
 duty of infant-baptifm. 
 
 I ft. It is abundantly evident from oar fubje(5l, that the 
 Jewifh and Chriftian curch is the fame, and that believing' 
 Gentiles ate grafFed into the fame church, or olive-tree, from 
 tvhich the unbelieving Jews were broken off. It is alfo unde- 
 niably manifeft, that the Abrahamic covenant was a covenant 
 of grace, and that circumcifion, the token of this covenant^ 
 was a feal or token of the faith of believers. It is further evi. 
 dent, that all the members of God's ancient church were di- 
 reded t® circumcife their chidren and houfeholds, and thus to 
 apply this token of the covenant of grace and feal of their 
 faith to their childien, as well as to themfelves- If therefore 
 the Chriftian church is the fame v;tth God's ancient church 
 — is but the continuation of that church under a new difpe n- 
 fation ; ought not the members of it now to apply the feal of 
 their faith, or the token of the covenant of grace to their 
 children, as the members of God's ancient church were direc- 
 ted to do,- unlefs there is fome command or diredion to the 
 contrary ? Have they any warrant to negledl this duty, which 
 God has once enj-oined upon his church without fome direc- 
 tion er intimation from him ? But no one can pretend, that any 
 fuch command or intimation can befound inthe bible, directing 
 the members of God's church not to apply the token of his 
 covenant, or feal of their faith to their children, as he has once 
 commanded them. What right then have they to neglect 
 this duty, which has been once enjoined, and never revoked ? 
 A command once given by God, ftands in full force, until 
 revoked. Thus God commanded the ancient church to keep 
 one day, in feven, as a holy fabbath. And as he has never 
 revoked this command, it is as bincfeg upon us, as it was up- 
 on them, Altho' the day is changed from thefeventh to the 
 fiift, ftill this docs not difannul the command of keeping one 
 
(53) 
 
 fevertth part of time hf)Iy. So God alfo commanded his an« 
 cient churcli to put the token of his covenant, or of their 
 faith upon their children, as well as upon themfelve?, and 
 has never revoked this command. Therefore the command 
 is as binding upon us, as it was upon them. Akho' this to- 
 ken or feal is changed from circumcifion to baptifm, ftill it ne 
 more dilannals the command to put it upon infants ; than 
 the change of the fabbath from the fcventh to the fird day, 
 difannuls the command to keep one day in feven as a holy 
 fiibbath. 
 
 Had circumcifion continued to be the feal or token of the 
 faith of believers in the Chriftian church, as it was in the 
 Jewifh, and had the command to the apoftles been, " Go, 
 teach ail nations, oircumciling them in the name of the fa- 
 ther, Szc." no perfon cculd ever have iufpedcd, that tliis 
 " feal of ihe lighteoufnefs of faith" was not to be applied to the 
 children of believers or profeifors, as it ufed to be before the 
 coming of Chrirt. If therefore it can be fhown, that there is 
 now and ordinance in God's church under the Chriftian dif- 
 penfation, which in its deiign and import anfvvers to circum- 
 cifion ; the evidence will be very itrong and conclufive, that it 
 cugiitto be applied to children, as circumcifion was ; unlefs 
 there is fome diredion to the contrary. But does not baptifm 
 ia Its import and defign evidently anfvver to circumcifion in 
 God's ancient church, as has been already fhown. 
 
 I ft. Circumcifion was a token of the covenant of grace 
 between God, and thofe who applied it to themfelves or 
 children, and was a feal or token of their faith, or of their 
 affent to this covenant. So baptifm is now a feal or token of 
 tiie faith of believers, and thus it is a token of the covenant of 
 '^race, of which faith is the condition. It is therefore a to- 
 ken of the covenant between God, and thofe who apply it to 
 themfelves or children, juft as circumcifion was in God's an- 
 cienr church. 
 
 2ndly. As circumcifion was a feal or token of faith and of 
 the covenant of grace, no one without faith coaid have any 
 right to it, either forhimfelfor children. Accordingly " A- 
 biaham received the fign of circumcifion, a feal of the right- 
 eoufnefs of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcifcd ;" 
 fhowing, he firil beheved, and then circimcifed himfelf and 
 houfehold in token of his faith ; and fo that faith was the con- 
 dition of circumcifion. When therefore any heathen wiflied to 
 be admitted to the JevviHi church or ordinances, he fir/l pro- 
 
{ 54 j 
 
 TctTed his faith in the God of Ifrael, before he or his farAiTf 
 were circumcifed. 
 
 »So Philip told the Eunuch, that he might he baptized, if 
 he believed with all his heart ; which fiiows,that faith is the 
 condition of baptifm, as it was of circumcifion, and that no 
 perfons therefore have a right to baptifra for themfelves or 
 tbildren, until they firft profefs their faith. 
 
 jdly. Circumcifion denoted the natural corruption of man» 
 kind, and the neceffity of a renovation of heart : fo baptifm 
 ftrikingly reprefents our natural pollution, and need of being 
 renewed or cleanfed by the wafhing of regeneration. 
 
 4thly. Circumcifion might point to tlje blood of Chrift, 
 and be defigned to lead the Hebrew church to feel the necef- 
 fity of the (bedding of blood for the remifllon of fm. 
 
 So baptifm is nov/ calculated to imprefs us with a fenfe of 
 the neceffity of being fprinkled with the blood of the Redee- 
 mer, that blood of fprinkling, which cleanfeth from all fm, 
 as the only ground of pardon an juftification. 
 
 Finally, as circumcifion was the door of admiffion into 
 Chrift's ancient church in the fenfe, that no one could become 
 a member of it, and attended upon its ordinances, unlefs cir- 
 cumcifed ; fo now no perfon can rightfully become a mem- 
 ber of Chrift's church, or partake of the Lord's Supper, unlefs 
 baptized. 
 
 It is abundantly evident from thefe obfervations, that the 
 meaning and dcfign ©f circumcifion and baptifm are eflfential- 
 iT the fame ; and that baptifm anfwers the fame ciads in the 
 Chriftian church, as circumcifion did in the Jewifli, If there- 
 fore baptifm in its import and defign does thus anfwer to 
 circumcifion — is now the token of the faith' of believers, and 
 of the covenant of grace, as circumcifion was under the Jewifii 
 Jifpenfation ; then it is certain, that baptifm does now ftand 
 infi.ead of circumcifion. Confequently it ought to be applied 
 to children of believers or profefTurs, as circumcifion was ; 
 fince God has given no command or diredion to the con- 
 trary. 
 
 Further, in that covenant, which God made with Abra- 
 ham, and which conftituted him the father of all that believe, 
 God fays to him Gen. xvii. 9, and lo. "Thou {halt keep my 
 covenant therefore, thou, and thy feed after thee, in their gen- 
 ci atirns. This is my covenant which ye Ihall keep between 
 jue and you, and thy feed after thee ; every man-child among 
 you fliiiil be circumcifed." Here is a plain command, that 
 the feed of Abraham after him in their generations fhould keep 
 
(55) 
 
 covenant with God by applying the totcen of God's covenant 
 and the feal of their faith to their natural children. But by 
 the feed here in this covenant is meant more efpecially his 
 fpiritual feed. For the apoftle fays, " If ye be Chrift's then 
 are ye Abraham's feed and heirs according to the promife," 
 Tcferring to the promife in this covenant that God would be a 
 God to him and his feed after him. Since therefore believers 
 are the feed of Abraham, refpedted in this covenant, it is evi- 
 dent that the command, " Thou fhalt keep my covenant 
 therefore, thou and thy feed after thee in their generations,'* 
 rauft be binding upon them. And fincc, as has been fhown, 
 baptifm does anfwer to circumcilion, as a token of the fame 
 covenant of grace, and has come in its ftead, are not believers, 
 the true feed of Abraham, as much commanded to keep God's 
 covenant by applying the token of it to their children, as he 
 was ? For the command vyas as exprefs to his feed after him in 
 their generations, as it was to him. Accordingly when any 
 of the heathen joined themfelves to God's ancient church, and 
 thus profefledly became the feed of Abraham, they obferved 
 this command by ci re umcidng their children. 
 
 Is there not therefore a plain command, which has nerer 
 been revoked, that believers, or tliofe who enter into God's co- 
 venant, and profefs to be the feed of Abraham, fiiould apply 
 the token of their faith and of this covenant to their children ? 
 Do not thofe then, who negled this command, negleft a 
 plain command of God ? .Had circumcifion continued to be 
 the feal of the faith of believers in the Chriftian church, as it 
 was in the Jewifh ; all mult allow, that it onght to be applied 
 to children, as it ufcd to be. Since therefore baptifm does 
 now anfwer to circumcifiQn, or ftand inftead of it, is it not as 
 certain, that it ought to be applied to children ; as tho' cir- 
 cumcifion had ftill continued to be the feal of the believer's 
 faith ? In this view of the fubjeft is not the proof of the duty 
 of infant-baptifm from circumcifion very clear and conclu- 
 five ? Yea, is it not unanfwerable, unlefs it can be (hown, ei- 
 ther th.it the Abrahamic covenant was not the covenant of 
 grace — That the Jewifh church was not effentially the fame 
 as the ChrLiliaa, and that believing Gentiles are not the it^<^ 
 ai Abraham and were not graffed into the fame church or 
 olive tree, from which the unbelieving Jev/s were broken off; 
 or elfe that baptifm is not the feal or token of the believer's 
 fitiih, and of the covenant of grace, as circumcifion was ; or 
 elfe .that God has direvfted his church not to apply the feal ef 
 ificir fiith to their children, as he once commanded thorn : 
 
(56) 
 
 Unlels one of thefe things can be fiiown, the evidence in fa. 
 vor of infant-baptifm appears conclufive and unanfweraWe. 
 But that no one can do either of thefe, it is apprehended, muft 
 be evident to every candid mind, who attentively confiders 
 what has been fuggefted from the fcriptures on this fubje<S'. 
 And virould our Baptifts but view the fubjeft with coolnefs 
 £.nd candor, and confider, that to invalidate this proof, it is 
 not fufiicient merely to urge a few plaufible objeftions ; but 
 that they muft fairly prove, that the Abrahamic covenant was 
 not the covenant of grace, that believing Gentiles were not 
 graffed into the fame church, from which the unbelieving 
 Jews were broken off, and that baptifm is not the *' feal of 
 the righteoufnefs of faith" as circumcifion w?s ; it would feem 
 that they couidnot perfift in denying the duty of infant-bap- 
 tifm. For until they can fairly prove thefe things, they muft 
 let, that tlie proof in favor of this dodrine ftands firm.* 
 
 • This proof of infant-baptifm, from the Abrahamic covenant, may de- 
 rive additional evidence from the apoftle's allegory, Gal. iv. 23,29. Here 
 he confiders Abraham's two wives and their fons, as an allegorical reprsfenta- 
 tioii of the Abrahamic and Mofalc covenants. *' Which things," fsys he, 
 ♦* are an allegory } for thefe are the two covenants j" the one from Mount 
 Sinai, which is Agar or Hagar, Vcrfe 24. By the two covenants muft 
 be meant the Abrahamic and Sinai or Mofaic covenants, of which the 
 apoftle had been, particularly, difcourfing in the preceding part of this 
 epiftle. 
 
 At Sarah was firft \yife to Abraham ; fo the Abrahamic covenant wai 
 fifft thcconftitution or bafi& ofGod's ancient vifible church. And as Ha- 
 gar afterwards became his wife with Sarah ; fo the Sinai or Mofaic covenant 
 was afterwards fuperadded to the Abrahamic, as the conftiturion of this 
 church. But after a while, Hagar and her fon were caft out. So at the 
 death of Chrift, the Mofaic difpc nfation v;as abolished, and the unbelieving 
 Jews, who clung to this, and rejefled the gofpel, were caft out, like the 
 bondmaid and her fon — They were, thro' unbelief, broken off from the 
 olive-tree, or the church of God. — And a<; Sarah remained alone the wife 
 of Abraham, after the expulficn of Hagar ; fo, after the abolition cf the 
 Mofaic difpenfation, the covenantor promife made with Abraham becamt 
 again ii.c only conftitution or foundation of God's vifible church. 
 
 Thert is, therefore, according to this allegory, the fame evidence, that 
 the Abrahamic covenant reirwined the foundation of the Chriftian church, 
 after the abolition of the Mufaic difpenfation ; as that Sarah continued 
 Abraham's wife, after that Hapar was cart out.— Thus believing Gentiles, 
 are grafted into the fame olive- tree, from which the unbelieving Jews weis 
 broken off, partake of the root and fatnefsof the olive-tree^ cr enjoy the 
 bieflings of Abraham. Therefore the apoHls fays, " If ye be Chrift's ; 
 then are ye Abraham's feed, and hciis according to the promifej" And he 
 Cilis Abraham the fatlier of ail, who believe. 
 
 Since therefore the Abtaha.nic covenant continues now to be the ex-ter- 
 r,a! cor.fticution or foundation of the Chriftian churcfi, and believers are 
 now Alriiham's feed ; ou^ht they not to apply tlie token of this covenani; 
 citgrace, 01 the fcai of the righteoufnefs of fdith to their children ? For the. 
 
(57) 
 
 II. The vievr, which has now been taken of* our fubje^, 
 will clearly (how, how weak and inconckafive many of the 
 moll plaufible objeftions and arguments are, which are urged 
 againft infanl-baptifm. 
 
 Objection ift. There is no erprefs command for infant- 
 baptifm in the New-Teftament ; and therefore it ought not 
 to be praSifed. 
 
 Answer. God has exprefsly commanded thofe, \tho enter 
 into covenant with him, and thus become members of hi« 
 church, to apply the token of this covenant, and of theirfaith 
 to their children, and has never revoked this command. This 
 command of God therefore ftands in full force, confirmed by 
 the pra6lice of his ancient church for feveral thoufand years. 
 Confequently it was unneceflary for him to repeat this com- 
 mand to his church in the New-Teftament. As the apeftler. 
 had been educated in the Jewifli church — had always feen the 
 members of this church put the token of the covenant and of 
 their faith upon their children, and had alfo feen this token 
 applied to the children of the Heathen, who proiefled their 
 faith in Gk)d, and joined his church ; fo they would natural- 
 ly fuppofe, that the feal of the faith of believers wa« dill to be 
 applied to their children. There was therefore no need of 
 commanding them anew to apply the feal of the covenant to 
 the children of believers. For they would have had no idea 
 ef omitting it without fome diretftion not to apply it. Thus 
 when the apoftfes were commanded to " Go and teach all 
 nations, baptizing them,'* &c. they would naturally apply the 
 {eaioi'mc rigliteoufaefs of faitli, to the children of believers, 
 
 comtnatid is, "Thoafljalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy feed aft«r 
 tbee j" and all real bslievtrs are in a peculiar manner the feed of Abraham. 
 If then, baptifm is nov/ the feal or token of this gracious covenant j it i\)~ 
 pears, that all real chiiiTians are as much obligated to apply it to their chil- 
 dren ; as the Ifraelites were to circurrcife their's.— Hov/ can this argume;!!; 
 be evaded, unlefs it can Le (hewn, either that the Abrahamic covenant is 
 difannulled, andis not the found-ticn cf iheChriftian church; or, that tlie 
 command to apply the token cf ih« covenant to children is revoked ? But nei- 
 ther of thefe can be proved from the v/ord of God. 
 
 Again. We are taught, Rom. xi. that when the Jewifli nation <ln!l be 
 converted to Cliriftianity, they will be again graffed "into their own olive- 
 tree," or be received into che fame church, from which they were broken 
 off, and then be reftored to their ancient covenant rclasion to God. But 
 will they not then apply the feal or token of God's covenant to their children, 
 23 their church slw»)s did, from its firft inititjtion in the family of Abra- 
 ham — and efpecially fince the covenant with their father Abraham ftill re- 
 mains theconilitution of this. church, into v.hich they will Le received. Sw- 
 an fxpla.iation of :ht fcripture allegory of Sar?.h tnd H*g;.r by Rev. Aaroc 
 Rime. 
 
(58) 
 
 as-well asto the parents; and fo would baptize both parents 
 and children, unlefs they had fome diredion to thscontrary. 
 In this view it may be. clearly feen, why an exprefs command 
 to baptize infants was unneceflary. It is therefore incumbent 
 en thofe who deny tlie duty of infant-baptifm, to produce 
 feme fcriptore, which diredls, that the feal of the believer's 
 faith fhall not be applied to his children, as it ufed to be in 
 God's ancient church ; inftead of objeding to us the want of 
 a- command. We can produce a command of God, which 
 exprefsly enjoins this upon his church. The burden of proof 
 therefore lies on them to fhow, that God has revoked this 
 command, or given a contrary diredlion. The feal of the 
 covenant of grace, or the token of the believer's faith, being 
 cJianged from circumcifion, to baptifm, no more difannuls 
 the command to apply it to children^ than the change of the 
 fabbath,.from the feventh to the firft day of the week, dilannuls 
 die command to keep one feventh part of time holy. And 
 we can fee no more need of an exprefs command for infant- 
 baptifm, than for obferving the iirft day of the week as the 
 fabbath. If therefore the want of an exprefs command for 
 infant-baptifm is a proof, that it ought not to be pradifed, 
 rhen we ought not to keep the firll day of the week as holy 
 time, fince tliere is no exprefs command for it. Neither ought 
 females, to be admitted to the Lord's fupper, fince there is no 
 precept or example for it in tiie New-Teftament. Thefe and 
 many other duties, which may be clearly prov:^" from fcrip- 
 ture, and which jiiany, that deny infant-baptifm, allow to be 
 duties, muft be given up .; if the want of an exprefs command 
 isafufficientreafon againil a practice. Thefe confiderations 
 clearly Ihow xhut the want of an exprefs command for infant- 
 baptifm is no proof againft it. For there may be fufficient 
 evidence for a duty, which is not exprefsly commanded. 
 
 Otj. 2d. Theie is no account or example of infant-bap- 
 tifm in the fcriptures- 
 
 Ans. Should it be granted, that this is the cafe ; yet it 
 would be no proof, tliat infant-baptifm was not pradifed* 
 When God ccafed from the work oi the creation, he inftituted 
 the fabbath by bleffing and fanftifying the feventh day. But 
 there is no account of its being obferved by any perfon, nor is 
 it even mentioned in the fcriptures after its inftitution, till the 
 time of Mofes, which was about 2,500 years. But is this any 
 proof that the fabbath was never obferved during this long 
 period ; and can we fuppofe, that Err. h, Noah, Abraham, 
 and tl;e vOtb.er pious patriaixhs lived in the enti-e Heg^Iedt of 
 
(f9) 
 
 this command of God ; merely becaufe we have no account of 
 their obferving the fabbath ? There is no account, that a (la- 
 r;le member of the church in Theirjlonica wac ever baeti/ed ; 
 but is this any proof, that they were all unbaptized ? Or is ic 
 a.ny- preofj that no Ifraelites were circumciltd from the days 
 of fofhua till the birth of John the Eapliil ; becaufe we have no 
 account of the circumcifion of any during that period i Theia 
 confiderations Ihow, that, fuppofmg there was no account of 
 the baptifm of any children or houfeholds on il^e faith of the 
 parent or head of the family |. If ill this would be no pVoof, 
 that none were thus baptized. When there is futncienc evi- 
 dence of a divine inftitution, there being no account of its be- 
 ing praftifed, is no proof at all againll it. The v/ant of fuch 
 an account is mere negative evidence, and therefore, can have 
 no weight againft pofitive proof. 
 
 But further, it cannot with truth be a(?erted, that there is no 
 example in the New-Teftament, where baptifm was adminis- 
 tered to the children or houfehold on account of the faith of 
 the parent or head. For the houfehold of Lydia were bap- 
 ti/.ed with her, altho' there is no account, that any of -them be- 
 lieved ; as is evideat from the hiftory of the tranfadlion, re- 
 corded, Adis xvi. 14, 15. "And a certain woman named 
 Lydia,: a feller of purple, of the eity of Thy atira, which wor- 
 fliipped God, heard us ; whofe heart the Lord opened, that 
 Ihe attended unto the things w^hich were fpoken of Paul. And 
 when fhe was baptized, and her houfehold, (he befought us, 
 laying, If ye have judged'me* to be faithful to the Lord, 
 come into my houfe and abide there. And (he conftrained 
 us." It appears from this account, that Lydia was of Thya^ 
 tira, originated from that city, but jaow lived with her houfe^ 
 hold or family in Philippi ; where fhe bad a houfe, ia which 
 fhe lodged the apoftle for fome time. Whether Lydia was a 
 widow, or had never been married, or whether her hulband 
 was not mentioned, becaufe abfent or not a believer, is im- 
 material. It is certain, that fhe had a family or houfehold* 
 And whether her family confided of fervants, or children, or 
 both, is of no confequence to the argument. For the ikory 
 reprefents, that they were baptized upon her faith, and gives 
 not the leafc intimation, that any one of them believed. This 
 exaftly correfponds with the praflice of God's ancient church. 
 
 * If ere it may he noticed^ that the sayr, if ys have judged me, [_nof 
 Wy hoiisshoW^to he faithful crfmcere in my profcijion, bV. Docs 
 Kit thii intimate, that the akns frsfjsed to be faithful or fiom .-' 
 
(6o) 
 
 Thus when Abraham enteicd into covenant with God, he pur 
 circumcifion, the feal of his faith upon his fon and upon all 
 the males of his houfehold, as well as upon hirrfelf. And 
 when any heathen became a profelyte and profelled his faith 
 in God ; the feal of the covenant was put both upon him- 
 felf and houfehold. So when the Lord opened Lydia's heart 
 and (he believed and entered into covenant with God ; (he 
 •was baptized, and her houfehold ; and thus the feal of her 
 faith was applied to them as well as to herfelf. How exaflly 
 then does the praSice of the apoftle in this example correfponi 
 with the praffice of God's ancient church, into which the 
 believing Gentiles were graffed ? 
 
 But the Baptifts, anxious to wreft away this example which 
 lies againft tham, urge, that her houfehold were all adult 
 believers ; becaufe it is faid in the la ft verfe of the chapter, 
 ** And they went out of" the prifon, and entered into thie houfe 
 ofLydia: and when they had feen the brethren, they com- 
 forted them and departed." Upon this it may be obferved, 
 thtit the apoftles had been preaching many days in this city 
 after the converfion of Lydia, and had made many convarts j 
 for we find by the epitlle to the Philippians, that there was a 
 church in this city with bifiiops and deacons. Btic at length 
 being beaten and call into prifon, they were, when rcleafed 
 from prifon, defued to depart out of the city. They therefore 
 returned to the houfe of Lydia, where they had refided ; and 
 when they had feen the brethren or converts, who would un- 
 doubtedly colle(5l to fee them before their departure, they 
 comforted ihem, and departed. Now here is not the leaft in- 
 timation, that by thefe brethren were meant the houfehold of 
 Lydia, or that this houfoWd v/ere all believers. It appears 
 then, after all that can be laid on the fubjeft, that there is no 
 evidence, that the houi'ahold of Lydia were believers. Confe- 
 qu^ntly their baptifm ftands in facred writ, as an example in 
 favor of the baptifm of children or houfeholds on account of 
 the faith of the parent or head. None therefore can wiih 
 truth affcrt, that there is no example in the New-Teftament, 
 where baptifm was adminiftered to the family upon the faith 
 of the head. There is alfo an account in this chapter of the 
 baptifm of the jailor and his family. It is faid, that he " was 
 baptized, and all his itraightway." But tliere is no proof, 
 that any of them believed but himfelf. For the littral tianf- 
 lation of the Greek in the next verfc i: , " Pie rejoiced in 
 or with all his houfe, he having be'ieved in God. 
 
 It may further be noticed, ch*tin the account of the apoilles' 
 
(or) 
 
 iJTcaeliJng, it is faid, <« And they fpafee tinto Hm the .^^ord •f 
 the Lord, and to all that were in hu houfe," mtimatmg. that 
 there were fomeprefent befides his family. But m the ac- 
 count of his baptifm, it is not faid, " He was baptized, and 
 all that were in his houfe," but " be and all h.s, i. e. fivch as 
 belonged to him, were at his difpofal, or of h.s own family 
 And does not this plainly intimate, that they ^%%^^P"^^f^ 
 upon his foith ? elle why are they fo exprefsly called h.s ? But 
 fuppofma:, there had been no example of the baptifm of a tam- 
 ily upon the parent's faith, ftiU. as before ihown,it would be 
 no proof, that it was never pradiled. . „ , , 
 
 Obi . <{d. The language of fcripture is, " Repent and be 
 baptized ; believe and be baptized ;" which plainly (hows, tnat 
 repentance and faith are the condition of baptifm j and there- 
 fore it ought not to be applied to infants, who are mcapable 
 of giving any evidence of thefe. 
 
 Avs. Faith, as has been fliown, was as much the con di- 
 tion of circumcifion, as it is of baptifm. The c.rcumcifion of 
 Abraham therefore is declared to be a feal of the faith, which 
 he had being vet unclrcumcifed, (howing, l^at he farft Ulieved, 
 and then cifcumclfed himfelf and family in token of his faith. 
 So Heathen profelytes were required to profefs their taitU m 
 God, before they were clrcumcifed, and admitted into the 
 ancient church. Had circumcifion therefore remained the 
 feal of the covenant of grace in the Chriftian church, as it 
 vras in the Jewiih ; and kad the command been, «Oo teactt 
 all nations, clrcumcifing them," &c. would not the apoftles 
 have addreffed the uncircumcifed, juft as they now did the un- 
 baptized ? Had an uncircumcifed audience a(ked Peter, as the 
 unbaptized Jews did, " Men and brethren, what fhall w^ 
 do ?^' woaid he not have faid ? «' Repent and be circumciled. 
 Or 'had an uncircumcifed eunuch alked, What hinders me t^ 
 be circumcifed ? Muft not the anfwer have been the fame 
 that was given by Philip, « Thou mayeft, if thou beheveft with 
 all thine heart." For as circumcifion was a feal of the nghfe- 
 ^.afnefs of faith; Peter and Philip could not have righttuUf 
 circumcifed thefe perfons without a profeHion of repentance or 
 faith ; andtherelore mud have anfwered thsm, julf as the f 
 now did with refpea to baplifm. Thefe confiderat.ons Ihow, 
 that f-ith was as much the condition of adult circumcifioa as 
 of adult baptifm. 
 
 Therefore the dire^ion, « Repent, or beheve, and be 
 baptized," affords not the Icaft evidence, that baptifm does not 
 anfwei- to drcuimifjon, and is not to be applied to mfants, as 
 
(62j 
 
 that was. Yea, the apoftles did noC aiifwer thefe enquiries 
 differently from what wcywho pradife infant-baptifrn, might 
 in iinjilar circumftances. The world in geaeral were then uu- 
 baptized. And fliould an unbaptized adult, like the eunuch, 
 allc what hinders me to be baptized ? We mufl: anfwer as he 
 did, " If thou belreveft with all thine heart thou mayeft." 
 For we fuppofe, that no fuch perfon has a right to baptiiin 
 without faith- 
 
 Osj. 4th. If baptifm is a feal or token of faith, then cer- 
 tainly it muft be improper to apply it to children or infants> 
 who are unbelievers. 
 
 Ans. It is very evident, from what has been already faid, 
 that circumcifion was as really a feal or token of faith, as bap- 
 tifm is ; yet God exprefsly commanded the Hebrew church 
 to apply this feal of the righteoufnefs of faith to their chil- 
 dren. When therefore any affert> that it is improper to ap- 
 ply the feal of the faith of believeis tc their infants ; they in 
 faft charge God wiih commanding an impropriety, and thus 
 highly impeach his charafter. For it is undeniable, that he 
 did command this ^eal or token of faith to be applied to in- 
 fants nnutr the ancient difpenfation- Since therefore this ob- 
 jecCtion lies as much againd infant-circumcifion, as infant-bap- 
 lifm, and even impeaches God wiih tommanding what is 
 improper in his infticuiions ; it is rjianifeft, that it is talfe, and 
 even prefumptuous. 
 
 Fujther, baptiim according to our ideas of it is always t& 
 be a token of faith. When applied to children, it is a token 
 of the parent's faith as much as when applied to himfelf. 
 Why tlien is it not as proper, that the feal of his faith fhould 
 be applied to his children in token of his giving them np to 
 Gcd ; as it is, that it Ihould be applied to himielf in token of 
 his giving up himfelf ? And when we confider the import of 
 infant-baptiim, that it is a token of the parent's faith, a fo- 
 lemn renewal of his covenant — a dedication of his children te 
 God, and binding himfelf to bring them up for God, it ap- 
 pears to be a very fuitable, ibleran, fignificant tranfa^lion. 
 Another fmjilar, and very popular objeflion is, that baptifm 
 is an hoi ordinance, and therefore it ought not to be applied 
 to children who are unholy. 
 
 To this it may be anfwered, that circumcifion was a token 
 of the covenant of grace, a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith, 
 denoted renovation of heart, &c. and therefore was as holy 
 an ordinance as baptifm — was the fame in its defign and im.- 
 port. And fuice circumcifion was, by divine command, to 
 
be applied to Infants, we have no right to fay, that baptifm, 
 which anfwers to it, is too holy to be applied to them. The ob- 
 jeftion if it prove any thing, as much proves, that clrcumcifion 
 ought not to have been applied to infants ; as it does, that 
 baptifm ought not to be applied to them fmce that vras as ho- 
 ly an ordinance, as this. Therefore it is certain, that the ob- 
 Jedtion is groundlefs. But, 
 
 2dly. In w^hat fenfe is baptifm a holy ordinance ? If the 
 meaning is, thai it is holy in fuch a fenfe, that it owght not .to 
 be applied to any, unlefs they give evidence of real holinefs 
 of heart; this is the very queftion in difpute. Therefore to 
 ailert, that baptifm is holy in this fenfe is a mere begging of 
 the queftion. But if this Is not the meaning, and it is fuppofed 
 to be holy in fome other fenfe ; then its being holy wrill afford 
 no evidence that it ought not to be adminiftered to infants. 
 Therefore, 
 
 3dly. Allowing, that baptifm In a certain fenfe is a holy 
 ordinance ; fo the children of believers are alfo in fome fenfe 
 holy. For the apoftle exprefsly declares, concerning fuch, 
 «' Elfe were your children unclean, but now are they holy." 
 Cor. vil. 14. Why then is it Improper to apply a holy ordi- 
 nance to thofe, whom the fcriptures term holy. Yea, there 
 is reafon to conclude, that they are called holy in this fenfe, 
 that they are projier fubjefts of this ordinance. 
 
 Obj. 5th. The baptifm of infants is of no benefit or ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 Ans. There may be as much benefit in baptizing infants 
 as there was in circumcifing them. The Jews might have 
 made the iiame objeflion againft clrcumcifmg their infants ; 
 that they could not fee, that it would be of any advantage to 
 them. But would this have excufed them in negle5:;\g this 
 divine inftitution ? Neither will it excufe us in neglecting in- 
 fant-baptifm ; fmce there is fafficient evidence, that this is a 
 duty, enjoined upon the church of God. For our being igno- 
 rant of what good purpofes a divine inftitution may anlwer, 
 is no argument againft it ; nor any escufe for neglefting it. 
 Our duty is to obey the commands of God, Vrhether we car\ 
 difcern the reafon or benefit of them, or not. Could we there- 
 fore fee no advantage in infant-baptifm, yet that would be no 
 proof at all againft it. But, 
 
 zdly. The baptifm of infants may anfwer many good pur- 
 pofesc Whenever an infant is baptized, the tranfafiion is 
 calculated to remind the whole congregation of their nacive 
 depravity — that they are born in fin, and need to be fprinkled 
 
(64) 
 
 vnth the blood of fprmkling, or to be clcanfed by the wafliing 
 of regeneration. It is alfo calculated to remind parents of 
 tlicir covenant obligations to train up their children for God, 
 10 whom they have thus publicly devoted them. 
 
 Further^ parents do in this way folemnly bind themfelves, 
 and thus increafe their obligations, to bring up tlieir children 
 in the nurture and admonition of th« Lord, And is it 
 not advantageous to children, that their parents fhould be 
 bound by the mo ft folemn engagements and obligations ta 
 give them a religious education ? 
 
 Further, as children in the ordinance- of baptifm are pub- 
 Ikly given up to God, and have the feal of his covenant put- 
 upon them ; fo the church are under peculiar obligations to 
 take care, that they have a Chriftian education, are rcftrained 
 from fmful courfes, and are brought up in the nurture and 
 admonition of the Lord. And were the church and parents 
 faithful in performing thefe duties towards their children, it 
 ■would have a peculiar tendency to reftrain them from fin, and 
 to imprefs them with a fenfe of the importance of divine 
 things. 
 
 Parents likewife in this way publicly manifefl; their faith 
 and renew covenant with God, by putting the token of it upon 
 their children, and fo are reminded of their covenant engage, 
 ments towards God. 
 
 And if parents do obey God. by heaitily dedicating their 
 children to him according to his appointment, and are faith- 
 ful by religious inftrudions and examples to bring them up in 
 the nurture and admonitioa of the Lord, they have at leaft 
 great encouragement to hope for a divine bl effing upon their 
 children — that God, according to his declaration in Ifaiah 
 xliv. 3, rjill pour out his fpirit upon their feed, and his Mef- 
 fmg on their offspring. And who knows, how much God, 
 is } leafed to reUrain fuch children from fmful courfes, or how 
 many of them he is pleafed to renew out of refpeft to the obe- 
 dience of their pious parents, and to what they have done for 
 them in this refpe^ ; as God granted many bkffings to the 
 pofterity of Abraham on accoxmt of his faith and pious obe- 
 dience ? Knne therefore can afiert, that the ordinance of bap- 
 tilrn is not, thro' a divine bkffing, bcnaficial to children, as 
 well as to their pious parents. 
 
 And if it is a divine inftitution, us has been {hown, the 
 ncgled of it luuft be difplealing to God, and expofe to hie 
 frowns. 
 
 As it is often afked, v\ hat benefit there is in baptiring chil- 
 
(65) 
 
 dren, I would ask what advantage there is in baptizing a« 
 dalts ? The water of itfelf can be of no more fpiritual benefit 
 to adults than to infants. Is there any other advantage in the 
 baptifm of adults, than as it is a token of their faith, the anfwer 
 of a good confcience in obeying a divine command, and as ic 
 tends to remind them of their obligations to God. And may 
 not every parent experience all thefe advantages, v?henevcr he 
 gives up a child in this ordinance ? It appears therefore, that 
 the baptifm of infants, rightly viewed, is not a mere trivial 
 ceremony, but a very ferious and important transaflion, may an* 
 fwer many good purpofes both to parents and children, and be 
 <jf as much advantage, as infant-circumcifion was. But even 
 if we could difcern no benefit in it, ftill as has been Ihown, 
 that would be no proof againft it. 
 
 Obj. 6th. If perfons are baptized in infancy, as a token of 
 their parent's faith, then they will have no token of their own 
 faith, when they themfelves believe, efpecially if they have no 
 children to offer in baptifm. 
 
 ' Ans. This objedlion is as forcible againft circumcifing, as 
 baptizing infants. For thofe who were circumcifed when in- 
 fants, had no more a token of their own faith when they be- 
 lieved ; than thofe have, who are now baptized in infancy. 
 None could become members of God's ancient church, un- 
 !efs they were circumcifed, or had the ftanding feal of God's 
 covenant applied to them. If they had not received this feal 
 in infancy, it v.'as to be applied to them, when they made a 
 prdfeffion of their faith. But if they had once received the 
 feal or token of the covenant ; their profetling to aflent to this 
 covenant, and to ratify the dedication, made by their parents 
 by devoting themfelves to God, was confxdered a fufficient to- 
 ken of their faith without being circumcifed anew. So it is 
 with refpeft to baptifm. None can become members of the 
 Chriftian church, unlefs baptized in the name of the Father, 
 Son and Holy Ghoft. But when once this feal of the cove- 
 nant of grace has been adminiftered to a perfon ; there is no 
 more neceffity or warrant to repeat it, when the perfon him- 
 felf believes, affents to this covenant, and ratifies the dedication 
 made by his parents by devoting himfelf to God, than there 
 was for a Jew to receive circumcifion anev/, when he believed. 
 There are various other ways, in which Chriftians manifeft or 
 betoken their faith, as well as by dedicating themfelves in 
 baptifm. They do it by a public profeflion, and whenever 
 they attend upon the Lord's fupper, or offer a child in baptifm. 
 Ther-.f.^re perfons, who have been baptized in infancy, are 
 I 
 
{66) 
 
 iinder no neceflity to be re-baptized, when tliey believe, in or- . 
 der lo betoken their faith. 
 
 Obj. 7th. Baptifm cannot (land inftead of circumcifion, be- 
 . caufe the latter wasapplied to males only, and was to ;be per- 
 formed on the eighth day, but the former is to be adminlftered 
 to both fexes, and at any time : therefore we cannot argue 
 from the one to the other. 
 . Ans. It is abundantly evident from our fubjed, that the de- 
 fign and import of circumcifion and baptifm are the fame ; 
 and that baptifm is now the feal or token of the believer's 
 faith, and fo of the covenant of grace, as circumcifion was un- 
 der the Jewifli difpenfation. It is certain therefore, that bap- 
 tifm does anfwer to circumcifion — is the feal of the fame co- 
 venant, .akho' there may be feme circumftantial dift'erence- 
 Suppofing a certain king had a feal or ftamp, which he di-. 
 refted to be afBxed to all deeds to render them legal. Af- 
 terwards he appointed a new feal, of a different form, and di- 
 rected, that itlhould be applied not only to all deeds, but alio 
 to all bonds. Now in this cafe would there be any truth or 
 propriety in afTerting, that the /n^iv feal did not ftand inftead 
 of the cU one ; merely becaufe it vvas to be affixed to bonds, as 
 well as deeds — was to be more cxtenfively applied, than the 
 old one was ? Neither is there any truth or reafon in aflerting, 
 that baptifm, becaufe applied to both fexes, did not ccme in. 
 the room of cicumcifion ; fmce they are both feals of the 
 fame righteoufnefs of faith, or of the fame covenant of grace. 
 Under the ancient difpenfation, God was pleafed to appoint 
 a feal of his covenant, which was applicable to males only. 
 But ftill females might be admitted into covenant with him 
 by profeflion, partaking of ij'.: facritices, &c. Eut under the 
 (^hriftian difpenfation, which is !>;ore free and extenfive, and 
 in which there is no diflinclion of nations and fexes, God has 
 appointed a feal, whicli is applicable to both fexes. Accor- 
 dingly the apgllle declares, that ♦' There is neither Jew nor 
 Greek, neither wgle nor female : For ye are all one in Chrift 
 Jefus," BiUbecau/e bapliim is thus applied to both fexef, 
 orroore extenfively, than circumcifion was, it no more proves, 
 that it did not come in the room of circumcifion as the ftal of 
 the righteoufnefs of faith ; than the king's 7/civ ytv?/ being ap- 
 plied to bonds as well as to deeds, pjoves, that it did not corne 
 inllead of the «/i3'' o;7f'. 
 
 Neither is it any proof, that baptilhi does not anfwer te 
 circumcifion, becaufe the latter was to be performed on the 
 eighth day, and might be doiK by patents, while ther; 's i.c 
 
(67). 
 
 particular day fixedfot the adrnitiil> ration of the n^rmer, ani 
 • L mull be adminift'ered by a miniller of the gofpf^l. if tkd 
 two ordinances are of the fame import, and anfwer the fame 
 ends in God's church under different difpenfations, it is niani- 
 feft, that the one ilands inftead of the other, nntwithlUnding- 
 theT5 may be fome circumftantial difRrence between them. 
 
 Thus the pairover was to be attended on a certain' d<-vy of 
 the month .and year, at a certain time of the day, viz, at eve- 
 ning ; and it was not neceflary, that any prieft fliould be pre-- 
 Tent and'alTift at the table, when it was eal^n. Bat with ref- 
 pcft to the Lord's fupper, there are no particular direaions, 
 how often, or on vThut day, or particnlar time of the day it 
 is CO be atteiKled, and it is to he adminiftered by a gofpel 
 minifter. Bat nntwithftanding thefe circumllantial diiferen- 
 ces, the Lord's fupper now very llrikingly aufwers to the 
 paiFover in the ancient church, and evidently (lands inilead of 
 It, as has been already fhown. Hence the apollle fpeaks of 
 the Lord's iup^-^r in the language of the pafchal feaft. " For 
 even Chrift, our pa/Tover, is lacrificed for us. Therefore let us 
 keep the feaft, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven^ of 
 malice andwickednefs, &c. 
 
 Thefe confiderations clearly evince, that fuclr circamftan- 
 tial differences between baptifm and circuracifion, as have 
 been, confidered under this objeaion, afford no proof, that 
 the one did not come inftead of the other. But to fupporc 
 the objeaion, that baptifm does not anfwer to circumcifion, 
 it is neceflary to prove, that they are not both leals of the 
 righteoufnefsoffaith,or of the covenant of grace, whkh it 
 is evident none can do. For until this is done, it will be mani- 
 fefl that the one anfwers to the other, whatever circumftan- 
 tial difference there may b^ between them. 
 
 One particular reafon, why the circumcifion of children, 
 under that difpenfation, was deferred till the eighth day, was 
 the ceremonial impurity of the mother, and confequently of 
 the child.—" If a woman have born a man-child, flie fhall be 
 unclean feven days— and on the eighth day he (hall be cir- 
 cumcifed." But as this reaibn is not applicable under the 
 Chriaian difpenfation, and as there is no particular time ap- 
 pointed for baptifm or the Lord's fupper, the adminillration 
 of thefe ordinances, is left difcretionary as to the time. It 
 convenient, children may be dedicated to God in baptifm be- 
 fore tlie eighth day. But if circumftances render it inconve- 
 nient, the omifllou of It till after this time will not be blamea- 
 ble. But parents undoubtedly ought thus to dedicate their 
 
(68) 
 
 children as foon as it may be done with fafety and conveni- 
 ence. And all unneceffary delays are blameable. 
 
 Obj. 8th. The Jews when they believed, were baptized, 
 altho' they had been circunicifed before ; and this fliows, 
 that baptifm did not come in the room of circumcifion, and is 
 not a feal of the fame covenant, for if it had been, there would 
 have been no need of repeating it by baptizing thofe, who had 
 been circumcifed. 
 
 Ans. God, in appointing the feals of his covenant, has a 
 peifedl right to dired, how they fhall be applied. When 
 therefore he inftituted a new feal of his covenant, or of the 
 righteoufnefs of faith ; it belonged to him to fay, whether it 
 jTiould be applied to thofe, who had received the old feal, or 
 not. If he fawbeft, he certainly had a right to dired, that 
 it fhould be applied to thofe who had received .^the old feal, 
 when they profeffed their faith in Chrift, and united witli his 
 church under the new difpenfation. If then, as has been 
 fhown, circumcifion and baptifm are both feals of the fame co- 
 venant of grace, or of the righteoufnefs of faith ; it would be 
 no evidence, that the one does not anfwer to the other ; be- 
 caufe the circumcifed Jews vvere baptifed when they believed ; 
 even if we were unable to fee the reafon of this divine direc- 
 tion. For Gcd had a perfedl right to direct this matter as he 
 law fit. But, 
 
 It is argued by the Baptifts, that when a new feal is inftitu- 
 ted in human governments, it is never applied to what has 
 been already fealed or ratified ; as it would be difannulling 
 what the government had before done. Since therefore bap- 
 tifm was adminiftered to thofe who had received circumcifion, 
 they on this ground. urge, that thcfe ordinances cannot be feals 
 ofthe fame covenant. 
 
 To this it may be anfwered, that in human governments it 
 would be inconvenient, when a newfe;il was inllituted, to re- 
 quire the new-fealing of every thing, which had been ratified 
 by the old feal. But doubtlefs there might he circumflances, 
 in which a human government might be jufHfied in fuch a 
 requirement. And were this the cafe, it could not with any 
 truth be faid, that the neiu feal did not come in the room of 
 the old one, merely becaufe for certain reafons it might be ap- 
 plied to what had been already ratified by the old feal. 
 
 But further, the Mofl High in the management of his vail 
 kingdom is not obligated to conform to thofe cuftoms and 
 praftices, which, may be convenient or expedient in human 
 governments. The reafons which influence them may not 
 
(69) 
 
 apply to him. We cannot therefore reafon from ths'r prff- 
 ceedings to /;;;, with any degree of certainty. In appointing 
 a new leal to his covenant, God might fee reafons, why it 
 Vfas beft it fhould be apphed to theft;, who had received the 
 old one. Confequently he had a perfe^ft right to direft, that 
 it fhould be applied to tliem. 
 
 In this view it is evident, that the baptifm of thofe, who 
 had before received cirLumcifion, affords not the leaft proof, 
 that they are not both feals or tokens of the fame covenant of 
 grace. 'Xhefe confiderations mi^ht be a fufficient anfwel" to 
 tlie obje(5lion. But, 
 
 2dly. We may fee many reafons, why it was fuitable, that 
 the circumcifed Jews fhould be baptized, when they profeifed 
 their faith in Chrill. The Jewifii church, which pradifed cir- 
 cumcifion, iwd profefled to be God's people, had become ve- 
 ry corrupt — had rejeded Chrift the bon of Gad, and put him 
 to death. When therefore Chrift rofe from the dead, and fet 
 up the Chriftian difpenfation, he inftituted a new feal for his 
 church. Thofe who profefTed to believe in Jefus Chrift, were 
 to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft, to diftinguilh them from the unbelieving Jews, as 
 well as from the Heathen ; juft as circumcifion under tha 
 ancient difpenfadon was deligned to diftinguifti the people of 
 God from Heathen idolators. Since therefore the great body 
 of the Jews, who pradifed circumcifion, rejedted Chrift and 
 iiis gofpel, it appears very fuitable th.it thofe of them who be- 
 lieved in him, (hould be baptized in his name, altho' tliey had 
 been circumcifed ; that they might be diftinguilhed from the 
 nation in general, who v/ere brolien off from God's churck 
 by unbelief, and were enemies to the gofpel of Chrift. Thus 
 whenever a believing Jev/ prefented himfelf or children for 
 baptifm, it was a public manifeftation of his receiving the 
 Saviour. 
 
 Further, when the Chriftian difpenfation was fet up, and 
 the unbelieving Jev/s were broken off from God's church af- 
 ter the death of Chrift ; circumcifion then ceafed to be the 
 feal of the righteoufnefs of faith, or of the covenant of grace. 
 Thofe who were unbaptifed therefore had not upon them the 
 feal of the righteoufnefs of faith, which belonged to the Chrif- 
 tian difpenfation. Was it not very fuitable then, that the 
 Jews (hould receive the feal of the new difpenfation, when they 
 profelTed to receive the Saviour ? We can therefore fee fome 
 reafons, why it was proper, that the beiievi.ng Jews fnould be 
 baptized; altho' they had before received circun:^cifion, 
 
which was a feal of the fame covenant under the old difpenfrf- 
 tion. 
 
 Qbj. fth. Jefus Chrift, who came to be our example, was 
 baptized at adult age, therefore we ought to imitate him in 
 this refpedl. 
 
 Ans. If Chrift was baptijfed for our example, h it not as 
 much a proof, that we muft not be baptifed until thirty years 
 old, as it is that we muft not, till we become adults. For 
 John was baptifmg fome time, before Jefus went to him for 
 baptifm. Luke informs us in his gofpe],iii. 2i. that, " when 
 all the people were baptized, it came to pafs, that Jefus alfo 
 was baptized." Chrift waited till he " began to be about 
 diirty years of age," before he went to be baptized, altho* he 
 niiorht have been baptized fome time before. If then he was 
 Daptized as an example for us, ought we not to wait, till of 
 fhe fame age ? For certainly we cannot expedl to be qualified 
 for this ordinance at an earlier age than our Saviour. 
 
 Further, Chrift's baptifm could not be of the fame import 
 and defign, as the baptifm of Chnftians. As he was perfect- 
 ly holy, it could not denote repentance, renovation of heart, 
 cieanfing from fin, &c. or the need of thefe ; as the baptifm ot 
 others does. Neither is there any evidence, that John bapti- 
 zed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, which 
 is the form of Chriftian baptifm, inftituted by Chrift after his 
 refurredtion, Efpecially we cannot fuppofe, that Chrift was 
 baptized in his own name. This Ihows that die baptifm of 
 our Saviour, was diiFerent in its nature, defign and form from 
 that which is now adminiftered in the Chriilian church, and 
 therefore we cannot determine from his example, at what age 
 v/t ought to be baptized, with any degree of certainty. His 
 baptiim was evidently a public confecraticn or introdudion 
 to the miniftry, on which he was now entering as our great 
 ■ high prieft. It was therefore in conformity to the law of 
 God, which inftituted a limilar form for coniecrating the high 
 prieft to his office. 
 
 The priefts under the law entered on their public fervrce 
 at thirty years of age ; fo Chrift, " when he began to be a- 
 bout thirty years of age" was baptized and entered upon hts 
 public miniftry. They were confecrated to their office by 
 being walhed with -water as to their hands and feet ; and by 
 being anointed wiih oil, which was poured on their heads. 
 In conformity to this law, Jefus Chrift, our great high prieft 
 was publicly confecrated or introduced into his miniftry by 
 baptifm, ani the anointing of the Holy Ghoft, which defcend- 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 ed upon him immediately after he was baptized. For Peter 
 peaking of Chrift's preaching, fays, *' That word ye know, 
 which began from Galilee, after the baptifm which John 
 preached, how God anointed Jei'us of Nazareth with the Holy 
 Ghoft, and with power." As his baptifm was in conformi- 
 ty to the law for confecrating the priefts ; he therefore fays 
 to John, " Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteoufnefs." 
 Since therefore the baptifm of our Saviour was different ip its 
 nature, defign and form, from thebaptifm pradifed in the Chrif- 
 tian church ; there is nottheleaft reafon or propriety in fuppofings 
 that it was defigned as a rule or example for us in this refpeifl, 
 unlefs we are about to undertake the fame office, which he 
 performed. To argue, that no children ought to be dedicated 
 to God by baptifm ; becaufe Chrift was not confecrated by 
 baptilm to his public miniftry till 30 years of age, is certainly 
 very weak and inconclufive. 
 
 Befides, could it be proved, that Chrift's baptifm was the 
 Tame in its nature and defign, as the baptifm now pradifed, 
 flill it would be no proof, that it ought not to be adminiftered 
 to i'nfani-.s. When circumcifion was firft inftituted as the feai 
 of the righteoufnefs of faith, Abraham received itat 99 yeais 
 of age- But this was no proof, that it was not to be applied 
 to children afterwards, or that none was to be circumcifed 
 till 99 years old. So ftiould it even be allowed, that Chrift, 
 and others who profefled their faith in him, were baptized at 
 30 years old or at adult age, when Chriftian baptifm was fFrft 
 inftituted ; yet this would be no proof againft infant-baptifm. 
 It would afford no more argument againft it, than Abraham's 
 adult circumcifion did againft the circumcifion of infants. It 
 is evident therefore from various confiderations, that the bap- 
 tifm of Chrift, affords no argument or objedtion of any weight 
 againft infant-baptifm. 
 
 Obj. loth. The covenant of which circumcifion was the 
 feal, is abolifhed ; and therefore baptifm cannot be a feal of 
 the fame covenant. 
 
 Ans. Circumcifion was a feal of the Abrahamic covenant, 
 and that, it has been already fnown, was in reality the cove- 
 nant of grace. Confequently it has not been abolifhed ; for 
 the covenant of grace is immutable and eternal. And tha; 
 the Abrahamic covenant is not difannuUed is abundantly evi- 
 dent from the words of the apoftle. For he declares that the 
 J^jleftlngs of Abraham have come upon the Gentiles thro* Je- 
 fas Clirift. Siiice therefore believing Gentiles now enjoy the 
 blelfings of the Abrahamic covenaat, that God will be their 
 
(72). 
 
 God-; it k certain, that tins covenant is not abollfhcd. It 
 is alfo by this covenant, that Abraham was conHItuted the 
 father of many niitlons, or of all them that believe, and that 
 believing Gentiles are conftituted « Abraham's feed, and 
 heirs according to promile." Tbefe confiderations clearly 
 evince, that the Abrahamic covenant is ftriftly " an everlaft- 
 ing covenant," as it is called, Gen. xvii. and that it does for 
 fubftance, yet ftand in full force. 
 
 Obj. nth. If we arguo baptifm from circumcifion, then 
 all children in Chriftian countries ought to be baptized, fince 
 all the Jewift children were circumcifed. 
 
 Ans. AU the Jews, who circumcifed their children, were 
 profeiTedly in covenant wit!i Gcd, and members of his church. 
 By this very tranfadion of circumcifing their childreil, they 
 profefledly affented to God's covenant. The argument there- 
 fore from circumcifion proves, that all, who profefs to enter 
 into covenant with God, and become members of his church, 
 are to -put the feal of this covenant upon their children. 
 This was the conftitution under the Jewifli difpenfa- 
 tion ; and ought to be the praflice in the Chriilian church. 
 But, 
 
 2dly. It is undoubtedly true, that all children in Chriftian 
 countries ought to be baptized. All parents ought immedi- 
 ately to repent, believe, and then comply with the covenant 
 of grace, and put the feal of it upon their children. Every 
 parent is very criminal in neglediing it. But none ever ought, 
 or ever were required to profefs to be in God's covenant with a 
 •wicked or impenitent heart, and thus play the hypocrite. This 
 God has always condemned. Thus he reproved the Ifrael- 
 ites for flattering hira with tlieir mouth, and lying unto him 
 witli tlieir tongue ; while their heart was not right. And un- 
 to -the wicked he faid,Pfalm 1. "What haft thou to do, that 
 thou fiiould'ft take my covenant in thy mouth ?" (bowing that 
 he difapproved of the wicked's profeffing to enter iiUo his co- 
 venant. 
 
 I'hus a right view of the Abrnhamic covenant, of the Jew- 
 ifh church, and of the nature and defign of circumcifion, clearly 
 fhows, how weak and inconclufive the nioit plaufible argu- 
 ments and objedioKs are, v.'hich are urged againfl infant-bap- 
 tifm. We have alfo fuggefted various other confiderations 
 in anfwer to objedions, urged by the Baptifts. And does not 
 the proof, adduced from cii'cnmcifion being a feal of (he cove- 
 nant of grace, and the jcwifh church being eilcntially 'J:e 
 fame widi the Chriftian, ftand firm againft all tlicfe objections ? 
 
(73) 
 
 III. -As we have applied our fubjs<5l in proof of infant-bap« 
 tifm, and in {howing the weaknefs of objedfions, urged againft 
 this, it may not be improper to mention fome other corrobo- 
 rating arguments in proof of this pradice, altho' they do not 
 direftly flow from our fubjed. 
 
 I ft. The words of the apoftle. Cor. vii. 14. afford an ar- 
 gument of confiderable weight. Speaking of the cafe of a 
 believer and unbeliever, conneded in the marriage relation, 
 he fays, " The unbelieving hufband is fandified by the wife, 
 and the unbelieving wife is fandified by the hufljand ; elfe 
 were your children unclean, but now are they holy." As the 
 members of the Jewifh church were forbidden to marry, or to 
 livd with an idolatrous hufband or wife, and as the children, 
 when one of the parents was a Heathen or idolator, were con- 
 £dered a.s Heathen or unclean, and to be debarred from the 
 privileges, pertaining to the children of the church ; a doubt 
 had arifen in the minds of the Corinthian Chriftians, whether 
 when one of the parties in the marriage relation was convert- 
 ed, it was right to live in this relation with the other, who re- 
 mained a Heathen or unbeliever ; and whether the children 
 were to be confidered as children of the church or of the 
 world —were to be treated as the children of the believer or 
 unbeliever. In anfwer to thefe queries, the apoftle dire<fted 
 the believer not to put away or leave the unbelieving corre- 
 late. For the unbelieving huftsand is fandified by the wife, 
 and the unbelieving wife by the hufband ; fo that the believer 
 may have a juft light to the ufe and enjoyment of the unbelie- 
 ver in this relation. Juft as it is faid in another place, " To 
 the pure all things are pure. And every creature of God is 
 , good, for it is fanflified by the word of God and prayer." 
 •' Elfe were your children unclean ; but now are they holy." 
 If it had been wrong for believers to Jhave lived in the mar- 
 riage relation with their unbelieving partners, but muft have 
 put them away, as the Jews did their Heathen wives ; then 
 their, children alfo muft have been treated as unclean or the chil- 
 dren of unbelievers. But now fince the unbeliever is fandi- 
 fied in relation to the believer, the children are holy — are to be 
 confidered as the childret^of believers. Here the apoftle makes 
 a difference between the children of believers and unbelievers ; 
 the one he calls unclean and the other holy. It is certain 
 therefore, that the children of believers are in fome fenfe holy. 
 But none can rationally fuppofe, that they are all born with 
 renewed or holy hearts. In what fenfe then are they holy ? 
 Is it not evidently in this fenfe, that they are confecraied to 
 K 
 
1 74) 
 
 'God Jn baptifnj, and have the feal of hisxcvenani applied to 
 ".sl.em, or that th:)' are the proper fubjefts of this ordinance^ 
 Things thus confecrated to God are often called holy in the 
 fcripture. Thus the children of the Jewifh church or of thofe 
 -,vho were in covenant, were called a holy feed. But the chil- 
 dren of Heathen, or of thofe who were not hi covenant, 
 Avere conlidered as unclean, and might not thus be dedicated 
 to God in circumcifion. So the children of unbelievers are 
 now termed unclean, as they are not to be confecrated to God 
 inbaptifm. Is not this evidently the meaning of the apoftle 
 in this paflage ? And does it not therefore clearly teach, that 
 the children of believers are now to be devoted to God in bap- 
 tifm, as they "Wire to be devoted to him by circumcifion under 
 the jewifh difpenfation ? The oppofers of infant-baptifm, to 
 evade the argument from this pallage, are neceffitated to aflert 
 that holy here means legitimate. But this is a fenfe in which 
 the term holy is never ufed in any other part of fcripture, and 
 therefore is very evidently a forced, unnatural cocih-udion* 
 merely te evade an argument, which they cannot otherwife 
 anfwer. Beiidcs, may not the children of unbelievers be le- 
 gitimate, and in this fenfe holy, as w-1! ??s children of belie- 
 vers ? Or cf.ri w«fuppofe, that the apcllle meant to declare, 
 iliat the children of ail unbelievers were balbrds ? Do not 
 thefe confiderations clearly fl-.ow, that the term holy here can- 
 not mean the fame as legitimate ; as the oppofers of infant- 
 bapttfm vv'ould fain make us believe. 
 
 Again, under the former difpenfation the children of thofe 
 parents, w^io entered into covenant with God, or belonged to> 
 hi.; church, were dedicated to God by having the feal of his 
 covenanL applied to them. The Jews efteemed it a ^reat 
 privilege to have the feal of God's covenant thus applied t* 
 their children ; and even the apollle teaches, that there was 
 much profit in circumcifion. If th'^refore the token of the 
 covenant had not been app^lied to children under the Chriftian 
 difpenf-ition, would not the Jews have cavilled and objefted 
 Hgainll ihe gol'pei on account of its tl:UE excluding childreR" 
 from this privilLgc ? They were greatly attached to their pri- 
 vileges, v.'ere very ready to cavil wh^ they were abridged, 
 and \'ery apt to cbjeft againlt the gofpel, when they could 
 tinJ any occafion. Since therefore we do not find, that they 
 ever objefled againPc the gofpel on account, of its excluding 
 children from thi= privilege, there is great reafon to believe, 
 that they vcrc not evelude.', but had th-' feal of the righteouf- 
 
( 7-5 ) 
 
 rte^ of faith, or of God's covenant applied to thom, as it v.'a;;. 
 fn the Jewifli church. 
 
 Further, the apolHe In anfwerlng the queftions, ** What 
 advantage hath a Jew ? And what profit is there of clrcumci- 
 kon? fays, " Much every way." This (tows, that it was a 
 privilegei"orJawini children to be given up to God:--have 
 thefcalofhis covenant put upon them^ andto have their pa- 
 rents folenialy bound to bring them up in the knowledge and 
 ferviceof God. If Uierefore^he profit of circurncifion in t4iefe 
 refpeas Vv'as. a^ the apoftle declares, " much every wa)'," then 
 certainly its abolition mull be a lofs to children in thefe refpecls, 
 iinlefs there is fomething appointed in its room. But as the 
 ^rofpel difpenfatlon is reprefented as more extenfive and ricli 
 dian the former, it affords great reafon to conclude, that thr. 
 a<ivanr.age of circumciiion is fully fnpplied to the children oC, 
 believers by the inlrodudion of bapti'.m in its ftead; 
 
 zJly. Omitting other arguments, which might be addu- 
 ced from the v/ord of God, it may be obferved, that the proof 
 in favor of infant-baptifm is greatly confirmed by the praitice- 
 of the church in the early ages of Chrifttanity. ^ Origen, who 
 lived loo years after the- apofiles, declares, that infant-baptifm 
 had beenthe conftant ufage of the church from the days of 
 the apoftles. He fays, " That the church had an order frcn: 
 the apoftles to give baptifm to infants." He alfo arguecj' 
 from infant-baptifm to prove original fm, or the natural de- 
 pravity of the human heart. This Ihows that it was an un- 
 controverted pradice of the church ; otherwife he could not, 
 with propriety, have ufed it as an argument to eftablifn ano- 
 ther point. 
 
 About 5'o years after this, "2 queftion was ftarted by ori^ 
 Fidus, whether baptifm ought not to be given to infants on 
 the eighth day, according to the lav/ of cirGumcifion. This 
 queftion v;as propofed to 66 Biftiopsor mini(tersj convened at 
 Carthage, v,ho unanimoufly refolved, that it was not ne- 
 celTary to defer baptifm to the eighth day, but it might be 
 given at any time before, if convenient." But none of them 
 manifefted the lead doubt or fcruple about the pradice of in- 
 fant-baptifm. A large letter, containing the reafons of this 
 refolve, was written by Cyprian, in the name of the council. 
 
 Now among fuch a number of minifter?, doubtlefs there 
 were fome 6o or 70 years old, v/ho coald remember within 
 lefs than 1 00 years of the apofl.leb. If therefore infant-bap- 
 tifm had been a praftice, introduced fmce the days of the 
 apoftles, fome of them muft h-ave known it. And if fo, is it 
 
(76) 
 
 HOt flrange, that none of them fhould Intimate any fcrupic a- 
 bout it I 
 
 About 100 years after this time Ambrofe declared, « that 
 the baptifm of infant* had been the pradice of the apoftles, 
 and of the church till that time." 
 
 Auftin, about 300 years after the apoftles, had a controver- 
 fy with one Pelagius about original fin. To prove this, Auf- 
 tin frequently urges infant-baptifm, demanding, why infants 
 are baptized for the remiffion of fin, if they have none ? And 
 altlio' Pelagius appeared greatly puzzled with the argument, 
 yet he did not pretend to deny the duty or pradlice of infant- 
 baptifm. Now Pelagius was a man of great learning and in- 
 formation, and had been perfonally acquainted vi-irh the moft 
 noted churches in Europe, A fia, and Africa. And had in- 
 fant-baptifm been a departure from the apoflolic praftice, he 
 mufi: have had feme intimation of it. And had he known it, 
 he doubtlefs would have mentioned it to relieve himfelf from 
 the argument from infant-baptifm, with which he was "fo em- 
 barraffed. This affords a firong argument, that infant-bap- 
 tifm has been the pradice of the church from the days of the 
 apoftles. ^ For had the whole Chriftian church throughout 
 Afia, Africa and Europe, departed from, the apoftoiic prac- 
 tice, fuch a pubHc matter muft have been generally known. 
 And if fo Pelagius would not have failed to mention it to 
 obviate Auftin's arguments from infant-baptifm. 
 
 There is no account of any church in all the Chriftian 
 world, that ever denied or fpoke againft infant-baptifm for 
 1100 years after Chrift. In 11 30 there appeared a fmall 
 number in France, who denied the poifibility of the faivadon 
 of infants ; and confequently their right to baptifm. But 
 •his fed foon difappeared. Excepting thefe there is no ac- 
 count of any church, that held at all to water baptifm^ wliich 
 denied the baptifm of infants till about the year 1520. Then 
 the prefent fed of Anabaptifts took their rife in Germany ; 
 whence they have fpread into various parts of Europe and 
 America. 
 
 Now the Chriftian religion, in the days of the apoftles, was 
 propagated into many diftant countries, and churches were 
 eftabli/hed in Europe, Afia, and Africa, in diHerent kingdom.s 
 and nations, feveral thoufand miles diftant from each other. 
 But if thefe churches had been every where eftablilhed upon 
 the plan of adult-baptifm only, and no children h:\d been bapti- 
 zed ; how could infant-baptifm become fo r.iiiverfally preva- 
 lent thro* all the Chiiftian \rorld, among different natioiii, 
 
■(77) 
 
 and mcharchesthoufands of miles diftant, in the conrfe o^ 
 a lOO years from the apoftles ? Row could fuch afpeedyand 
 great alteration take place in a matter of fuch public notoriety, 
 and great importance, and yet no noife be made about it ; 
 no oppofition raifed againft it ? It is moa irrational to fuppofe 
 it. For there is a very particular hiftory of the rehgious doc- 
 trines, rites, Jifputes and divifions of the Chriitian church in 
 the early ages of Chri Hani ty. And when any new religious 
 fentlments or pradices vrere introduced, it ufed to occahon 
 great difputes and divifions. And there is generally an ac 
 count, when, and by whom, they were introduced, and who 
 oppofed them. But there is no account of any fuch conten- 
 tion or divifion about iafant-baptifm. Neither can any perfoa 
 tell, when or by whuiii, it ^;^•as introduced, if not by the apof- 
 tles. But can we rallonahy lappofe, that a matter of fuch 
 importance and notoriety as infant-baptifm could, direftly con- 
 trai-vto the pradicc of the apoftles and all the churches which 
 t'r.ey had eftabhlhed, be fo early introduced into all the Chrlf- 
 :ian churches withcut any oppofition or contention, and no 
 one be able to know, when or by whom, it was introduced ? 
 The fuppofition is very unreafonable. Thefe confiderations 
 afford an argument of great \veight, that infant-baptifm was 
 an apoftolic pradice ; and thus they greatly corroborate the 
 proof in favor of% which has been adduced from the 
 
 fcriptures. r^, -a- 
 
 To invalidate this argument, it is urged, that Lhrutians, m 
 the early ages of Chi iftianity, appeared to have wrong ideas 
 of the nature and defign of baptifm ; and that if they miftook 
 in thisrefped, they might alfo with refped to thofe, who were 
 the proper fubjects of baptilm. 
 
 lu aufwer to ih\s it may be obferved, that there are many 
 perfonsin all Chriftian churches even at the prefent day, who 
 are very far from having corrc*5l, juft ideas rtf the nature and 
 defign of the ordinances and inllitutions of the gofpel. Per- 
 Tons are very liable to miftake in their opinions concerning the 
 nature and defign of thefe ordinances. But whether the apof- 
 tles baptized infant:^ or not, was a plain matter of iadl, la 
 xvliich it was inipoffible for Chriftians who then lived, to mif- 
 take. Thev could not but know, whether the apoftles bapti- 
 zed children, or not. And if they did not baptize them ; 
 then they mull have known, when infant-baptifm was firft in- 
 troduced, th:it it was an innovation, and contrary to the a- 
 poftclic practice. Allowing then, that Chriftians in the early- 
 ages oiChriftia'.v.ty, might have fome wrong ideas of 'Jte 
 
 na- 
 
( 78 ) 
 
 tnreand defigit orbaptifm ; yet this will itot at all invaliQatre 
 their teftimony to a plain matter of fa(5l; when they decUre,- 
 that iirfant-baptilxn was pra^ifed by the apoftles, and had 
 been the praftice of the Chridian churches ever fmce. 
 
 But it is further - urged that infant communion and other 
 ^rofs errors, as well as infant-baptifm, were early admitted' 
 into the Chriftian church. 
 
 Ans. Infant-baptifm was univerfally prevalent in all the 
 Chrirtian churches, before we have any account of thefe er- 
 rors. Altho' infant-communion might be pradiled in fome 
 churches; yet I know of no account, that it ever was an uni- 
 verfal praftice in ail the Chriftian charches. Neither is it 
 aliened by writers in thofe early times, that it was the prac- 
 tice of the church from the days of the apoilles, as baptifm' 
 was. Andfo with refpecl: to the other grois errors, they ge- 
 nerally occafioned much difpute and contention when intro- 
 duced— did not prevail fo early as infant baptilm rauft have 
 flone — and were never fo aniverfally prevalent in all parts of 
 the Chriftian world. 
 
 « The different feci:3 of Chriflians were often inflamed a- 
 " gainft each other by very fmall differences. It is therefore 
 *' utterly unaccountable, that there fhould be no difpute, when 
 ^^ x!ci\s fuppofed fundamental error cf infant -baptifm was introdu- 
 *•' ced ; nor the leafl remains of any fontrorerfy about it 
 *' until within thefe two or three hundred years."* 
 
 Now what is there to counterbalance all this evidence, whiclr- 
 has been exhibited in /avor of infant-baptifm ? There is no 
 dire£l, pofitive evidence againft it ; for none pretend, that 
 there are any commands or prohibitions againft it. The argu- 
 ments urged againft it, are merely negative, fuch as the want 
 of a command or example for it — the direftion to repent, be- 
 lieve, and be baptized — that it can do no good, and fuch 
 other objedions, as have been confidered, and which as al- 
 ready ffiown, may be eaflly obviated. It appears, that there 
 is dire(ft and pofitive evidence in favor of infant-baptifm, but 
 no pofitive proof againft it ; and that the mofl plaufible ob- 
 jeftions agair.ft it arife from miftaken ideas of the Abrahamic" 
 covenant, or of the nature and defign of baptifm. If thefe 
 things are attentively and candidly confidered, will not the 
 evidence in favor of infant-baptifm appear conclufive an-i 
 fadbfa^flory to every unprejudiced mind ? For fince there is 
 direfl and pofitive evidence in favor of it, and no pofitive m- 
 
 * Do£l. Lathrop* s fermons en infant -haptifm. 
 
(79) 
 
 dence againft it ; is it not unreafonable to deny the duty df 
 infant-baptifm ? It is ading againft evidence. 
 
 Is it not ftrange that any can be fo oppofed to publicly 
 confecratinp- their children to God by putting the feal of his 
 covenant, and of their faith upon them ; as Chrift's ancient 
 church were commanded to do ? Was it not a privilege, that 
 pious parents under the former difpenfation might thus dedi- 
 cate their dear children to God : and entertain a hope, that 
 the fame divine bleffings would defcend on them, as on their 
 own fouls ? Thus Chrift, as to his human nature, « was c&a- 
 *« fecrated to God ; and according to the law, he was brought 
 *' to the temple, to be prefented to the Lord. And ftrange it 
 " is, that all pious parents do not even long to make the fame 
 «' vifible confecration of their children to the Lord at this 
 <« day !"* 
 
 IV. It appears, that the denial of infant-baptifm has a ten- 
 <3ency to lead into other hurtful errors. It leads perfons to 
 fuppofe, that the Abrahamic covenant was not the covenant 
 of grace, requiring faith as its condition, but a mere temporal, 
 external affair ; and that therefore circumcifion the token of 
 it was not a feal of the faith of believers as the apoftle de- 
 clares — that the Hebrew church was not the real vifible churc'a 
 of God, but merely a type of it — that God did not in his co- 
 venant with that church require faith and a right heart or real 
 religion, as the condition of the promifed blefiTmgs, but merely 
 external obedience, and promifed them nothing but worldly, 
 temporal bieffirgs upon their compliance — that perfons might 
 enter into God's covenant, fulfil all its requirements, be en- 
 titled to all its blelfings and fo become members of God's an- 
 cient church according to bis appointment, while impenitent 
 and enemies to him — that the Jewilh church was eflentially 
 different from the Chriftian, and therefore the behevin'g Gen- 
 tiles were not graffed into the fame church or olive-tree, from 
 Avhich the unbelieving Jews were broken off, as the apollle r«- 
 prelents. Thefe are generally, if not univerfaliy, the fenti- 
 ments of our Bapcift brethren, which (hows, that the denial of 
 ii-ifant-baptifm leads to thefe errors. But how contrary tbefe 
 ideas are to the many plain exprefs declarations cf God's •^•oid, 
 is manifcft from what has been advanced en this fubjeift. And 
 thefe their ideas of the Abrahamic covenant, of the Hebretv 
 church and difpentation, as being merely external, ceremonial, 
 .:and tempsral, naturally tends to fink the Old Teftamsnt ia 
 
 * A Sernm: hy the Rev, Jacos CaTiiM- 
 
(8o) 
 
 thciT view, and to lead them to confider It as of little ufe or 
 importance to us, who are under a difpenfation fo entirely 
 different from the old one. Hencs it is, that there are fo ma- 
 ny among thofe that rejeft infant-baptifm, who treat the Old 
 Teftament fo lightly, calling it but a type and (hadow, deny- 
 ing it to be any rule to us, and averting, that it is of but little 
 ufe to Chriftians. But this certainly is cafting contempt upon 
 the word of God, and is confidering all the inftrudions, vi'hich 
 Chrlft communicated to his church for four thoufand years 
 as of little confequence. 
 
 But how differently did our Saviour and his apoftles treat 
 the facrcd fcriptures of the Old-Teftament ? They treated 
 them with the greateft regard and reverence, and were often 
 quoting from them to prove the dodrines they taught. — • 
 Chrift declared, that if perfons will not hear, and be brought 
 to repentance by the writings of Mofes and the prophets j 
 *• neither will they be perlbaded, tho' one rofe from the dead." 
 And the apoftle declares, that " All fcripture, [by which he 
 meant more efpecially the Old-Teftament, the New being at 
 that time but partly written] is given by infpiration of God, 
 and is profitable for doiSrine, inftrudion," 3cc. How errone- 
 ous and hurtful then the ideas of thofe, who make fo light of 
 the Old-Teftament difpenlation ? 
 
 Further, their mode of reafoning againft infant-baptifm, 
 and their ideas of the Old Teftaniesii t^end to lead theni' to 
 deny our obligations to keep the Chriliian fabbath, or even 
 any fabbath at all, as holy lime. One of their obje<ftions a- 
 gainft infant-baptifm is, that it is not exprefsly enjoined in the 
 New-Teftament. This is alfo the cafe with refpedl to the ob- 
 fervance of the Chriftian fabbatli or the firft day of the week. 
 The proof in both cafes is very fimilar. 
 
 Hence it is, that numbers of the Baplifts are Sabbatarians, 
 or hold to the obfervance of the feventh, inftead of the firft 
 day of the week. And others of them, v>ho are not profefTed- 
 ly Sabbatarians, when reminded, tbv;', the evidence infavor of 
 infant-baptifm, is fimilar to that in favor of the Chriftian fab- 
 hath, ailert ; that we are not exprefsly bound by God's word 
 to" keep the firft day of the v/eek as holy time, tho' it may be 
 well to do it. Others go ftill furfher, and aftert, that a*-- ths 
 Jewish difpenfation and fabbath are done away, and there is 
 no fabbath exprefsly inftituted ia the New-Teftament ; io we 
 arr not obligated to keep one clay holy more than another. 
 For all days are alike. And ihiir reafoning againfl infavir- 
 baptifm has a direfl tendency to lead them inloAich fcr.'.'rrer, ..■,. 
 
i 
 
 .J ( 8' ) 
 
 ""^lit how dangerous and hurtful thefe errors are, and of 
 what pernicious efiFe<5ls they would be produdtive, if generally 
 revalent ; the moft of you arc doubtlefs fenfible. The pre- 
 alence of thefe fentiments would greatly tend to encouratre 
 j^ ^tlienegleifl of a religious obfervancs of the fabbath, which i$ 
 ^ the principal means of maintaining the knov/ledge and prac- 
 tice of religion among mankind, and which was inftituted be- 
 fore the fall of man. Since therefore a denial of infant-bap- 
 tifm has a tendency to lead into fuch hurtful errors, though 
 doubtlefs many of our Baptift brethren do not embrace all 
 thefe erroneous fentiments ; it affords an additional reafon to 
 conclude, that it is an error. For the tendency of one error 
 is to lead into another-* 
 
 Another confequence, which will follow from the fentiments 
 of thofe, who deny infant-baptifm, is, that Chrift has had no 
 vifible church in the world for upwards of icoo years, fines 
 the commencement of the Chriftian difpenfation. They hold, 
 that infant-baptifm is no baptifm, and that without baptifm 
 there can be no vifible church of Chritt. Since therefore it 
 is certain from hillory, that infant-baptifm was praflifed in all 
 Chrillian churches for moie than a iogo years; it follows, 
 
 * Sines the puUtJhing afihefirfi edition^ I am much ntore convin-' 
 ad of the hurtful tendency of the denial of infant haptifm., in tht 
 particular noiu tneiitioKed^ I fnd by ebfervation and infonnaticn^ 
 that thefe erroneous fentiments appear to be gaining groutid amsng 
 the Eaptifts in our country, and are already lonJiJerakly prevalent. 
 Many of them deny the fanclity of the fabbathy or their cbligation to 
 ohfervs any part of time as holy ; and are becoming negleflful of 
 the Lord's day. Numbers of them reje£i the Old Tejiament alto- 
 gether, as being 'v^holly out of date, and no part of it no'vj binding 
 ftp on ynankind. Hence many of them think very light tf fabbath 
 breaking, and oppofe all lani's againfi this., as opprefion, and an 
 infringement upon the right ( of confcience. From their di [regard 
 to the Old Tefiamsnt, they have embraced the fentiment both in theory 
 and practice, that it is of very little confequence 'whether- civil magif 
 trdtta are fearers of God, and friends to h:s caufe, or^are openinfi* 
 dels and irreligious characters. And one cf their preachers, in hit 
 'Writings lately publifjed, and in high repute among the Baptijis tf 
 Nenu England, very plainly manifjls his preference of infidels t9 
 religious perfns for civil rulers. \ By their fentiments and prac 
 ticj. in thefe particulars, they are greatly injuring ths caufs cfreli' 
 iX^ion, and encouraging luickednefs and injrdelltj. 
 ■■ ' ' at foo", and itroke at traucb. 
 L 
 
vhat'Chnit h.id no vifible church m the vrorld during ,iha"4 
 period. An J if there were no vilible churches, then there 
 were no viiibli mini fters ofChrift. V/hat then became of the 
 promife of our Saviour to his church and minifters during this 
 period, that the gates of hell ihould not prevail againft it, and 
 ihat he would be with them always unto the end of the world ? 
 Could this be fulfilled if there were no vifible minifters or 
 churches of Chri'l ? Or can we fuppofe, that he would have 
 i_^io vifible church in the world for fo long a period ? '•■"■ 
 -' ' 'V^ In reflcvSling upon-the fubje<fl:, a number of importunt 
 con(ideraLions.naturally fuggeft themfelves to our minds. 
 
 I ft. Since hapuiin like circumcifion is a feal or token of 
 feiilh, and fo of the covenant of grace, it is evident, that none 
 c^m properly or acceptably confecrate their children to God 
 in this ordinance without faith or real religion. They muft 
 have the faith of Abraham, in order to apply to themselves 
 or children, in an acceptable manner, the feal of the right- 
 eoufnefs of faitlx^ When therefore perfons apply the token of 
 *^4Ef God's covenant to their children by dedicating them in bap- 
 tifm, and thus profefs to affent to his covena-nt, whiu; impen- 
 itent ; they are guilty of ^a hypocritical profefilon, and of. 
 greatly profaning this divine and folemn ordinance. Such 
 a. profanation of baptifm is more likely to draw down a curfe 
 tliaw a bleiriag.. ^ "'^ 
 
 2tlly. When parents confecrate thtir chlldrtn to God in 
 Vaprifm, they iclemnly bind tb^rnfclv.js to endeavor to -train 
 them up for God's fervice and to bring them up in the nurture 
 and a.inionidonof theLord. The v^hole church alio are ob- 
 ligated to. take care, that their parents thus do their duty, 
 snd that the children have a Chriftian educauon and are in- 
 ilruaed iH <livnre ihii^gs. V\"liea ' therefore fuch parents are 
 i:ot careful to reftraiu their childrtn from fir.ful courfes— to 
 warn and ixiftrudt'thein in divine tilings, and thus endeavor to 
 bring tiiem up for God ; they violate their folemn obligations 
 and enoagements. Their neglect brings guilt on thenifelves, 
 and it is ve!y cruel to ths-ir children, as it tends to ruin them 
 forever. 
 
 Are not mmY (>*' yo"t Oh p^ents, very negligent and guil. 
 ^' ty m this r^fpeci, that you are no more careiul by gious ex- 
 *'a'mpks, w<irmngs and inftruaio«'s" to train up year children 
 for (iud according to your folemn engagJenients, when you 
 CO nfeera c^d Uiem to hijn in baptifm ? Are you not endanger- 
 ing lihtir 'jkrnal, interells by your fmfuP liegled, as -well 
 Hs'b'iMgin^: eai gu.lc ,upoi\ your own 'fctls ? How tlreajj' 
 
 
 Wf ^' 
 
 1 
 
ful to think of being the means of dcftioying the ixTimortal^ 
 Ibalsof your dear offspving^ by your uniailbfalners ? As there- 
 fere you regard your own eternal good or that of your chiU 
 dren, be intrcated faithfully to {"nllil yom folcmn cngagemeiits 
 rind obligations by carefully rellraining thym from linliil cour- 
 f^s, and bringing them up in the nurture and adrr.oniucn of' 
 the Lord. 
 
 The church alfo are guilty, of a criminal neglect, when the v. 
 ilo net take cave, that parents are thus faithful, and that ihs 
 •: hildren have a Chrillran education. 
 
 jdly. SJDcc it appears from our fubjc6l, that it is the duty 
 cf believers to apply the feasor token of their faith to their 
 children, and thus publicly confecrate them to God, as did 
 Abraham the father of all believers ; it is evident that this is 
 an importanr tranfaclion, and a proper perfoi mance of. it Is 
 ufeful and beneficial, whether we are able to difcern the good 
 eiFe<S3 of it sr not. Suppofing we could not be able to dil- 
 rern the particular benefits of it, yet this would be no proof, 
 that it v/as not beneliciah But we can fee, how it may b-i 
 ufeful in feveral refpedts both to- parents and children. In 
 this tranfaciion parents renew covenant with God, are re- 
 Diinded of their obligations to give up all to him, of their pe- 
 culiar obligations to train up their children for him, and of 
 the need their children ftand in of divine grace or the wafliing 
 of regeneration. It may be advantageous to children, as it 
 lays their parents and the church under peculiar obligations 
 to fee, that they are brought up in the nurture and admonitlo.'v 
 of the Lord. 
 
 In this refpeS we can fee the beneficial tendency of inlant- 
 baptifm both to parents and children. 
 
 In addition to this, God can add his pecuhar blefiing to a 
 '^- proper cbfervance of this divine ordinance, as he generally^ 
 does to a right obfervance of his other pnfitive infuturions. 
 He can as eafily addhisbleffing to the pradice of infant-bap- 
 tiim, and render it beneficial, as he can to the obfervance of 
 the Lord's fupper, public worlhip, or any other divine ordi- 
 nance. For none of thefe inflitutions will be of any benefit,, 
 unlefs attended with a divine bleffing. As there was much' 
 profit in circumcifion, fo there is much reafon to conclude, that 
 baptifm, v,'hich new ftands in its ftead, is equally advanta- 
 geous. Thofe therefore who deny or neglect the duty of pub- 
 licly confecrating their children to God in baptifm, cut off 
 rhsmfdves and children from thefe benefits or bUiTing^s. And. 
 
cot only fo, but their negle(fl of this divine ordinance mufi: be 
 difpleafing to God andexpofe them to his frowns. 
 
 VI. Before I conclude, I mud exprefs my regret m being 
 under the difagreeable neceflity of introducing this controver- 
 fy into the pulpit at the prefent time. Altho' rcquefted feve- 
 ral times of late, 1 had determined not to preach vpon the 
 fubjeft at prefent, lell it fliould take off yonr attention, my 
 he:irers, from concerns of greater importance, and hinder the 
 revival of religion, v/ith which God has mercifully favored 
 us. But as the Baptifts have repeatedly preached upon the 
 fubjedt among us, and have pofitively aflerted, that no evi- 
 dence can be produced from the bible in favor of infant-bap- 
 tifm, and that thofe who join our chmxhes, have no evidence 
 but tradition, or the mere aflertions of their minifters ; it ap- 
 peared to be duty to exhibit from fcripture the evidence, on 
 ■«vhich vi'e proceed ; that we might vindicate our praflice 
 from fuch unjuft afperfio«s, and ihow the fallehood of fuch 
 vain boafting affertions. And novt^ I am ready to appeal to 
 every one, of whatever denomination who has candidly at- 
 tended to what has been fuggelted on the fubje^t, whether 
 fuch pofitive affertions and charges againft thofe, who prac- 
 tife infant-baptifm, are not unjuft j and do not favor too much 
 «f a vain felf-confldence. 
 
 Finally, it belioveth us all to enquircj whether we have, hj 
 a cordial faith been grafFed into the good olive-tree, become 
 interefted in the covenant of grace, and thus made partakers 
 of the bleflings of Abraham. It is by faith only, that we can 
 have a real ftanding in this covenant and in the church cf 
 Chrift, be the feed of Abraham, " and heirs according to the 
 promife." As God's ancient people, were " becaufc of unbe- 
 lief" broken oif from their vifiblc ftanding in this church, and 
 Tvere deprived of all its privileges and bleflings ; we ftould 
 ••be not high-minded, but fear." «' For if God fpared not 
 the natural branches," he certainly will not fpare us, if we re- 
 axiain impenitent. Without a cordial union to Ghriil, we Ihall 
 not be benefited by his atonement — for thofe who believe 
 not, are condemned already. And unlefs we arc united to 
 him by faith and love — are in him, as the branch is in the 
 vine ; we Ihall be caft forth as withered branches, and be burnt 
 ■with unquenchable fire. It is therefore infinitely important 
 to each one of us, tliat we be graffed into the good olive-tree, 
 and become interefted in the covenant of grace : otherwife we 
 fhall be forever excluded from the glorious bleflings of the 
 gofpel. — And there will be " v/eeping and gaafliing of teeth, 
 
(85) 
 
 v^he-i ye fiialiree Abraltam,Ifaacand Jacob, an J all the r"- 
 phnsinthe Icingdom of heaven, and you yourfeWes thiuft 
 cm " A'ld thoie parents, who are out ofChnll, or are neg- 
 ligent oEii/ine thin-S are bringing ruin I'Ot only upon ihcra- 
 fclves, but alio upon their dear children. They do not de- 
 vote them to God in faith, neither do they ti am them up for 
 him in the ways of pisty ; nor have ever once fmcerely prayed 
 God to have mercy upon them. On the contrary their im- 
 penitence, difr.bedlence, and oppofition to God, tend to draw 
 .iown his difpleafure upon themfeives and families, and taefr 
 
 \ 
 
 .udown his dilpleaiure upon [ncuiitivc^ a...^ .»....-...., .-"- — 
 i^il examples and negledt of relision tend to lead their children 
 with them to deftruaion. i T,^ 
 
 Are there not a great number of you, my hearers, who 
 areailloutofChriftandhavenotitle to the bleffings of the 
 covenant of grace ? Your ftate, O finners, is awfully wretched. 
 You have nothing to Ihelter you^^rom the cixrfes of Gods . 
 holvlaw. Yoahangoverthepitof duftruaion by nothing 
 buc the flender thread of hfc, which is Uable every moment to 
 be cut afunder ; and unlefs you foon become reconcded to 
 God, and cordially embrace the Saviour, you xyul be undone 
 fo^ev- T^hefituatinnof thofepfyou, who have remained 
 'carelefs during this revival of religion, or who, after being 
 awakened, have gone back again to a Rate of aupidity. is 
 dreadfully dangerous. There is reafon to fear, that the fpir- 
 it of God i£ about to depart from us in its awakening influen- 
 ces and many of you appear by your condud, ^^^^ Y^^ 
 wilhed to provoke him to leave you. But what w. 1 be ome 
 of vou.fliouldthefpiritot God depart from yoa? If loft to 
 Tourfelves, jou will certainly go on in your fins, treafunng up 
 Irath a^ainft the day of wrath. How wicked and- dangerous 
 then to do any thing, -^"hich will tend to quench the ftnvmgs 
 oLtheholvlflint, or to provoke him to leave you? Should 
 tkrevivalnovv ceafcandHiould there be no more awaken- 
 ings for ro vears to come, than there hive been for 50 years 
 Ja : would not ihe greater part of you, who are m a Itate 
 of impenitence, die in your fins, and go down to deftruction ? ^ 
 Tl" thought isvery t;emendous. However light any of you ^ 
 ma; make of thefe things; yet your Chnftian friends are 
 nembling for your immortal fouls. Have not you therefore 
 ^uThgriter reafon to fear and trefeble for yourfelves ? You 
 have blen favored w-ith a pecuhar leafon-fuch a ^^-f^n, as 
 but few generations are favored with. God has come down 
 amon. you bv the influences of his h.ly fpint-has awaken- 
 ed the'atrcntion of numbers, who, we hope, havefct forward 
 
(S6} 
 
 towards heaven', and doubtlefs he has alfo knocked at the door 
 of your hearts. But you have neglected his calls, refifted the- 
 ftrivings of his fpirit, and now God feems to be departing from 
 you. Therefore there is great danger, that you will be left 
 to go on in your fins, and bring upon yourfelves an aggra- 
 vated condemnaiion. For Ihould you periih, all thefe calls 
 and warnings will rife up in judgement againft you, and will' 
 greatly increafe your guilt and mifery. For to whom much" 
 is given, of them much will be required. God may juftly fay .^ 
 to you, *' Becaufe I have called, and ye have refufed — hay^^ 
 iet at nought all my counfels, and would none of my re-if? 
 proof: I alfo will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when^ 
 your fear Cometh." "Then fhall they call upon me, but I 
 will not anfwer ; they (hall feek me early, but they Ihall not" 
 find me " How will it aggravate your mifery, ihould you 
 neglect and fiill fliort, to reimember what opportunities you 
 liave mifirnproved ; and to confider, how your acquaintance 
 and companions engaged in religion, and fecureaf immortal: 
 glory and felicity; while you neglefted your eternal concerns- 
 for the vain tranfitory pleafures, pofTsffions, and enjoyments of" 
 this world ? How cutting v^ill be the refledion, that for thefe 
 momentary enjoyments, you loft the endlefs joys of heaven, 
 and plunged into remedilefs woe ? Will not the thoughts of" 
 your felly add greatly to your wretchednefes ? Why then will 
 you not be perfuaded in this your day to make your peace with 
 God, to engage in religion i For " her ways are ways of 
 pleafantnefs and all her paths are peace." It will afford you^ 
 an unfailing fource of comfort and fupport under al! the evils' 
 and troubles of life, will fupport in the hour of death,. and yield' 
 •everlaUing felicity beyond the grave. Ame>?. 
 
S7) 
 
 AN APPENDIX, 
 
 •yCf^ CONTAINING A 
 
 j^^- LETTER TO THE AUTHOR, 
 
 Shix'mg that no one fuirtkular MODE of applying ivatert 
 
 to the e:iclufim of all others, is ES5ENTUL to the 
 
 VALWnr of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 I 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 RECEIVED a note from you, requefting me to fend yon 
 _^ my thoughts, on the mode of Baptifm, that they may be 
 publifhed, as an appendix t© your fermons. I comply. But 
 fo much has been already written on this fubjedt, that I con- 
 ceive you will not wl(h me to do more than is neceffary to a 
 • brief view of the matter propofed. 
 
 I conceive it very important to afcertain the proper fub- 
 jefts of this ordinance. But to me it appears, that the mode 
 of applying water in baptifm, though not altogether indiffer- 
 ent, is of lefs confequence ; and that neither fprinkling, nor 
 imnierfion, is exclufively effential t© the vaHdity of the ordi- 
 nance. I ihould therefore confider it unneceffary to publlfu 
 any thing on the fubjeft, were it not, that there are Chriftians, 
 who not only conceive that the mode is elfential ; but who 
 refufe communion with, and virtually excommunicate thi 
 greateft part of the church of Chiift, not only on account of the 
 Tubjedsof baptifm, but alfo of the mode in which they have 
 been baptized ; and hold it effential to the validity of the or^ 
 dinance, that it be adminiftercd by a total imanerfion ofth^ 
 bcdy. It th-^rcfore becomes necefiary to examine the fabjec?.. 
 
 f 
 
( S8 ) 
 
 "^ 
 
 For it muft be wrong to do all this, on grounds not warranted jj 
 
 by the word of God. My dellgn is to fliovv from the holy % 
 
 fcriptures, that hmnerfton is ?tot mcejary to the Validity of A 
 
 Crijiian Bapftfvu -^,, ' 
 
 I. I begin by making feme cJbffeVvatlons on the meaning 
 
 ^^ g- of the Greek woid Baptizo, from which the word Baptifm is 
 
 *" ■' derived, as it is ufed by Chriil and his apoftles. It is of litde 
 
 confequence to enquire how this word has been ufed by w^^, 
 : ^^ ,,ters in other ages. It is fufEcient, if we can find how it ,1S i 
 ywKS^ •''always ufed in the New-Teftament. This word is ufed, in itsVe 
 
 I 
 
 W. 
 
 
 veral variations, in theNew-Teftament, not only for the ordinance 
 ;0.f Chriftian baptifm, but for other ceremonial and religious 
 nvaftings.* Let us examine whether, in fuch cafes, it de- 
 rotes immerfion. This may help to fix its meaning, when 
 applied to the Chriftan ordinance. This word is ufed for the 
 cut pauring of the Koly Spiiit on the day of Pentecoft. 
 *' John truly baptized with water ; but ye (hall be baptized^ 
 with the Holy Ghoft, not many days hence." Which took 
 place at the time nnw mentioned, according to this predidion, 
 and according to the prophecy of Joel. " And it Ihall ccme 
 to pafs in the laft days, (faith God) I will pour out my Spirit 
 upon all ftefti." The fame word is again ufed in the fame 
 fenfe by Peter, in reference to the defceiit of the Holy Ghcfl 
 on the aifembly at the houfe of Cornelius. " Then remem- 
 bered I the word of ihe Lord, how he faid, John indeed bap- 
 tized witlfHvater ; but ye Ihall be haptlzed with the Holy 
 Ghon,."J On a careful examinalicn, I c^lnot find a fngle 
 inftance, except where the ordinance in qiicftion is refpefteci, 
 in which immerfinn is clearly denoted by the word : hut 
 ■whenever it refpeAs the ufe of water, it apparently fignifies 
 fprinkling, or afFj{ion,and in fome in fiances this is unquef- 
 tionahle. I will mention feveral indariC.es. This word is 
 twice ufed in one verfe. "And when they come from the 
 market, except they waflij (baptize) they eat not. Andtirna- 
 .rf ny other things there be, which they have received to hold, 
 JjU'as the wafiiings^ (haptifivs) of cups and pots brazen vciTt ' 
 and tables." Here the word denotes pouiing on wat 
 
 * I cafi7ieffnd that Baptizo is evsr , ufed in the Greek Tcfa' 
 metit to denote any/ Wafhings, hut fuch as iveir sfieaned cf a reli-^, 
 gious nature. All ether ivajl:it!gs are exprepd by Nipto LouOijr" 
 fome other nvord ; hut never by Baptizo. ,.;,- 
 
 f BaptiJIheffoe, A^s i. 5. ^X A<^H ;:i. 16. 
 
(89) 
 
 •RfhicTi was the cuftom in which the Jews wafted their hands, 
 as Elilha poured water on the hands of Elijah. And howe- 
 ver they might wafh their cups and pots, their tables were too 
 large to be conveniently waJhed in any other way, and pro- 
 bably thefe walhings were a kind of imitation of the purifi- 
 cation of the veflels of the fanftuary, which was done by 
 ff rinkling.* The fame word is ufed in the i'ame manner, 
 where it is faid that the Pharifee marvelled, that Jefas had not 
 firft waflied (baptized )\ before meat, which the Pharifees 
 confidered as a religious rite. 
 
 The apoftle, in his epiftle to the Hebrews, exprefsly calls 
 the Mofaic fprinklings baptifms, where he fays, that that ritu- 
 al " ftood only in meats, and drinks, and diverfe wafliings 
 (baptiftHs." )X Which he illultrates, by inftancing the blood 
 of buUs, and goats, and the afhes of an heifer, fprinkling the 
 unclean — and the blood of calves, and goacs, with water, with 
 ■which Mofes fprinkhd the book, and all the people, and like- 
 wife his fprinkling with blood the tabernacle, and all the vef^ 
 .fels of the n.iniftry. Since therefore tlie word tranflated bap- 
 tize, as ufed in the New-Teltament, ufually, and for ought I 
 can difcover, always denotes fprinkling or affufion, when it 
 relates to the ufe of water, and does not refpect the Chriftlan 
 ordinance, it is evident that when it is ufed for this ordinance 
 it does not necejfarily denote immerfion ; but may in' port 
 fprinkling or pouring on. And here it is proper to obferve 
 further, that the Greek word Bapto, which properly fignifies 
 ^* «///>, and is fo ufed in the New-Tertament, II and is the only 
 word that is fo tranflated in it, is always avoided, when Chrif- 
 tian baptifm is intended. 
 
 II. Another argument againft the neceffity of immerfion, 
 in the adminiftration of tins oidinance, arifes from the con- 
 fidcratiofl, that there is neither precept, nor example for it, in 
 the Nev.-Teftament. Thefe have been diligently fought for, 
 by the advocates for immerfion, and with great propriety ; 
 for if thefe cannot be found, it muft be abundantly evident 
 
 * Levit. viii. 1 1. f Ebaptijihe, Luke xi. 3!. 
 
 X Bapti/tnois, Heb. ix. 10, &c. 
 II John xiii. 26. and Kev. xix. 13. Jf Bjptizo veceffhrily 
 figr.ijitd TO d;p, // ay ouldfclloiv, that ixihen tks jeivj coj?ie frovi 
 market, " ey.upt they dip, or are ivn/t:-rfed in ivater, ihey -.at mt ;" 
 and that the Pharifee marvelled that Jefu: had not firjt dipped 
 hivifelfin fwater before meat. But no one ftppcfis thmt in ttcje 
 irfjatice: tht 'v:erd hai ttisJ'igni^cai:or.. 
 M 
 
( 9° ) " 
 
 from this fingle confideration alone, that God, who fo minute- 
 ly defcribed every circumftance relative to the Mofaic ceremo- 
 nies, and has in this cafe given no particular direflions, in what 
 mode the water fhould be applied in baptifm, does not confi- 
 der it e/Tential to the validity of the ordinance. For fuch direc- 
 tions would have been abfolutely necefl'ary, if iinirtrficn was 
 CiTential. It has however been urged, that "what the apoftle 
 fays, Kcb. X. 22. ought to be confidered as having the force 
 cf a precept. *' Let us draw near, with a true heart, in full 
 afiiirance of faith, having our bodies 'wafhei* with pure wa- 
 ter.^' If this text refpeded the ordinance of baptifm, it would 
 not ^'cr^^'r/^ imply immerfion ; for bodies v:ay be wafhed by 
 fprinklirg and putting water on them. Nor would it necef- 
 farily imply, that the whole body ftould be waftied. For 
 -when a certain woman poured ointment on the head only of 
 our Lord, he faid that ihe came to annoint his bcdy.f And 
 when he waflied his difciples' feet, he faid to Peter, who defi- 
 xed not only to have his feet waflied ; but alfo his hands and 
 his head, " Ke that is walhed, needeth not, fave to wafh his 
 feet, but is clean every whit.":f But the words, "Having 
 our hearts fprinkled from an evil confcience, and our bodies 
 waflied w ith pure water," have no refpe^fl to the ordinance of 
 baptifm. The apoftle was not treating on this fiibje«ft ; but 
 on fandification : and the obvious meaning is the fandlifica- 
 tion both of the inner and the outward man — the afiedions 
 and the condud. And it v/ill not be pretended, that there 
 is any other dire<5t precept for immerfion. 
 
 And as to example?, John the Baptift, or Baptizer,^ is the 
 fi; ft recorded in the New-Teflament, that ever baptized. But 
 
 * 'QOi^Xizohi its feveral ternitnationst is ahvays ufed In tie 
 original, ^j:hett baptifm is intatded. But the ivcrd here iravjia' 
 ted wafned, is leloumtnoi, froifi louo, ajid therefore das 7iot 
 ?/h-a:i baptized. 
 
 f Matlh. iu. 16. t John xiii. 10. 
 
 § The nvordYrApuii in the cririrfi/, /V Baptiftes, ^W/V derhed 
 ir,7}ie(Jiuteh, net fio?ii Bapto to dip ; hutfrvm Baptize to hapt:zey 
 and th'Ci-cfore does not fignify a Dipper as Jovie have reprefcnted ; 
 hut a Baptizer. 'Ihoje 'who fay y itfignipes a dipper ^ appeal to. en 
 did Dutch travfalion of tho pafc.ge. But 'vchik ivc are in fcjjff- 
 /]on cfthi- Grceii original ^ no trarfrJion can he ackncwledgcd as c.n 
 euttority. — But as the I'.-crd BafHf is comwcrdy vfd to der.rAe 
 ile AKtipt'^d'j-BL^^tf, 1 ht\i.e in this ktter coifonued to genet al 
 
(90 
 
 k IS no where told u.;, what mode be ufed. This Is not pre- 
 tended. It is only faid, th;xt from a number of expreffions, it 
 •is highl)' probable, that it was immcdlon. Let thefe e.^piei- 
 lions and circurallances be examined. 
 
 We are informed, that '* \?'hen Jcfus was baptized, he came 
 "up out ofji the water." Bat the v/ord tranflated aJ of, is 
 often tranflated frov^, and might have been juniy io rendered 
 in this paffanjc ; and therefore does not prove, that be fo n)uch 
 2s liepped his feet into the water ; much lefs that his whole 
 body was buried in it. 
 
 Bcftdes : Chrill was an high-prieft. And accoi-ding to the. 
 Mofaic law, the priefts were to enter on their office at thirty 
 years of age ;*■ and were to be confecrated to it, by being 
 ■wafhed with water. And a brazen laver was made, and' va- 
 ter put into it, for them to wafh their hands and their feet, 
 which is the only walbing, that is particularized of them. 
 Chritl therefore waited until all the people were baptized,^, 
 that he miglit attain the proper age, and was then immedi- 
 ately baptized, not like others, for the remiffion of fms, for he 
 had none ; but as a confecration to his office. And this is 
 tlie more evident, becaufe it was not until that time, that he 
 entered upon his public miniftry, which thenceforth he profe- 
 ctited thro' lif°. And inftead of being anointed v/ith oil, as 
 ftther priefts were, he was publicly anointed with the Holy 
 Ghoft. It is therefore at lea ft as reafonable to believe, that 
 only his hands and feet were waihed, as that he was totally 
 immerfed. His baptifm was doubtlefs lo far according to 
 law, as to fulfil all righteoufnefs in his confecration to the 
 priefts' office. Befid^s, the baptifm of Chrift, being a confe- 
 cration to the priellhood, can be no certain exampls for us, rzi- 
 peding either the age or manner of baptifm, unlefs'we alfo 
 would enter upon th(? fame office. 
 
 The only re^ubn that can be affigned from the fcriptures, 
 why John baptized vi\ (or as it might be as correctly tranf- 
 
 li Matth. ill. 1 6. A'^o here tranflated out of, // tranjlaied 
 from Rev. xviii. 14. And the fruits that thy foul lufeth ofte-y 
 are departed (apo) from thee., and all the things 'vjhich ivere dain- 
 ty and goodly are departed (apo) from thee. 
 
 * Exod. xxix. 4. and XX.X. l8. ^ Luke iii. il. 
 
 % Matth. iii. 6. En here tranfatcd in, // often tranfated at. 
 John li. 23. No'ivivksn he nuas at Jerufalem (en) -Mthe pnffo- 
 ver. Alfo John iv. 45. All the tk'ivgs that he did (en) at Jeru-- 
 falsm,{zu)-^lihifeafi. 
 
(90 
 
 lated at) Jordan, was becaufe he preached there j it betrig 
 near Jerufalem, and the populous parts of the country, and 
 therefore convenient for muhitudes to attend on his miniftry * 
 But at another time, we read that he baptized in Enon, be- 
 caufe there was much water there. This has been urged 
 as a proof that he baptized by immerfion. But if we could 
 affign no other reafonfor his chufing a place of much water, 
 "We could not be warranted in averting, that there was no o- 
 ther reafon ; nor that this was his mode. And if people had 
 never heard of this mode of baptizing, I do not think, that 
 this pafTage would have fo much as fuggefted the idea of im- 
 merfion to their minds ; but they would have rationally con-» 
 eluded, that when vaft numbers were flocking to hear his in- 
 ftruftions, and were many of them under the awakening and re- 
 newing pow^er of the Holy Spirit, and defirous to continue 
 tvith him as much as poflible, it war, neceffary that he 
 fhould chufe a place, when he was in the wildemefs, that was 
 •Well fupplied with water. It was neceffary for the refrefh- 
 ment of his hearers, & the beafls on which they'rode, with drink 
 and other provifions ; for in thofe warm countries efpecially, 
 the places well watered are ufually moft produdive of food, 
 for both man and beaCt. His chufing that place therefore, in 
 a country where water is exceedingly fcarce, as this palfage 
 proves it was, is of little weight, to furnilh a conclufion which 
 involves the validity of a Chritlian ordinance, that is no where 
 faid to depend on the mode of applying water. I cannot fee 
 that there is any evidence, that John adminillered baptifm by 
 fmmerfion. 
 
 But it is again cited, in proof of immerfion,that Philip and 
 the eunuch went down both h2to the water, and came up cut of 
 the water, v/hen the latter was baptized.* The words tranf- 
 lated into, and out of., might have been as cotredly tranflated 
 to, SiVidi from, which is fufficient to (how, that they afford no 
 evidence that he wa- immerfed. And the circumftances of 
 the cafe were fuch, th.it it was neceffary that they fhould go 
 down to, and come up /Jew the waterj in order that baptifm 
 right be adminillered in any mode and they then go their 
 Way } and this is all that the , words prove that they 
 
 * Ai5\s, viii. 3?. The nuorJs here tranjlated into and out of, 
 are eis and ek. Eis // often rendered to. So Chriji directed Pe^ 
 ter. Matt. xvii. 27. to go (eis) to the fea, and caji an hooky i!fc. 
 Jind ek // tranjlated kouiy Luke xi. 13. — She (tki^ queen cf the 
 JouMj) cams (ek) trom the utmajl ^arts of the earth, lix. 
 
(»3) 
 
 did. But even if they ftepped in«-o the water, there is nothing 
 to (how how Phihp appUed the water to the fubje(5t of baptifm. 
 But if the words rendered into and out of, mujl mean buried 
 in the water, iho' they expreis no iuch thing, then both muji 
 have been buried ; for certainly, according to the text, both 
 ■went down alike int6, and came up out (j/the water. 
 
 I do not know of any other examples, that our Baptift 
 brethren bring to prove the neceffity of a total immerfion in 
 baptifm ; unlefs perhaps the inftance of Lydia, who was by 
 the fide of a river when Ihe believed. But whether fhe wa« 
 bapti/ed, and had her houfchold baptized at the river, or at 
 her own door, is altogether uncertain. 
 
 And now, how incunclufive are all thefe examples, which 
 are brought forward to fupport the neceffity of immerfion ? 
 The mode of applying water is not fo much as mentioned, iii 
 any one of thefe inltances, nor is any thing faid, that implies, 
 or gives us a right to conclude, that immerfion was ufed. 
 
 But fuppofing that it could be made to appear probable, 
 that John adminiltersd baptifm in this mode; which is cer- 
 tainly without proof from the fcriptures, and refts on mere 
 conjecflure ; and fuppofing that his example were a pattern 
 for our imitation, in the adminiftration of Chriftian baptiim, 
 which is by no means evident, the refult would be only this, 
 that it is probable, that baptifm fiiould be adminiftered by im» 
 merfion. But further, if it could be even prov^ed, that he im- 
 merfed, it would not certainly follow that the baptifm, which 
 Chrill inftituted, after his refurredion, when all types and 
 fliadows were done away, was adminiftered in the fame mode.* 
 
 * What Ims been already faid,JJjo'ws that there is no evidence ^ 
 that John baptized by iimnerfK^n ; but fince our brethren injtji 
 -much on his baptifm^ and profefs to fcllo'w him in their mode., it may 
 h lueli enough to enquire ivhai John's baptifm ivas ; for if it nvat 
 r.ct the prefent Chrifian ordinance, it 'would not he f efficient to eflah~ 
 iifj) the i node for aj-, even though bis nude could be made clearly 
 mahifefl. 
 
 I . Jckft's baptifn ivas not an ancient Jeivilh rite ; for there 
 is no fuch inflitution to be feen in the Mofaic ritual. Nor did the 
 chief priefis and Levites knonu of ar.y fuch rite, for if they had thef 
 nuould not have afked him, as they did ivly he I apt i zed, if he ivere 
 neither the Chrifl, nor Elias, nor yet that prophet. And ivhen 
 Chriji afked them of the baptifn of John, 'whence it 'was, had there 
 been fuch an inflitution in their ritual, they 'would ?sot have 'willing' 
 ly betrayed their ignorance, by anfwering, we cannot tell. 
 
(94) 
 
 It y?as then that Chiift commiffioned his minifters to " tsacft 
 all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
 theSon, and of the Holy Ghoft." And the inflances of bap- 
 tifm after Chrill's refune»^Ion, that Itand on record, do not 
 
 ±. Nor tvas jfohri's haptifm Chrijiian Iciptlfm ; for notivith' 
 Jfanding luhat has been faid to evciJs th: natural meaning of the 
 facredhijiorian^ it appears from the firjl part of the xix. chap^ of 
 tl'e A£}sy that Jelm did mt baptize as the apoflks did. We are 
 there informed, that Paul, fndin^:^ certain difciples at Epheftts, en- 
 quired luhether they bad received the Holy Gho^,fince they believed. 
 *' And they faid unto hi !u, w.? have }2ot f mazh as heard ^whether 
 there be any Holy Gl^ofl.^* Paul anfii'ercd as if a?nazed. Whaty 
 baptized ? and not Iward iwether there be any Holy Ghofl ? ** f7«- 
 to 'Vjhat then 'VJsre ye baptized- ^nd they faid unto Johti's bap' 
 tifm." The matter nvas nsiu cleared up, and Paul proceeded t9 
 chferve, *' John verily baptized ivith the baptifn of repentance, 
 frying unto the people, thai they fJyo'M believe on hi?n that fooiild 
 come after him, that is, on Lhrifl Jefus. IVhen they heard this, 
 ihcy 'were baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus" The mojl' 
 natural confiru^ion of thefe nxiords imports, that 'when Paul had 
 fud this, and enlightened them tJito the knovolcdge of Chriji, they 
 •vjtre baptized according to his inflitution. 
 
 Bcfides : Chriji fpeaks of John as not belonging to the Chrifiiav 
 difpenfation, ivhcn he fays that " The leaf in the kingdam of hea- 
 •ccn is greater than he J* Av.d John fays viuch the fame of himfejf. 
 ♦« /> vmjl increafe ; hut I mufi decreafe." That is. His dif- 
 fenfation 7nuf increafe ; ntine decrcafe, 'vihich could not have been 
 true ifjo^m ivas a Chrifiian jniv.ijjer. And the corftderation, that 
 John did no miracles, is 'ariother evidence that his "Jias not the 
 Chrifiian difpeffation, 'which like that ofMofes, required to be intro^ 
 duced 'With ihefeal of miracles. 
 
 Thofe ivho contend that John I'ias a rninijler of the Chrijiiatr 
 iifpeiifation, endeavour tofipport this opinion, from ivhat is faid in 
 the fiif chapter of Mark, nvhich begins 'with thefe 'words, " The be- ■ 
 gijining cfthe gofpel of Jefus Chriji the Son of God,^* and immedi- 
 ately mentions the niiniftry of John. From this they 'would infer, that 
 L' belonged to the Chrifiian difpetfition. But a little attention 'will 
 ferve to difcover, that thefe 'words are given, like a title page, to 
 exprefs the general fuljcif of the hook. And the little that folloi'.'j 
 c-jnccrning John, nvas necejj'ary to/hjcw tha fulfilment of the fcrip' 
 tures, concerning the. fore-runner 'jfChrifi, and to give an intet- 
 Mgihle account of our L^rd' s baptifn, nuhrfe hiflory the evangelrft 
 hadtio'v.fst dmxints'wrlte,-and thercfr^ does not fuggeji theideai thai 
 
95) 
 
 afford thcleaft degree of probability that immerfion was prao 
 tifed, and Tome of theni were fo circumilanced, that it is dif- 
 ficult to conceive how it was poffible, that it fliould be. The 
 fir;]: inftance was on the day of Pentecoit. At nine o'clock ia 
 
 yohn belonged ta the Tte'W dlfpenfatkn. To prove that "John *waf 
 
 a Chrtfiian minijlery and that therefore his haptlfvi vjas ChriJiiaH 
 
 haptifm, a pajfagc is cited in Luke xvi. x6. " '/"/;<? lam and the 
 
 ptophets were until J'yhn ; fince that time the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 is preached, and every 7Kan prejfvth into it." But this does not 
 
 prove, that at that tinie^ the old difpeifation gave way to the ne-iv ; 
 
 for it is certain that John obeyed the old ritual, and that our Lord 
 
 himfslf to the day of his crucifixion, confidered it in full force ^ and 
 
 sonforyned to it. But the natural import of the p<^ffage appears to 
 
 he thit, yohn 'was a more clear inJlruSIive preacher, than any ivh» 
 
 •went before him ;, and his -miniftrywas atteiided 'with unufiial fac-. 
 
 Ci'fs. This agrees 'with what is f aid in the %%th verfe of the vil. 
 
 chapter of this evavgelifi. " For I fay tmto you, among thofe that 
 
 are horn of 'women , there is not a greater than John the Baptiji i 
 
 hut he that is leaf} in the kingdom of God is greater than he'''* 
 
 Mr. Calvin, and Mr. PooV s continuators, confidered this pajfage 
 
 as meaning, ^■^ that among all the prophets of the Old Tef}a7nent, 
 
 God raifed up none greater than John ; but that the leaf of thofe 
 
 ihat/hould preach the gofpel after Chrift^s refurre£iion, Jlwidd in 
 
 their doSlrine he greater than he." This foows that John did not 
 
 belong to the new difpenfation, which is here called, hy way of fii^ 
 
 perior eminence, the kingdom of God, — Dr. Gill, an European Bap- 
 
 tifi writer, argues that John^s haptifm was the Chriflian baptifm^ 
 
 hecaufe he required offuch as he baptized repentance for the re' 
 
 mifion of fins, as the ter7?u of their admijfon to it, and that they 
 
 flyoidd believe en him ih.tt jhould come after hi?n, that is, on Chrifl ; 
 
 us the apojiles required repentance and faith of thofe whom they 
 
 kc'ptized. Douhtlifs John preached true Jpiritual religion ; and fa 
 
 did Mofcs and the prophets. They preacheu repentance and remif- 
 
 Jkn of fins, ^nd Mcfss required that the people fi^oidd believe on 
 
 Chrifi — the prophet whom God would raife up unto them from 
 
 among their brethren. And the fmie gofpel was preached mito 
 
 Abraham. Repentance and remijjijn of fins, ".y/'-f alfo fiigjtified hy 
 
 the Mofaic fprinklings, and purifications, and Chrifi was fijadow- 
 
 ed out by every facrifics. A?id the Jews were required to attsni 
 
 them, with fitch fpirilual e>^ercifs, as the terms of their acceptance, 
 
 with God. Therefore thefe Mofaic fprinkUngj, •-.':.•;•; the apoftle calls 
 
 haptifns, m.zy as well he called Chrifihni hupiff*.. as 'John's, as he 
 
 required no more ef ihofe '•^.^hzm he adn.it led, ih-^n M<:fes did in the 
 
(96) 
 
 the inorning the apofiles were preaching, and feme of the 
 Jews were heaving with folemnity, and others cavilling, which 
 muft probably have taken up the time till about noon. And 
 yet, after this, three thoufand made profeffion of their faith, 
 and were baptized. — This was at the rate of nolefsthan eight 
 perfons to a minute, during the whole afternoon. It is dif- 
 ficult to believe that all thefc were immerfed, becaufe there is 
 no account that they were ; and becaufe it is difficult to coa- 
 ceive how they could find water for this mode. The baths at 
 the temple, if they v.ere fuitablefor the bufinefs, could not be 
 obtained on this feaft of the Jews : they were wanted by the 
 
 covenant that he adnilntjlered to the people- It therefore runaint 
 tvident, not'withjiand'mg all thefe objeclions, that "John did not ad'. 
 winijler the Chrijlian haptifnu 
 
 3. Thebaptifviofjohnivas a 1 tie peculiar to that ^reat oc. 
 cafion^ and dijigned to purify the people for the coming of the Mefiah- 
 7 his is agreeable to the account that John gave of hinfelf to the 
 priejit and levitesj 'v:ho 'were fent to afi hi?/!, ivho he -was .•■' 'Johjt 
 i. 1 9, ^c. he told them that he ivas not the Chrifty nor Eliast 
 nor that prophet ; hut the -voice of one crying in the 'wildernefs , Make 
 Jiraight the nuay of the Lord. They then a fed 'vjhy he baptized ? 
 his atfvjer implies, that it 'was tofanfiify the people for the com- 
 ing of one far greater than himfif. " I baptize ix-'ith 'vjater^ but 
 ther- Jlan.ieth one ajnongyou, ivhom ye hio'-jj not ; he it is, iy>h* 
 coming afer me, is preferred before 77ie, ivhofe foes latchet I am 
 not nvirthv to unhofe." The Jeivs expeSied the Meffiah, and Jieed' 
 ed no miracles to prove that hs "ivas coming : and could at once fee, 
 that it ivas fuitable that his 'wayf?ould be prepared by a univerfal 
 purification of the people, 1 hey <vjere accuftomed to purifications on 
 their religious occajions, and fpecial folenmities, as at the pajfover, 
 pentecof, the day of atonement ■, at their free-iuill offerings, and 
 the people lucre fanhified at Sinai, and on ail great religious occa- 
 finns. And "dnhen they fou7id the def.gn of his baptifm 'was to pre- 
 pai e the people for the coming ofChriJl, nothing appears hut that 
 it IV js fatisfahory. Though indeed there ctrofe a quefion, betiveen 
 fvnie of John's difcipks and the 'Jews, about p'^trifying ; "which, by 
 the -way, fjo'ws that on both fides it fwas conf.dered as a purifying 
 rite, and n:t a gofpel feal, Jn this viciX' the minifryofjohn and 
 his baptifn appear to be an exaH accomplifmcnt of that, 'which 
 *waif. retold of him by the prophets Ef.ias andMalachi. Ifaiah xl. 3. 
 and Malachi, iv. 5. And thit is the account that he gives of him- 
 fif On the 'whole, it appearsthat his baptifn 'was not an ancient 
 Jcmjifi) lite, nor the goffel hiiptij'i>>, but a tuatier peculiar tc that 
 i'xti aorJinary occajhu. 
 
( 97 } 
 
 pnefls. And befides, the priefts would h^nve been litrle dirpo- 
 fed to have lent them to the apoftles, to be put to what they 
 would have confidered an unhallowed uie, in honor of one 
 whom they had jult executed as a blafphcraer. And it is equal- 
 ly difficult to conceive, how fo many could have been im- 
 merfed with decency, in lb ftiort a time, if each o£ the eleven 
 , apoftles had left the bufinefs of preaching, and inftru<ftion, and 
 could have found a convenient place of water ; and fuitablc 
 changes of raiment could have been obtained. The account 
 is apparently inconfiftent with this mode — Befides, we never, 
 after the afcenfion of Chrifl:, read of any difficulty in cb<;ai ning 
 water for the purpofe of baptifm, or of going out to any bath, 
 ftream or fountain ; but the natural import of the accounts 
 are, that whenever people believed, and profefied their belief, 
 they were baptized ; whether at j>irufalem,or at the houfe of 
 Cornelius, of JuJas or of the jailor. And in the inRances lafl; 
 mentioned, it appears very improbable, that immeifion was 
 pradifed. In the inftance at the houfe of Corndius, Peter 
 faid, " Can any man foi bid water, that tliefe ihould not be 
 baptized."* This manner of expreffion fuggeds, rather the 
 bringing water for baptizing them in the houfe, than their go- 
 ing abroad to fome river or fountain for the purpofe. And 
 the inftance of Saul's baptifm, at the houie of Juda?, is fiill 
 more inconfiitent with the luppofition that he was immerfed. 
 As fjon as Ananias adJrcffed him, " Immediately there fell 
 from his eyes, as it had beenfcaies, nnd he received ught ibrtli- 
 with, andarofe," all weak ashe was with his diflrefs of mind, 
 and failing three days, " and was baptized, and when he had 
 received meat, he was ilfengthened."f And when the jailor 
 ■was baptized, it was midnight, and Paul and Jiilas were fore 
 with the ftripes vvhich they had received from the magiftrates 
 of Philippi ; and yet, at this hour, and in this condition, he 
 took Paul and Sila^, and vvaliied their ih-ipes, ynd was bapti- 
 zed, he and rll his ftraightway.J And the anfv/er given to 
 the fergeants, and fent to the magi Urates the next day, ff.ows 
 that they had not df.'parted from the prifon, for there woukl 
 ^ave been no propriety in fending to them, to fetch them out 
 of prifon, if they could have replied, Ycu have once been out 
 and returned voluntarily again. 
 
 If now we examine all the examples of baptifm recorded in 
 
 ■ the New-Te (lament, we can find none inconiillent with fprirk- 
 
 ling, but many, that certainly appear inconfuteni. with immer- 
 
 * A^s, X, 47- 4-Ac%, h:. i8. ]: Ads, xvi. 25, kc 
 
(9S} 
 
 fion : and th'fefcirf? that can be refonatlj faid, rflnS ht, thstr 
 there is greater reafon to believe that the apoRIes baptized by 
 fprinkling, than imm-ifion. Is it not therefore a little extra- 
 ordinary that our brethren ihould, with much confidence aflert* 
 that immerfion is exprefsly pointed out in the fcriptures, and 
 cite paifages for proof, in which neicher the moder nor any cir- 
 cumftance which neceflarily determines it, is mentioned ? 
 
 III. If we were to judge of the mode of baptifm, by the 
 things figniliedby it ; which indeed is but an arbitrary way of 
 judging, for baptifm is nMdefigned to ihow the mode of the 
 Spirit's operation, but the effeds produced; yet even this,, 
 which our brethren frequently urge, will not decide that im- 
 merfion is ehe only \-alid mode. Regeneration is one thing 
 frgnified by baptiim ; and this is wrought, not by an immer- 
 fion of thefubjedsof it into the Holy Ghoft, but is expreifed,. 
 hy pouring it out Upon them. And hence God fays, " I will 
 pour out my Spirit upon all flefh."* Baptifm figniftes fanfti- 
 fication. And therefore God fays, « I will fpriitkle cle-rfn wa- 
 ter upon you, and ye fhuU be clean," + It may alfo denote 
 pardon and juftiiication, which the apoille expreifcs by '■^The 
 fprinklir.g of the blood of Chri(l:."i| This alfo, as well as cir- 
 cumcifiort, figniftes death unco fin. And hence v/e ready that 
 the faints, " Are circumcifed with the circamcifion made with- 
 out hands, in putting off the body of the fins of the fiefh, hy 
 the circumcifion of Chrifl; : buried with him in br^ptilrn-"^ 
 So that, even in this arbitrary and uncertain way of determin- 
 ing the mode, fprlnkling and pouring are at leaft as ttronglj 
 indicated, jvs imnserfion. 
 
 iV. That immerfion is not the only valid mode -of admin- 
 
 * Joel, ii. 28. X Ezek. xxxvi. 2 5. i| i Pet. i. 2. 
 
 $ Col. ii. 12- Circumcifion is no more evihlematical of death 
 than fpr inkling is., and both evidently, in this place, refpeS} regsns' 
 ration, luhich is made 'without bands, and conftjls in puttijig orf the 
 body cf the fins cftheflfjj, and being quickened and j- a if d thro' the 
 faith of the operation of God, to neijjnfs of life, even as Chrifl a- 
 rofe from the dead, 'with a fpiritual body. And no one can confiji- 
 ently [tippofe that circumcifion or baptifm is here ijit ended, unlefs 
 they believe that thefe external rites are regeneration itjilf : and 
 therefore regeneration is the burial hsrs ii.-f ended. Be fides, on the 
 fttpp'ftion that baptifm is infituied to coniviemorate the death of 
 Chrijit it tx.ullfllonu, that it has precife/y the fame fgnifcation as 
 the L'ird'r.S upper ; and there is no trdiiiance left to reprefent the 
 <iK,ork of the Spiirt, nuhich is contrary b-Ah to the terxir oj the Scrip- 
 Uir:,s, and alfo to tlic '■iVritings <foiir baptift brethren on tQhstfu'^^t. 
 
(99) 
 
 iflerlng this 'ordinance, fince it is no where enjcine^, or eveii 
 mentioned in the fcriptures, may with propriety be argued 
 from the inconvenieucy of it. Were there a pofuive com- 
 mand refpeding the mode, as there wis refpeding all the cir- 
 cumdiances of" the ancient Jewilh rites, no argument concern- 
 ing its inconvenience would have any weight ; but where the 
 mode is undetermined in the ibriptures, and believes in what- 
 ever country, feafon, and llate of health, are the fubjecls of it, 
 t>y exprelb command, this argunnent appears to me reafonable, 
 W;;ighty, and conclufive. Immeriion is on all occafions in- 
 convenient, and efpt-cially in cold feafors, in our northern 
 countries. It is impollible in cafes of licknefs, and on many 
 other occafions highly dangtrous. And in fome countries 
 and feafons it would be to all the fubjeds of it, a greater fuf- 
 fering. than circunicifion was to the Jews. We have there- 
 fore no right to conclude, without fome evidence, that Chrift, 
 who iaftituted baptifm for all believers, in whatever circum- 
 ftances, intended th;it it (Iiould be adminiftered by immerfion, 
 much lefs that he limited it to this mode. Aj[iufion or fprink- 
 ling, arid that only, can be adminiftered in every cafe, and at 
 all feafons, where this ordinance is direded. 
 
 V. It is alfo an objedion of fome weight againfl immer- 
 fion, that it is found too inconvenient to be generally adminif- 
 tered in the fanctuary, where all the ordinances of Chrift: ought 
 to be ordinarily attended. I am aware that it will be faid, 
 that we have no account, that the apoftles ever baptized in 
 any houfe defigned for public worfliip. But a fufficient rea- 
 fon may be alligne'^ : they had none : and fo baptized in pri- 
 vate houfes, and in the open air, as occafions required. In 
 the fame manner, Noah, Abraham, and the ancient Patriarchs 
 offered to God acceptable facrifices, wherever it was conve- 
 nient, and the Jews were direded to eat the paffover at their 
 own houfes, until a fanduary was built. But when this was 
 built, God exprefsly commanded, that no facrifice fliould be 
 ofli;red,but at the fanduary, and no paffover eaten, but at Je- 
 rufalem, the holy city. And all Ifrael, on fuch occafions, 
 ■were required co go up with their facrifices to that one place. 
 Circumcifion, (doubtlefs becaufe it was impoffiblc to bring 
 their feeble babe from all parts to the temple) was the only or- 
 dinance, that they were permitted to attend in their own hou- 
 fes. Tiiis I conceive is a fufficient indication, that it is the 
 will of God, that in ordinary cafes, where the church can 
 h:\vc the privilege of a fanduary, his ordinances ftioirid be at- 
 tended in liis houfe : and therefore no mode of baptifm ought 
 to be uiiid, which is too inconvenient :o be commouly admin- 
 
(loo) 
 
 iftered in.the fan^uary,* The only feafible way that re- 
 inains, is by fprinkling, or pouring on water. • And that tlils 
 laa is the proper mode, is I think evident from what has beea 
 already faid, and is corroborated by the confideration, that 
 baptifm is the feal of the covenant of grace, and in fprinkhn<T 
 it is, and ought always to be applied, as God's feal upon th* 
 forehead, the place where we are exprefsly told, that God af- 
 fixes his feal. « And I faw another angel afcending from the 
 eaft, haying the feal of the living God : And he cried with » 
 loud voice to the four angels to whom it was given to hurt 
 the earth, and the fea ; faying, hurt not the earth, neither 
 the fea, nor the trees, till we have fealcd the fervants of our 
 God in their foreheads."^ 
 
 Thus Sir, I have fliowed that the word tranflated baptifm, 
 ■when the ordinance in queftion is not intended, never deci- 
 dedly means immerfion ; but ufually if not always afFufion 
 V. hen water is concerned— that the apoftle exprefsly calls the 
 Mofaic fprinkhngs baptifms— that the fcriptures afford no 
 precept or example for immerfion, but many examples that 
 appear inconfiftent with it— that if we were to judge of the 
 mode of baptifm, by the things fignified by it, even this would 
 not decide in favor of immerfion— that immerfion cannot be 
 adminiftered to all believers, in all cafes and feafons, as the 
 diredions concerning baptifm exprefsly require — and that it is 
 found too inconvenient to be ufually attended in the houfe of 
 God, where all his ordin-inces ought to be ordinarily admin- 
 illered. In doing this, I have proved that immerfion is not 
 efenfia/ to the validity of Chriftian baptifm : I have done 
 rnore : I have proved that it is not the proj>gr mode of admin- 
 irtration ; although I do not confider the mode eflential to its 
 validity ; but am perfuaded that any decent mode of applying 
 water to the body, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghol^, is valid. And I heartily lament, that 
 there are any Chrifcians, and Chriftian churches, for fuch 1 ef- 
 teem many of our baptirts brethren to be, who on this account, 
 withdraw communion from, and virtually excommunicate fo 
 many of the Churches, whom Chriil evidently owns, by the out- 
 pouring of his Spirit upon them. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 JONATHAN MILLER. 
 Weft-Britain, January i, 1800. 
 
 7^7// aiuare, that fiffje BaptiJ} churchcj have founts, ana 
 hi their hoiifis of pMlc 'VJorjlAi' ; hut f^h h found too . 
 sntfr general pra^i.'i. § Rsv. 7, 2, &c. 
 
^dlM 'WmM 
 
 ■4y^^.*^"''