Alexander Campbell's 1823 Debate with Wm. L. McCalla

Mormon Classics | Spalding Library | Bookshelf | Newspapers | History Vault

Alexander Campbell
(1788-1866)
Debate on Christian Baptism
(Buffaloe, Virginia: 1825)

Title Page Preface Sidney Rigdon

Correspondence

The Debate:
day1 day2 day3 day4 day5 day6 day7

End Matter

Transcriber's comments

The Unitarian Baptist 1826 | Campbell's 1828 reply | Discussion of Christian Baptism (1831)

A

DEBATE,

ON

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM,

BETWEEN

THE Rev. W. L. MACCALLA, A PRESBYTERIAN TEACHER,

AND

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL,

HELD AT WASHINGTON, KY. COMMENCING ON THE 15TH AND
TERMININATING ON THE 21ST OCT. 1823, IN THE PRESENCE OF A VERY
NUMEROUS AND RESPECTABLE CONGREGATION.

IN WHICH ARE INTERSPERSED

A N I M A D V E R S I O N S

ON

DIFFERENT TREATISES ON THE SAME SUBJECT,

WRITTEN BY

DR. J. MASON, DR. S. RALSTON, REV. E. POND, REV. J.
P. CAMPBELL, RECTOR ARMSTRONG, AND
THE REV. J. WALKER.

BY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL.

"There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially
they of the circumcision; teaching things which they ought not
for filthy lucre's sake; whose mouths must be stopped." -- Paul.

BUFFALOE:

PUBLISHED BY CAMPBELL & SALA.
- - - - -
1824.

District of Virginia, west of the Allegheny Mountains, to wit.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the twenty-second day of April, A. D. 1824, in the 48th year of the Independence of the United States of America, A. CAMPBELL, of the said district, has deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as author, in the words following, to wit:

A Debate on Christian Baptism between the Rev. W. L. Maccalla, a Presbyterian teacher, and Alexander Campbell, held at Washington, Ky. commencing on the 15th and terminating on the 21st Oct. 1823, in the presence of a very numerous and respectable congregation. In which are interspersed and to which are added Animadversions on different treatises on the same subject, written by Dr. J. Mason, Dr. S. Ralston, Rev. E. Pond, Rev. J. P. Campbell, Rector Armstrong, and the Rev. J. Walker, by Alexander Campbell.

"There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision; teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake; whose mouths must be stopped. -- Paul."

In conformity to the Act of Congress of the United States, entitled, 'An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned,' and also of the act, entitled, 'An Act supplementary to an act, entitled, An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned, and extending the benefit thereof to the arts of designing, engraving and etching historical and other prints.'
J. WEBSTER,
[SEAL] Clerk of the District of Virginia west of
the Allegheny Mountains.

==> Our intention the copy-right is not to prevent the circulation of this work by new editions, nor to profit by selling the right. But as we have embarked a very considerable sum in a large edition of this work, we wish to be remunerated our expenses before another edition be struck. After the present impression is sold, we will give the right of publication to any applicants, who may be disposed to republish in any distant part of the Union, for a very small consideration.

Buffaloe, Brooke Co. Va. A. CAMPBELL.
May, 1824.

( iii )

TO THE

CITIZENS OF KENTUCKY.

Distinguished for their general intelligence, their patriotism, their love of civil and religious liberty, and their courteous regard to the laws of hospitality; the following statement of the discussion, recently held in their State, is gratefully inscribed by the writer, as a small token of his grateful remembrance of their kind attention and hospitality towards him while attending the conference herein presented, and during the time he spent in riding through their state. That they may ever enjoy the blessings of civil and religious liberty, a Scriptural knowledge of the doctrine of salvation, and the peculiar felicity which flows from a course of life regulated by the faith of the Gospel, and the hope of immortality, is the unfeigned wish of their friend, and obedient servant, A. CAMPBELL.

( iv )

ERRATA.

Page 33, line 43 from top, for conceiving, read, concerning. In sundry places, for Robertson, read, Robinson. P. 70, line 7, after but, read, what. P. 194, line 28, after Jewish, read, and Christian. P. 195, line 25, for first, read, second. P. 229, line 2, for pervade, read, precede. P. 238, line 16, for two, read 200. P. 253, line 24, for is it, rend, it is. P. 290, line 38, for, doth, read both. P. 319, line 16, for frequently, read, unfrequently. P. 346, line 18, for nor, read, or. P. 350, line 5, for cinque, read, sink. P. 373, line 34, for country, read, county. P, 397, lines 6 and 12, for Mr. M. read Mr. W.

Any other literal errors are so easily detected as not to affect the senses.

( v )

PREFACE.
______

It is long since religious controversy began. The first quarrel that arose in the human family was about religion; and since the proclamation "I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed," the controversy has been carried on by different hands, by different means, and with various success. It is the duty of the Christian, and has ever been the duty of the saint, to contend for the truth revealed, in opposition to error. From the days that Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, down to the present time, every distinguished saint has been engaged in controversy. The ancient prophets, the Saviour of the world, and his holy apostles, were all religious controversialist. The Saviour's life was one continued scene of controversy and debate with the scribes, the elders, the Pharisees, the sadducees, and with the established priesthood of his era. The apostles were noted disputants, and the most successful controversialist that ever lived. Paul, the apostle, was more famous in this department than Alexander, or Bonaparte, in the field. Whether a Stoic, or an Epicurean philosopher, a Roman orator, a Jewish high priest, or a Sadducean teacher encountered him, he came off victorious and triumphant. Never was he foiled in battle; never did he give back. The sword which he wielded, and the arm which directed it, proved resistless in the fight.

There are not a few who deprecate religious controversy as an evil of no small magnitude. But these are either the ill-informed, or those conscious that their principles will not bear investigation. So long as there is good and evil, truth and error, in this world, so long will there be opposition; for it is in the nature

( vi )

of good and evil, of truth and error, to oppose each other. We cheerfully confess that it is much to be regretted that controversy amongst Christians should exist; but it is more to be regretted that error, the professed cause of it, should exist. Seeing then that controversy must exist, the only question is, how may it be managed to the best advantage? To the controversies recorded in the New Testament we must appeal, as furnishing an answer to this question. They were in general public, open, plain, and sometimes sharp and severe. But the disputants who embrace the truth in those controversies, never lost the spirit of truth in the heat of conflict; but with all calmness, moderation, firmness, and benevolence, they wielded the sword of the spirit; and their controversies when recorded by impartial hands, breathe a heavenly sweetness, that so refreshes the intelligent reader, that he often forgets the controversy, in admiration of the majesty of truth, the benevolence and purity of their hearts.

In the following pages, there is detailed a controversy of seven days on a question which to some may appear of very subordinate importance, but, in fact, of very great magnitude, if we view all its bearings and consequences. The substance of the Debate is, we believe, faithfully presented, and not one argument or principal topic of illustration, or proof, left our, or intentionally withheld. Indeed, to say nothing of the honesty of our motives, our interest and our reputation demand that the Debate should be faithfully and impartially exhibited. Our interest is to convince the reader that our views nre correct; now if we either suppressed an argument, or presented it in a weaker form than our opponent did, or than the reader himself would conceive of, we, in that instance, injure ourselves; for so long as the reader thinks that he could have advanced something stronger, so long he resists the evidence adduced. Our reputation too is at stake. A very numerous and respectable congregation heard this discussion, and although there were

( vii )

many enlisted on both sides, yet the number of those that belonged to neither party was very respectable. These were the only umpires, and their testimony is of much more influence in matters of this nature than either friends or opponents.

As to the means I had of giving the Debate in writing, they were quite sufficient for a person accustomed to writing off discourses from notes taken down when the discourses were delivered, a practice in which I had engaged myself for years. I have, at this time, volumes of discourses in manuscript, which were transcribed from notes taken down in an abbreviated form from public lecturers on languages and sciences, as well as from those called Divines. The notes taken of this discussion were unusually voluminous. Besides those taken down by myself which were very copious, I was favored with those taken by Bishop. Sidney Rigdon of Pittsburgh, Dr. A. D. Keith of Augusta, and Dr. Augustus Davis of Washington, Kentucky. It is necessary for me to be thus particular, in acquainting the reader with the means which I had in possession of doing justice to the subject. Especially as Mr. Maccalla in the Kentucky Gazette of Feb. 19. insinuates that O have not the means of giving the Debate fully and impartially. He says, "he and a few friends took some notes, but not in short hand. My friends did the same. But their assistance would not enable me, nor perhaps any one, to write his arguments accurately and fully." Mr. M. rather holds out the idea in these words, that he has as many notes, or the same means as those which I possess. Yet he took no notes himself, and all those taken by the Rev. Mr. Lyle, and the young divine that took his place, after he quit the ground, from close inspection, were not as lengthy as those which I took myself. And no doubt Mr. Maccalla declares the truth when he says, "that the assistance of those notes would not enable him, nor any one else to give my arguments accurately and fully." But this is not all, Mr. M. dreading the appearance of this discussion

( viii )

in print, very injudiciously begins to condemn before it appeared: for having prejudged and condemned it before it appeared, he has shewn his inclination to decry it when it does appear, and thus deprived his testimony of that character essential to credibility and authority. *

He complains, in the same publication, that I should have proposed to give the discussion in a volume of 500 pages with animadversions on sundry works, and that before I knew how lengthy the discussion would be. In reply we observe, that the length of these animadversions depended upon the merits of the controversy. If the controversy took in all the ground usually occupied, the animadversions would then be anticipated or interspersed in the discussion. If it would not, then the animadversions would be the more lengthy. Taking this into view, with the allowance of 100 pages to circumstances, as the Debate might be more or less tedious; and knowing that if a man should talk a year upon the subject, his arguments would not be more numerous, if at all relevant, than to cover the ground enclosed in the prospectus, there was nothing incongruous in the proposed limits of the volume. But now when the work is completed, we can, from the actual result, fully demonstrate, from the face of the volume, the justice and propriety of our proposals. The Debate ends on page 393. We have put a good deal of matter in small type, which if given in such type as the body of the work, would have brought this volume to nigher 500 than 400 pages. As it is crowded and disfigured with brevier it occupies 420 pages, and, with the exception of the Bible, it is the cheapest religious work published in this country, as respects the quantity of matter and execution. The addition of twenty pages to this work is worth 375 dollars on the whole edition we have printed, at the proposed price of $1.25 per volume of 400 pages. We, them, bestow on the

__________
* This reminds me of some of the Paido-baptists in Ohio, who seven days before the Debate took place, reported, that I was put to silence by Mr. Maccalla.

( ix )

whole edition $375 for the sake of doing the most ample justice to our own proposals, and to the cause which we have espoused. Besides we have animadverted as fully on some works viz. those of Pond and Campbell, as though we had named them in our prospectus.

Had we been as contiguous to all those who took notes as we are to Mr. Rigdon we should have handed them the sheets when printed, as we have done to him. On perusing the argument on the subject of baptism, on the action, and on the evils resulting from infant sprinkling, he was pleased to furnish us with the following recommendation.

To all whom it may concern: This is to certify that having been present at the Debate in Kentucky, in October last, between Messrs, Campbell and W. L. Maccalla, and that being engaged in taking notes of that discussion, which I handed over to A. Campbell, and having read over that discussion on the subject and action of Christian baptism, now presented to the public in the following pages, I can recommend the same as a fair and full exhibition of both sides of the controversy, of the arguments and topics of illustration, used by the aforesaid gentlemen.
May, 4, 1824. SIDNEY RIGDON.

With regard to the length of the speeches on both sides, it is necessary to inform those who did not hear the Debate, that I pronounced more words in a given time than my opponent. I think it will be granted, on all sides, that I pronounced as many words in twenty minutes as he did in thirty. There is not, however, this disparity in the speeches as published, for a greater portion of what I said is abbreviated than of what he said. And as the topics which we were pledged to discuss were chiefly taken up in the first five days, we have given the arguments of those days in great length, abbreviating only such matter as had little or no bearing upon the subject; such as the argument from ecclesiastic history, the origin of the modern sects, and such matter as Mr. M. introduced having no bearing upon the controversy whatever. Of this the reader will have a full specimen in the 6th and 7th days.

The correspondence which resulted in this discussion

( x )

is fully printed in this work, and is itself the best preface to the volume. It not only fitly introduces the Debate, but it also serves to corroborate the correctness of the narrative given, in as much as the ground proposed by Mr. M., and the topics presented in his own letters, are such as appear in my statement of the Debate. Indeed his letters, are letters of recommendation to this work as being faithful and correct. The matter and style of his letters, the views which they exhibit, the spirit which they breathe, admirably correspond with his side of the argument, if we only subtract one consideration, viz. that Mr. M.'s talent consists much more in that kind of management and address, that kind of adroitness and etiquette which is manifest in his letters, than in strength of argument, or biblical knowledge.

It would be, perhaps, unbecoming and unnecessary to say any thing about the talents or acquisitions of my opponent. His own letters shew that he was competent, and his speeches evince that his industry and research were adequate, to the task proposed, if his cause had been tenable. But it requires more than Herculean strength to bring something out of nothing. Had Mr. M. been on my side, and I on his, doubtless I would have been put to confusion; for I remember to have been vanquished by an old lady when I argued up infant baptism against her. It is true I had something to say, and held on stoutly to the last; but I felt in my own heart that I was defeated; and what mortified me no little, was, that with all my philosophy and divinity, an old woman's common sense overpowered me.

It may be necessary to inform the reader, that being in the habit of reading and using different translations of the scriptures, as well as sometimes translating for myself, he may sometimes find quotations in this book, even where the authorities are not adduced, which may differ from the common version. We believe, however, that in every instance, where any great emphasis was laid upon any difference of translation; either the authority is given, or the translation

( xi )

defended. If it be at any time otherwise, we are not at present conscious of it.

The style adopted in the following speeches is, we believe, little or nothing better than that in which they appeared upon the stage. On my part they were extemporaneous, as all my public addresses are; and therefore the style is of the familiar and diffuse character, such as might be expected from a person who did not know, until the evening before the discussion, whether he was to open the Debate or to respond; whether he or his opponent was to introduce the matter to be discussed. My health, too, for some time before, and during the Debate, as well as through the greater part of the winter, was peculiarly delicate, so as to forbid much close thinking or close application to my pen. It moved in my fingers with very little regard to elegancies, and as I sometimes felt doubtful, whether I should live to accomplish this work, I was more concerned about the matter than about the manner, about what I published than about the style in which it should appear. But as I had reason of grateful thanksgiving for the improvement of my health, during the seven days of the discussion, so also I have abundant reason of gratitude and praise to HIM in whom we live, and move, and have our being, for a similar, or greater improvement, during the time that I have been employed in writing it. I hope, however, the style will be plain and intelligible to all.

We feel glad to know that Mr. M. has been preaching very generally on this subject since the debate, in different parts of Kentucky, in order, as he says, that the people of "all denominations may have a specimen of the contrast which I know will be seen between my real arguments and the spurious production now in the press," and that these preachings have been notified in the public prints by Mr. M. as being "on the existence of a visible church in the family of Abraham, and the ecclesiastical identity of the Jewish and Christian societies;" because we have no doubt, but, in so doing,

( xii )

he has been obtaining for this work additional evidences of its correctness; being assured that every argument he can urge on these topics, with its proof, will be found precisely stated in his speeches in this volume: and also all those arguments, which indeed are substantially the same with his, used by Mason, Pond, Campbell, Ralston, and Walker, on the same subjects. It will be evident to the impartial reader, that, if the whole of this work were a forgery, it combats every argument advanced by the Paido-baptists; and if the arguments impugned in this volume are refuted, he may rest assured that there are no others to exhibit. So that whether it represents the Debate correctly or incorrectly, it is all one as respects the merits of the question. These things we urge, knowing the opposition that will be made from what has been said before the book is laid before the public. We know that every umpire that heard the discussion, and those who were on the other side when the debate commenced, but who were convinced by hearing it, that infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and we have no doubt but that even some of those who are still Paodo-baptists, will concur with us in declaring, that it is as fair and full a representation of the controversy, as four hundred pages of these dimensions could exhibit.

We have only to remind the reader that there is but one infallible standard of the Christian religion, and this is the New Testament. To this let him ever appeal as the supreme judge of all controversies about Christian faith and practice. By this standard let our arguments be tried, his views guided, and his conscience ruled. And if unlearned, in the science and philosophy of men, let him remember that those Rev. Philosophers who composed the Westminster Confession of Faith declare, that the scriptures are so plain, "that not only the learned but the un1earned, by a due use of the ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them." May every student of this sacred volume grow in grace, and in the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

( 15 )

LETTERS OF
CORRESPONDENCE.
_______

Auqusta, Bracken County, Ky. May 17th, 1823.
MR. CAMPBELL -- The subject of this communications your publication on Baptism, and particularly your proclamation to the multitude at the close of your debate on Mount Pleasant. It is found in the last paragraph of the 144th page of your book, entitled, "Infant sprinkling proved to be a human tradition;" printed in Steubenville, Ohio, 1820, You there say, "I conceive it is my time to give an invitation or challenge to any Pedo-baptist minister; and to return the compliment with the utmost cerimoniousness, I this day publish to all present, that I feel disposed to meet any Pedoboptist minister of any denomination, of good standing in his party, and I engage to prove, in a debate with him, either viva voce, or with the pen, that Infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religious and political. I have to add, that I must have an equal vote in determining the time and place. This is the only restriction I attach to the challenge I now publish."

Some copies of your book came to this village immediately after its publication. As the topics which it discusses had been matter of controversy amongst us, those who espouse your opinions, set on foot a plan, (as I was informed,) to procure a visit from you, for the purpose of encountering me in public debate. What was the cause of their failure I cannot tell: but rumours of your intending to visit this country, and probably this place, are lately renewed, and I am encouraged by your friends to hope that a letter from me might accelerate such an event. The anxiety which they manifest for our meeting, appears like a call of Providence, for me to solicit your approach, which, in other circumstances, my conscious weakness and natural timidity might cause me to deprecate. If, however, you should gratify our wishes, it is not necessary that you should consider this as a challenge, but only as an acceptance of your invitation copied above. Nothing more was needed from me after the publication of a general challenge by yourself.

Neither is it necessary that you should understand me as professing a willingness to confer with you on the truth or falsehood of the statements in your proclamation; i. e. "that Infant Sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religious and political." In order to come at the merits of a controversy, there are three things at least to be desired. The first is to lay hold of the most important points in dispute, whether they be principal or auxiliary, doctrinal or historical. A second is, that they be clothed in language, every way suitable; possessing the qualities

( 16 )

of purity, propriety, and precision. The third is, that the question or questions be so stated as to preclude equivocation, if possible, and bring the parties directly to an issue; so that one can affirm and the other deny, or if both agree, one shall be considerably the gainer. In the pursuit of these objects, (as far as circumstances would permit,) I have drafted the following questions, which are now respectfully submitted for your consideration, and (if you please,) for your adoption or rejection, amendment or selection, enlargement or diminution.

1. Were Abraham and his seed divinely constituted a true church of God?

2. Is the Christian church a branch of the Abrahamic church? or, in other words, Are the Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society, after Christ, one and the same church in different dispensations?

3. Are Jewish circumcision before Christ, and Christian Baptism after Christ, one and the same seal in substance, though in different firms?

4. The administration of this seal to infants; was it once enjoined by Divine authority?

5. Is it now prohibited by the same authority?

6. Do the Jews baptize the infant offspring of proselytes on the profession of the parents?

7. Did they practice this in the time of John the Baptist?

8. Did they learn their proselyte Baptism from the Christian Church?

9. Is John's Baptism Christian Baptism?

10. Are the American Baptists descended from John? or, in other words, have they obtained their Baptism from him by uninterrupted succession?

11. Are the American Baptists descended from the German Ana-baptists? or, in other words, have they obtained their Baptism from Munzer?

12. Did John Baptize infants?

13. Did John Baptize by submersion?

14. Does the Bible authorise the Baptism of infants as a Christian ordinance?

15. Has the church of Christ always practised the Baptism of infants as a Christian ordinance?

16. Does the Bible authorise the church to consider submersion essential to Baptism?

17. Has the church of Christ always considered submersion essential to Baptism?

18. Is the administration of the initiatory seal of the church to infants, injurious to the well being of society, religious and political?

19. Is sprinkling, when used as a mode of Baptism, injurious to the well being of society, religious and political?

20. Is the exclusion of infants from the church hurtful to society?

21. Is the exclusive practice of submersion as a mode of Baptism hurtful to society?

To all these questions I can conscientiously answer with a direct

( 17 )

affirmative or negative, and you could do the same. From your publication of the debate at Mount Pleasant, I fairly conclude that (unless suppressed by mutual consent,) they will all be discussed if we should ever meet. The most orderly method of discussion will be the most expeditious and edifying. The terms of conference may, I hope, be precisely, if not easily, adjusted, should Providence bring us together. I am admonished by a friend of yours, to use no equivocation in assuring you that a meeting is now expected, either according to this letter or some other plan. Evidence of unwillingness on your part will be considered as a withdrawal of your challenge. Having asked advice of God my Redeemer, to him do I now commit this affair.
W. L. MACCALLA.

Buffaloe, Brook County, Va., June 16the, 1823.

MR. MACCALLA,

SIR, -- Your favor of the 17th ult. came to hand about two weeks since. Though I was pleased with the style and spirit of your epistle, yet having never before heard of the writer, I thought it necessary to ascertain of what character and standing he might be, before I should make any reply. In the midst of my inquiries on this subject, I received a letter from Dr. Keith of your town, informing me of your "high standing," in the Presbyterian denomination, and of your general character. Dr. Keith's account was also confirmed by the testimony of a Mr. Logan from your vicinity and A respectable member of your community, who favoured me with a visit. Being now satisfied on the above subject of inquiry, and being convinced that it is my duty to meet you, in public debate, on the subject proposed, I inform you that I most cheerfully consent to meet you as aforesaid.

The challenge to which you refer, necessarily grew out of the circumstances which accompanied its first promulgation. I was drawn into a discussion by a challenge from a Paido-baptist. Having seen that Paido-baptist confuted; generosity, candor, and the triumph of truth, suggested the propriety of giving au opportunity to any other Paido-baptist teacher, of coming forward to take Mr. Walker's side of the controversy, if he thought he could make better of it. His side of the controversy was comprized in one short proposition; viz. that infant baptism or affusion is a Divine institution." The side which I assumed, from conviction, was comprised in the negative of this proposition, viz. that infant Baptism or affusion is not a divine institution," but a human tradition. This, I think, I then proved. I am ready, however, to do it again on any other ground that may or can be taken. The simple question to be discussed, divested of every thing extraneous, is this, Is infant affusion, or, as it sounds sweeter to a Paido-baptist ear -- Is infant Baptism a Divine institution. Mr. Walker said yes, I said, and still say no. I say it is a human tradition, and injurious to society, &c.

As to the place, time, and manner of proceeding in the proposed discussion, I would observe; first, with regard to the place; that reason and equity suggest that it should be equidistant from you

( 18 )

and me. I have no business to Kentucky more than to any part of the Union; yet, on certain conditions, I am willing to go to Augusta.

With respect to the time, I think it ought not to be sooner than two or three months after we have agreed upon the preliminaries; i.e. it should be published in all the circumjacent country for so long a time. And, as respects the manner of procedure, I would say, I have no objection to take up and discuss the questions yon have proposed, to any other you may please to propose, provided that I have the liberty of proposing an equal number. But in order to facilitate and expedite an agreement on the preliminaries, I will take the liberty of suggesting the following, which I conceive to be perfectly reasonable and of course equitable: --

1. That Mr. W. L. Maccalla agrees to attempt to prove that infant affusion or Baptism is a divine institution, and A. Campbell agrees to attempt to prove that it is not, in a public debate, to be held, if the Lord will, at Augusta, on Wednesday the first day of October next, to commence at 11 o'clock A.M.

2. That each of the parties shall choose one person to act as moderator, and that these two shall choose a third, who is neither a Baptist nor a Paido-baptist, to sit with them.

3. That these moderators shall merely keep order, and not pronounce judgment on the merits of the debate.

4. Each speaker shall speak thirty minutes without interruption, if he wish to speak so long; if not, he is free to stop when he pleases.

5. Mr. W. L. Maccalla, as he supports the affirmative, necessarily opens the debate, and A. Campbell closes it.

6. The scriptural subject of baptism shall first be discussed, then the action of baptism.

7. The debate shall be conducted with decorum; all improper allusions and passionate language shall be guarded against.

8. Whatever books are produced on the occasion shall be equally accessible to the use of each disputant.

9. The discussion shall be continued from day to day until the people are satisfied, or until the moderators agree that enough has been said on the topic.

These are substantially, and some of them formally, the same with those agreed upon by a committee at Mount-Pleasant, previous to that debate. If you agree to these, the preliminaries are settled, and you may immediately publish the place and time of holding the said debate, and please inform me by return of mail. I will then furnish you with an equal number of questions to those you have proposed for your consideration, that you may have the fullest time for reflection. You have my consent, if you please, to call to your aid, any of your Paido-baptist brethren in the ministry. I wish to convince or to be convinced. As truth is my riches, the more I gain of it the richer and the happier I must be. Moreover I shall feel a great obligation to you if you convince me of any error. I hope therefore, you will spare no pains in your efforts to convince me. You may rest assured that you will find me open to conviction, and anxious to maintain what I believe. A. CAMPBELL.

( 19 )

Augusta, Kentucky, July 2, 1823.
MR. CAMPBELL -- Your letter of June 16th ult. has just been received. It speaks of the time and place, the topics, regulation, and notification of the dispute in prospect. You appear willing to see me at Augusta, if I will comply with all the conditions of your letter. As this compliance is declined, the place of meeting is a point still to be determined. If you should yet consent to encounter me here, the meeting of our presbytery and synod in which our congregation has business imperiously demanding my attention, will make it desirable that we should appoint a time a week sooner or several weeks later than October 1st.

The adjusting of the points of difference, in the form of disputable propositions, however difficult, is deemed important by us both. After having intimated to you my objections to the form contained in your challenge, I proposed a number of questions which bring into view all the matter of the question contained in your challenge, with these advantages, that its complication is removed by method, and it is presented in such a manner as to bring the parties to a fair and direct issue. You do not seem [necessarily] to doubt that these ends have been attained. Yet as a condition of your agreeing to discuss these questions, which you have seen and examined, you require that I should agree on my part, to discuss as many others which I have never seen nor examined; although you have had the same opportunity of conveying them to me, that I had of sending mine to you. "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." To promise a contest on a subject not yet known, is a sort of theological Quixotism, worthy only of the dark ages. If you have been told that I love controversy for its own sake, you have been misinformed. I would not waste my breath, nor poison my heart, nor disgrace religion by vain jangling. With the help of God, I am willing to defend the truth as held up to view in the proposition referred to, or in any other equitable form, or if you prefer it, with no form at all. I am willing to meet you with no other words before us than "The subject and mode of Baptism."

Although you have made no particular objection to my questions, I have several to the one which you propose in your epistle, viz. "Is infant affusion or -- is infant Baptism a Divine institution?" I have the same objections to the proposition discussed by you and Mr. Walker, that infant Baptism or affusion is a divine institution. 1st, These propositions confound the subject and the mode, which are distinct things, and which may be so exhibited in fewer words as in the end of the last paragraph. 2nd These propositions encourage a popular misconception, which has been too much insisted upon by our adversaries; that is, that we hold infant Baptism to the exclusion of believer's Baptism; than which nothing is more incorrect. We maintain, as strenuously as our opposers, the administration of Baptism to believers; but we differ from them in this proposition, that faith in the subject is an essential qualification for Baptism; or, which is the same thing, we are willing to prove that Baptism should be administered to infants as well as to their believing parents. 3d These propositions confine us within narrow bounds

( 20 )

with regard to the mode, than we in good conscience occupy. We do not advocate affusion exclusively; and if you leave this word out of the propositions, they are confined to the subject, and say nothing of the mode. We admit of washing and sprinkling as well as pouring, and we even acknowledge the lawfulness of dipping; but we deny that submersion is essential to Christian Baptism, and you affirm that it is. Since then this proposition will bring us directly and fairly to an issue, why should you make a condition of an interview that we should assume ground worse than that which we in truth occupy

With respect to your 9th article I would observe, that the people will always let us know when they have heard enough, but the parties should he permitted to judge when they have said enough. In your 5th article you claim the closing address, This you would probably have without any stipulation, for in practice I am not tenacious, but I see no reason for acknowledging your superior right. In the conference at Mount-Pleasant you say, that "as Mr. Walker gave the challenge, it became his duty to open the debate." You of course had the privilege of closing. The above is your own declaration; and the only reason which you give for making it Mr. Walker's duty to open the debate, is, that he gave the challenge. Now the case is altered, and your view of duty seems to alter with it. According to the principle and the practice stated in your book, As Mr. Campbell has given the challenge, it becomes his duty to open the debate, and mine to close: but, according to the demand of your letter, you must close whether you give or receive a challenge. Since this is a new practice, your letter gives a new reason for it, that os, that it is the right of the negative to close. But where did you learn this rule? I am as ignorant of its origin as of its correctness. This rule or its opposite would, in doctrinal disputes, be arbitrary in its application. The same doctrinal opinion may be exhibited equally well in opposite forms of expression; snd, whether the proposition be affirmative or negative the same proof would be required on both sides. Of this you will see an example in my two letters. In civil courts, and in the courts of our church there is a rule on this subject, but it relates to matters of fact in judicial cases, and not to doctrinal questions. This practice is, however, the very opposite of that which your letter approves, for it gives to the affirmative the right of opening and closing. I wish not to take advantage of this. My desire is, that each party may be heard fairly and fully, and until he is satisfied, and if we have not sense enough to quit when we are done, the people will, to our mortification, give their opinion by leaving us.

The inequality of your terms, you now see, is the only impediment to our meeting. This, it is hoped, you will relinquish, not only for justice sake, but because it is in direct opposition to your challenge. You there say, "I have to add, that I must have an equal vote in determining the time and place. This is the only restriction I attach to the challenge I now publish." There is nothing here of your closing the debate or enjoying any other privilege above your antagonist. If, however, you cannot comply with these fair terms, I have only one other plan to propose. It is this: We will agree

( 21 )

to discuss the very proposition which you have offered in your challenge. As this is one in which you take the affirmative, and as both your rules, however contradictory and unauthorized, will give me the closing address, though unsought, nothing more remains now to be settled but the time and place, which are the only subjects to which you claim a vote. If you should visit this place, I would endeavour to make all other engagements suit your convenience, If you should prefer some other place where I could procure books, or to which I could with cheapness and convenience convey my own, such as Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Steubenville, Washington in Pennsylvania, or Washington city, Baltimore or Philadelphia, New Haven, or Boston. I should like for the time to be shortly before or after the general assembly, which convenes in Philadelphia on the third Thursday in May, and sits about two or three weeks. When the preliminaries are adjusted, all possible publicity may be given to the appointment according to your request. If it be your choice, you can send a notice to the papers in Philadelphia and elsewhere, that, "on the third Monday of May, Mr. Alexander Campbell, of the regular Baptist church, and Mr. W. L. Maccalla, of the Presbyterian church, will (Deo volente) discuss the following propositions, viz. Infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religious and political. For the discussion of this proposition, the former of these gentlemen gave a general challenge to Paedo-baptist ministers."

As you have offered a system of rules for the debate, it may not be wrong for me to do the same. It need have no effect upon the question where we shall meet. They are not made conditions. Words in brackets are considered as so many blanks.

Rules of debate adopted and signed this [16th day of May, 1824, in the city of Philadelphia] by Alexander Campbell and W. L. Maccalla. Duplicates given to the parties.

1. The proposition for discussion shall the following, viz. ["Infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religions and political."]

2. Each speaker shall be entitled to an alternate address of thirty minutes and no longer, unless the other party wave his right.

3. The books brought forward shall be equally accessible to both parties.

4. The established rules of decorum must be observed.

5. The discussion shall be moderated by three men; each of the parties choosing one, and these two a third, which last shall belong to no religious society. They are to keep order, and not to decide the question.

6. The debate shall be opened by [ ] and shall (God willing,) commence on the [18th inst.] at the meeting-house, at [9 o'clock, A. M.] and continue if necessary until [2 o'clock, P. M.] And it shall if necessary, be continued during the same hours, and at the same place, and under the same superintendence [unless altered by mutual agreement,] from day to day until both parties are satisfied.
W. L. MACCALLA.

( 22 )

Buffaloe Printing-Office, July 21st, 1823.

MR. MACCALLA,

SIR -- Your letter of the 2d inst. but post-marked the 8th inst. came to hand yesterday. It seems to import that the terms of conference may not be so easily adjusted, as your first epistle portended. You object to my not forwarding the questions promised. My sole reason was, that my letter was sufficiently crowded without them. Besides, I supposed that a person proposing to discuss a subject of so great importance, and of so common occurrence, as that proposed by yourself, could be at no loss to answer any question connected therewith. If I had proposed to send you twenty-one questions on any other subject than that proposed by yourself, or if I had proposed to give you no information of them until the day of debate, your objection would have been relevant and cogent; but us the circumstances are, it appears irrelevant and futile. I should never have proposed to discuss a subject, on which twenty-one questions could be proposed, that after two month's deliberation, I would fear to encounter. So little attention to your twenty-one questions has been paid by myself, that were I now asked what they are, I could not, from recollection, mention the half of them, On reading them once or twice, I saw the drift of them, and apprehended the turn of reflection that dictated them. With a very little reflection, I found myself able to answer each of them with a yea or a nay, with, perhaps, a little explanation in one or two instances.

Though, you say, I have made no particular objection to your questions, you have several to the one which I proposed. Now, sir, were I to be so captious, or so precise in objecting, as you seem to be, we would not settle the preliminaries in a year. The fact is, I had many objections to your questions, as being inconsequential, confused, far-fetched, and inapplicable to the faith or practice of christians, as respects christian aptism. Yet, knowing the peculiar delicacy of the feelings, and the keen sensibility of the conscience of Paido-baptist teachers in general, on such topics as those contained in your queries, I made no objection to any of them, lest it should retard our meeting; but thought it best to stipulate for the privilege of proposing an equal number.

You have favored me with three objections to my one question. It was well I did not propose twenty-one. The cogency of your three objections I confess myself too dull to apprehend. One thing appears pretty plain, that you conceive the question -- "Is infant affusion, or Baptism, a Divine institution," obliges you, as you express it, "to assume worse ground than that which in truth you occupy." This would indeed be unreasonable, to make your ground of defence "worse" than it really is. But while you allow believer's Baptism to be a Divine institution, and while you practise infant affusion, you maintain that to be a Divine institution also. Why then object to defend the precise thing which you practise? And to say that you do not always practise it, is nothing to the merits of the question; for, inasmuch, as you sometimes practise it, as a Divine institution, it behooves you for one such occasion to be able to prove

( 23 )

it to be a Divine institution. And if the whole proposition cannot be proven -- viz. that infant affusion is a Divine institution, to cut it into pieces, to divide into words, syllables, vowels, or consonants, and prove it in piece-meal, will, every Logician knows, avail nothing.

With regard to who shall open, and who close the debate, I had thought that my statement of the attendant circumstances of my giving the challenge alluded to, would have prevented such reasons as you assign for differing from me on that item. My stating that it behooved Mr. Walker to open the debate from the circumstance of his having given the challenge, was true, as far as it went; but it was also true, that his having the affirmative side of the question, was that which rendered his commencement essentially necessary. In this controversy, Baptists have nothing to prove as respects their practice. Paodo-baptists agree with them, that a disciple immersed on a profession of the Christian faith, has received Christian baptism. Our practice then is correct, in this respect, Paido-baptists themselves being judges. They, indeed, blame us for omitting to Baptize infants, but not for what we [really] do, consequently it is they who have to prove their practice, and it is our duty to show that their arguments are inconclusive. In every controversy, then, with Paido-baptists, upon this topic, they affirm and we deny, they commence and we respond. But you profess to be ignorant of the origin of this rule of practice. I say that it originates in the fitness of things, and is supported by long prescription. For precedent and for proof, I refer to the era of the Reformation. In the famous disputes at Leipsic, between Eckius, Luther, and Carolostadius, June 27th, 1519. Eckius gave the challenge, took the affirmative, and opened the debate with Carolostadius. On the 4th of July, 1519, Eckius maintains the pope's supreme authority, Luther denies it, Eckius opens the debate and Luther closes. The same took place at Baden, May, 1526, between Oecolampadius with Eckius. In the dispute between Luther and Oecolampadius concerning the "real presence," Luther affirms, and Oecolampadius denies, Luther commences and Oecolampadius responds. See many other instances from page 102 to 200, Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, vol. 3d.

In the last place on this head, you allege that the possibility of converting an affirmative proposition into a negative, renders such a rule of procedure of very doubtful application. I admit that the negative proposition, infant affusion is not a Divine ordinance, may be converted into an affirmative, thus -- infant affusion is a human tradition; yet the nature of things will not change with the words we may choose to represent them. Still the grand predicate Divine institution is denied of the subject, infant Baptism, and the grand truth in pursuit of which the investigation proceeds is denied of the subject of the proposition; which, according to my views, will force the proposition into the form of a direct negative in the discussion,

I contend for this rule of procedure, then, on the ground of the fitness of things, and on the ground of long prescription in theological discussions.

I am willing to change the time proposed for holding the said discussion

( 24 )

from the 1st of October, to Wednesday the 15th of October. Later than that period I cannot think it would be expedient to defer our interview, as the weather will then be precarious and the days short. Owing to the meeting of our Association, which I am under the necessity of attending, I could not with any degree of propriety promise to attend sooner than the first of October. And as you were so kind in mentioning New-Haven, Boston, New-York, and Philadelphia, I think, for the sake of exhibiting to better advantage your very accommodating disposition, you should have mentioned London, Dublin, or Ghent; as water convenience, and plenty of books equally recommend those places. I will however be still more accommodating than you, for I will go to your own village as aforesaid.

I will now propose you twenty-one questions, and thus prevent all further demur on this ground.

1. What is the doctrinal import of christian Baptism?

2. Are infants members of the christian church?

3. Are infant members of the christian church by natural birth or Baptism?

4. Is the Abrahamic church a branch of the Noahic church? or, in other words, were the patriarchs before Moses, and the Jews after Moses, one and the same church in different dispensations?

5. Was the sacrificial rite before Moses, and circumcision, after Moses, one and the same seal in substance, though in different forms?

6. Was the church at Jerusalem, at Rome, at Corinth, at Samaria, or the first gentile church at Cesarea, a Baptist or a Paido-baptist church?

7. What benefit does an infant receive from Baptism?

8. Does baptism represent, seal, and apply any thing to an infant?

9. Does Baptism become an effectual means of salvation to an infant?

10. Is not the present enjoyment of all the benefits and blessings of the New-Testament confined to believers?

11. Have not parents a right to Baptize their own children?

12. Ought not all the house-hold of a believer, his slaves, and their children to be Baptized on his profession of the faith?

13. Ought not infants to be Baptized the eighth day?

14. Ought infant females to be Baptized, contrary to the law of circumcision?

15. Ought not Baptized infants to be admitted to the Lord's Table?

16. Are infants under any vow or obligation from Baptism?

17. Were infants members of the patriarchal church?

18. Can there be a Baptism suited to infants without faith, and a Baptism suited to believers, and yet be but one Baptism?

19. What is the action of Baptism?

20. Did the apostles either Rantize or Baptize infants?

21. Is there a command in all the Bible to Rantize or Baptize infants?

These questions I arrange on the principle of correspondences,

( 25 )

to be a per contra to those you have proposed, as far as the answers apprehended would come into contact. But, sir, neither your twenty-one questions nor mine are the best course to come to a fair and clear issue. They afford us themes of copious verbosity, and would no doubt in the end afford to all intelligent and impartial hearers sufficient data to judge on what side truth lay. -- But it is like walking nine miles to come at a point which is accessible in one, and that merely for the sake of shewing our dexterity in walking. Did I from my soul desire to investigate the subject for my own good, and to exhibit it for the good of others; or did I cordially wish to help a fellow disciple out of the mire, or be helped myself; I would calmly, in the fear of God, with humility of mind and pure benevolence for yourself, and all others, who maybe present on the occasion; and with all openness to conviction, propose only four points for discussion. -- One of these I conceive of great consequence, not only as respects baptism, but as respects the whole exhibition of the Christian religion.

1. Were the Jews in their corporate state, whether called national or ecclesiastical, an association, the same as the christian Church? -- This topic I would propose as a mere introduction to the subject primarily in view -- then

2. What is the doctrinal import of Baptism?

3. Who is the proper subject?

4. What is the action?

As these questions equally comprehend the substance of your twenty-one and mine; I feel perfectly satisfied, if you are agreed, to investigate these in the fullest manner, by every possible means of illustration, and to confine our whole conference to them. -- As I have dwelt chiefly on that article of arrangement which you seem to make of the greatest importance, I have no room to say any thing of the other eight items. They still appear to me preferable to any alterations you have proposed. But in case of your refusing to accede to these rules of procedure, I have to propose that the three persons who shall sit as moderators, shall meet the day preceding our conference, and that they shall, after having heard read in their hearing our whole correspondence, decide, both what questions shall be discussed, and in what manner. I will pledge myself to comply with their decisions. This I think ought to be satisfactory, if the rules adopted by the committee, preceding the debate at Mount Pleasant, will not please you. I have only to request that this epistle be answered as promptly as I have answered your's, and that you would excuse this hasty scrawl. I was interrupted twenty times since I sat down to write it.
Very respectfully your's, &c.
A. CAMPBELL.

The two following letters are detached from the thread of the correspondence. By accident they neglected to appear in their proper place. They should have been inserted after my first to Mr. Maccalla. The correspondence is perfect without them. They appear here merely for the sake of giving every word written in our correspondence.

( 26 )

July 14th, 1823.

MR. MACCALLA,

Sir, -- I wrote you on the 16th ult. in answer to your favor of May last; I also directed a letter on the same subject to Dr. Keith. To these communications I have received no reply. A letter having been due before this date, I feel anxious to know, whether my letter was received, and whether you have answered it. I would send a copy of my reply per the bearer, but time forbids, as he is now on his way. You will please inform me, on Mr. Logan's arrival, whether my letter was received. -- And if you should have written a reply, at a date authorizing me to have received it, you must consider your letter as miscarried, and will, therefore, have the goodness to write again, as my business and arrangements require me to know the result as soon as possible, respectfully your's, &c.
A. CAMPBELL.

MR. CAMPBELL, Your letter of the 14th inst. sent by Mr. Logan, was received yesterday at church, and of course not opened until this morning. If my former one had obtained as speedy a passage as this of your's, it must have arrived on the day of your writing; and but for the late departure of the mail, much sooner. As correspondence with this place by mail is generally tedious, it is probable that my letter has not yet miscarried. If it arrives, you will find that I am willing, with the help of God, to meet you on fair and practicable terms, in any city in America, and I may add, in England, Scotland, or Ireland. But your terms I decline for the present, because they are unfair and inconsistent. The only condition annexed to your public invitation, was that you should have an equal vote in determining the time and place. After I had accepted your challenge, as you expressly called it, you add in your letter to me, as another condition, that you must have the last speech: although the fact of Mr. Walker's giving the challenge, was the reason which you gave for your having the last speech at Mount-Pleasant. You appear to think, with the lawyers, that the last speech is a matter of some importance, and that it must be gained, if possible, whether you give or receive a challenge, and whether you assume the affirmative or the negative of the proposition in dispute.

You do not object to the discussion of the questions which I sent to you, and therefore suggest the propriety of having the meeting notified to the public forthwith. Yet your letter is so constructed that you would consider this publication a virtual agreement on my part to discuss an equal number of questions written by yourself, which I have never seen, and to which I might have very serious objections, after seeing them. My desire is, that with the grace of Christ in my heart, my lips shall be consecrated to the defence of truth and righteousness. He who disputes from ambition or ostentation, may promise you a debate at random: but shew me the questions first, as I have shewn you mine, and I hope that God will direct me to a suitable answer.

If you cannot agree to discuss my questions without obtrusive

( 27 )

conditions, and if, after examining your questions, I should not approve of them, the proposal of my letter was, that we should discuss "the subject and the mode of Baptism" without any question, -- or that we should meet upon the proposition contained in your challenge, to the discussion of which you have dared the Paido-baptist world. As you gave the challenge, and as you take the affirmative of your own proposition, both your rules give to me the closing speech. This, however, my letter does not ask, but requests that both parties may have liberty to speak until they are satisfied.

As Dr. Keith, by showing your correspondence with him to the citizens, has made it public, it is not improper for me to observe that it was premature in you to tell him that your proposals could not be manfully or justly rejected by me. I am informed that in his answer he has represented me as a forward enemy of the Baptists, and as disposed to retreat from this controversy. No person acquainted with the state of things here would expect him to give me a favorable character. I am constitutionally timid, but I hope that through grace I am not malicious. This same grace has also strengthened my heart against the fear of man, so that although I have not the talents and preparation to be desired in such acontroversy, I am willing to trust in the Lord, and encounter even the hero of Mount-Pleasant. At least the question, who has acted manfully and generously? and who wishes to retreat? will one day be submitted to the judgment of the United States.
W. L. MACCALLA.
Augusta, July 21st, 1823.

Auqusta, Ky., August 8th, 1823
MR. CAMPBELL -- In the progress of our correspondence, it is a pleasure to me to remember that this controversy is not of my own seeking. Mine is a defensive attitude. Your challenge was bold, public, and general: neither did it exhibit on its face the least design to take advantage of any stripling who might, in the faith of Israel's God, step out to meet you. You did not enumerate rules of debate -- you did not prescribe weapons to your antagonist -- you did not lay down, what he was, and what he was not to defend -- you did not require the last blow as a sine qua non to an encounter; but you simply stated what you would undertake to prove, and left your opponent to choose his own position, to which he certainly has a right, You expressly renounced all other restrictions to your challenge, except the right of an equal vote as to the time and place of meeting. Two years after the publication of the debate you reiterate your defiance, without adding any farther conditions. In the first page of your stricture on Father Ralston's review, after complaining that Mr. Walker's friends under-rated his talents, you add, "who on his side of the question, since or before that debate, has done better? or who can do better? -- Is there no man in all the hosts of Pedo-baptiste of greater capacity and industry than Mr. Walker? If there be, let the cause be maintained, and let not mr. Walker bear all the blame, as if the whole cause rested on him." While thus bravely exulting over our armies, who, (as you imagined,) were

( 28 )

panic struck at your superior prowess; why did you not inform us, that besides an equal vote in the time and place, you must choose the position and weapons of your opponent, and that in addition to this, you must have the last fire? Why did you not tell us that you must have exclusive privileges, and not only choose your own theses, but you must also indicte the identical words which we are to defend, although, in our conception, they may countenance errors which our souls abhor? With an invitation thus restricted, I have never complied, for such a one was never given; but, remember, sir, that the challenge actually published by yourself has been accepted, with its accompanying condition.

Although I cannot admit the right of an antagonist to direct what I shall defend, yet when he gives a reason for preferring one proposition to another, I am willing to listen. Some of your reasons are as follows: "Why then object to defend the precise thing which you practise? -- And if the whole proposition cannot be proved, viz. that infant affusion is a Divine institution, to cut it into pieces, and to divide it into words, syllables, vowels, or consonants, and prove it in piece-meal, will, every logician knows, avail nothing." To your question I answer, that I am willing to defend the precise thing which I practise. I practise the Baptism of believers and their seed; whereas I am sorry to observe that you with the world think that these two stand in opposition to each other. I practise aspersion, though I equally approve of ablution and affusion yet I am not willing to defend the latter to the exclusion of the former, nor even in zzoppugnation of immersion. In your remark concerning the cutting of a proposition into pieces, I scarcely know whether to consider you in earnest. It is hardly possible that I can have the honor of giving you the first information that some questions may be divided, and that this is practised by all eminent, deliberative bodies, whether ecclesiastical or political. Do you think it derogatory to the logical, or grammatical or rhetorical character of the Senate of the United States, that their ninth rule says, "If the question in debate contain several points, any member may have the same divided?" You will agree, it is to be hoped, that the subject and the mode of Baptism are distinct points, and that the question may be so divided, without making each word, syllable, and letter, a distinct subject of discussion.

Much of your letter is spent to establish your claims to the grand desideratum, the last speech. The fitness of things and long prescription are the pillars upon which the fabric rests. These, you say, give to the negative the right of closing. The negative, therefore, you are determined to have. Recollecting, however, that you have to take the affirmative of the proposition contained in your challenge, you bring the fitness of things, as (you there call it,) the nature of things, to a bearing upon the affirmative proposition, Infant affusion is a human tradition;" and you shew, or think you shew, that it "will force the proposition into the form of a direct negative in the discussion." If you can force one affirmative into a negative in order to secure the closing speech, it seems to me that very little more force would prove that I ought not to speak at all. This additional force is probably the very thing which caused Bishop

( 29 )

Gunning, of England, a hundred and fifty years ago, to deny those whom he had challenged, the liberty of replying.

In establishing a right upon the ground of prescription, you are aware that the custom must be made to appear. For this purpose you refer me to certain nameless occurrences in Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, vol. iii. p. 162-200. Will you be so kind as to send me so particular a refereuce that the place maybe found in the London edition of 1698, as that contains nothing of the sort, in the pages marked, and the index refers to no conferences except those of Carthage and Jerusalem, p. 220, 321. The latter, A.D. 415, has nothing to the purpose. Neither has the former, which occurred four years sooner, except that the long disputes of the Donatists about the qualities of opposers and defenders, may appear to authorize the pertinacity of some with regard to the privileges confessed by affirmatives and negatives. At last Augustine obliged them to come to the main question, which was, "Where was the Catholic church?" The Donatists opened, and Augustine closed. Nothing can be gathered from such facts, unless the fitness of things can extract a favorable conclusion.

If we had Seekendorf's History of Lutheranism, and Loscheim's Acts and Documents of the Reformation, referred to in Maclaine's Mosheim, (4. 44. Charlest. edit. 1811.) we might possibly obtain some satisfaction on the other cases referred to. Du Pin is the only author whom you quote, and in the very short abstract which he gives, in half a page, of the dispute between Eckius and Carolostadius, which occupied a week, there is no account of the number or order of their speeches. He does not expressly tell us who closed, or for what reason. The debate which immediately followed between Eckius and Luther, was professedly on twenty-six propositions, half of them produced by each of the disputants, not dictated by one to the other. This debate is divided by Du Pin into a number of conferences. Several of the first were occupied on discussing the supremacy of the Pope, the subject to which your letter refers. You say that Eckius, having the affirmative, opened the debate. Du Pin's narrative would encourage the belief that Luther opened. You say that Luther closed. Du Pin intimates that Eckius closed the first conference, and does not give the least hint who it was that closed the whole dispute on the topic. On the subject of indulgences, Eckius took the affirmative as before, and if Du Pin's abstract give any information on this point, Eckius both opened and closed. Although he was so remarkable for voice and gesture, for information and readiness of utterance, he was exceedingly fond of this same privilege of opening and closing. Like Charles I, in his paper controversy with the noble Henderson, he appeared to think this a privilege due to his dignity. He obtained it in a conference with Melancthon at Ratisbon, as we are informed in a letter from Strasburg by Calvin to Farel. And if, according to Luther, as quoted by Seekendorf, and from him by Milnor, (4. 346.), Eckius took another more ungenerous advantage of Carolostadius in the conference above mentioned. I have no doubt that he both opened and closed the contest; although Du Pin, a popish writer, has mentioned neither of these advantages. This author gives no

( 30 )

information about the closing speech at Baden, although you say that Eckius opened, Oecolampadius closed. The same may be said of the conference at Rome, which occurred December 17th, 1527. At Marpurgh, (if that be the other instance to which you refer,) Luther produced five articles of exception against the doctrine of the Zuinglians, of whom Oecolampadius was one. Du Pin does not positively say who opened and closed, but from his narrative I should draw a conclusion the very opposite of yours. It is a wonder that you did not add to this case a similar one which occurred at Lambeth in England, about the year 1584. It was a kind of conference between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester on the one part, and Dr. Spark and Mr. Travers on the other. The latter gentlemen produced articles of exceptions against the church of England. The second of these was on Baptism. They objected to private and lay Baptism, -- to their view of its absolute necessity and infallible efficacy, -- to certain superstitious interrogatories, and the use of the cross, (Toulmin's Neal, 1. 422.) Although I see no evidence of any privilege given to the negative, I have no doubt that much might be obtained by that perspicacity which has discovered such wonders in the foregoing instances.

If I am not as ignorant of arithmetic as you think me to be of logic, the questions contained in your letters and the Appendix to your debate, amount to one hundred and thirty-five. I am willing that you shall appear on the scene of conflict with all these, and I am willing to meet you with the two following or similar propositions: 1st. Faith is not essential to Baptism. 2d. Submersion is not essential to Baptism. You will then have room to display your wit on the number and character of my questions, and I should have an opportunity of giving my opinion of your one hundred and thirty-five questions. Remember, however, my former proposals to meet you on the bare subject and mode, and my agreement to meet you on the proposition contained in your challenge, and the condition therein expressed.

W. L. MACCALLA.

Buffaloe Creek, August 23d, 1823.

MR. MACCALLA,

Sir, -- Yours of the 8th inst. was received last night. It differs very much both in spirit and style from your first. In your first you objected to meeting me on the bare ground of my challenge; saying, that I should not understand you as professing a willingness to confer with me on the truth or falsehood of the statement in my proclamation; "That infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religious and political." You there proposed twenty-one questions. In your next you complained of the one question I proposed, and because I had not sent you the twenty-one questions, I then promised to send. In my next, I sent you twenty-one questions, and also proposed reducing the topics to four questions. In your last you profess a willingness to be off both from your own twenty one questions and mine; and agree to meet me on the bare words of my challenge, or on two propositions, both negatives, and thus to force me to give you the last

( 31 )

speech, In my first, I proposed rules of conference similar to those framed at Mount-Pleasant, to expedite our interview, and regulate our discussion. To those you object to as inequitable. I proposed in my last, that if the rules I had proposed, should not meet your approbation, as yours had not met with mine, the three moderators should decide, both the questions to be discussed, and the manner of discussing them, and pledge myself to abide by their decision. Of this you take no notice; but very gravely and generously proceed to accuse me with departing from my challenge; as offering you new conditions; and appending a sine qua non to them. This, I was about to say, is worse than the quibbling of school boys. You should anticipate that there is a probability of our correspondence meeting the public eye; and that whatever your design may be in throwing obstacles in the way, it will, perhaps, appear as if you wished to be off from the conference forever. It certainly strikes me so. Otherwise, why, in the name of common sense, would you object to me, as proposing terms of conference, as a sine qua non, when I proposed to refer the whole matter to men, and to submit to their rules? If this is inequitable, all arbitrations and references are inequitable. If this is inequitable, and my rules are inequitable, then it follows that your rules are equitable, or that they must be so considered; at least, they are such as please you better than those you would expect from a committee. -- Moreover, while you talk so much of my proposing questions and theses for you, you should remember that you began by proposing questions for me; for had you at first proposed to meet me on the ground of my challenge, and the subject matter of it, I should never have proposed any questions at all. You have, or appear to have, the rare talent of committing faults, and of charging them on another. You project a course, and when I follow you, you gravely censure me as departing from my printed challenge; and as leading you off to worse ground than you occupy. As to the latter, instead of leading off, my proposal was to lead you on publicly to assume, and, if possible, to defend the precise ground you occupy in contradiction to Anti-paido-baptists; that is, that infant Rantism, or superfusion, is a Divine ordinance; for surely, there is no dispute between us and you about believer's Baptism. This, I grant you, includes both the subject and the very action itself, which the law of Christ specifies and ordains. This, therefore, being the very point at issue between us, I suggested to you the propriety of assuming it as such, and, if possible, of proving it to be a divine ordinance; which it certainly behooves you to do, so long as you continue to practise it in the Divine name. But perhaps your objection against assuming this ground, in the first instance (for to this we must come at length, as the alone question at issue) is, that it would lead you to take the affirmative; for it seems you are quite averse to this, and are determined, if possible, to be on the negative; as I think you must be convinced that it behooves the affirmative to open the discussion. As to what you say concerning my references to Du Pin, being at present from home on a journey, I have not that book at hand; but if you are willing to rest the matter upon my proving from that writer, and others, that the affirmative has usually

( 32 )

opened every discussion where theses were so limited, I will engage to do it, or concede to you the closing speech. But why you should have dwelt so much on this topic, as a sine qua non, when I consented to be governed by the rules of the moderators, without even so much as noticing this important concession, this just and reasonable alternative, quite astonishes me; it seems to argue something very forbidding in a religious antagonist. When you will not agree to have the matter referred, it is evident you look for an advantage. If I must give you an advantage I will do it gratuitously; not under the semblance of a right. I will, then, to obviate all difficulties on my side, if possible, propose to meet you at Augusta, or rather at Mays-Lick, on Wednesday, the 11th day of October next, the day before or the day after, as may best suit your conveniency, at eleven o'clock, A. M.; and that you shall have the privilege of both opening and closing the discussion, and of speaking twice for my once; that the words of my challenge shall be the subject of discussion, and that the moderators shall act as aforesaid. I will either meet you there, or I will agree that the moderators, on the day before our meeting, after having heard all our correspondence, make the rules by which we shall proceed. If I must give advantage, I will do it all at once, and manifestly Talk no more then, if you please, about sine qua non. I will meet you as aforesaid, if the Lord will, either on your twenty-one questions and mine; or on the words of my challenge; or on the four questions proposed in my last; or on the decision of the three moderators that shall be chosen, I have mentioned Mays-Lick, as by letters sent me from Kentucky, I understand it to be a much better place than Augusta for accommodating the country in general, and that many more could attend. I request you, if determined to meet me, to inform Dr. Keith, on receipt of this, and to let him know to which of the proposed terms you choose to accede; and also to have our intended meeting made as public as possible. You will also please to write me immediately on the receipt of this. Please also to recollect, that the challenge which elicited mine, came forth from your armies; and talk no more of the stripling David; nor of the Philistine Goliath. How good soever the analogy may be between you and the tender stripling; for our part we disclaim comparison with the mighty Philistine.

P.S. I wrote this hastily, while stopping for dinner on a journey. You will therefore please excuse inaccuracies of style, and want of method. Your's respectfully,

A. CAMPBELL.

Auqusta, Sept. 15th, 1823.
MR. CAMPBELL -- If, as you intimate, I am afraid to meet you, it should be matter of regret, when we consider the goodness of my cause, the power of Christ, and the experience which I have had of his faithfulness and condescending goodness. You are mistaken, however, in one statement which may encourage you in this belief. It is that I try to force you to give me the last speech. If this were true, it might be an evidence of fear, or something worse. Your

( 33 )

assertion of the fact is as improper as your manner of giving me an unsought privilege is impolite.

Although to be afraid of so formidable an antagonist would be, in some measure, excusable, I am not willing to lie under your charge of unrighteous behaviour for omitting to notice your proposal for a theological arbitration. In your letter of July 21st, you propose that the moderators "after having heard read in their hearing, our whole correspondence, decide both what questions shall be discussed, and in what manner. I will pledge myself to comply with their decisions." This I omitted for the want of room, because you had already my opinion twice on such measures, and because I did not wish to expose every inadvertancy of which you might be guilty. If I were, in haste, to offer such a proposal, I would thank my correspondent for passing it in silence. In my letter of July 2d, I expressed an opinion that such a proceeding was nothing better than theological Quixotism. In a letter of July 21st, I considered that to promise a debate at random arose from ambition or ostentation. When you, in your pledge copied above, commit the very fault here reproved, did decorum require that I should repeat my condemnation? or was it necessary for me to insinuate that you chose ground which you knew had been abandoned, for the purpose of giving to your candor and bravery a more illustrious and uninterrupted display?

Concerning this proposal you say, "if this is inequitable, then all arbitrations and references are inequitable;" and you insinuate that a refusal on my part is an indirect impeachment of the ability or integrity of a committee. The third rule proposed in your letter of June 16th, and in the system adopted at Mount-Pleasant, is, "that these moderators shall merely keep order, and not pronounce judgment on the merits of the debate." Did you, by this rule, mean any insinuation of ignorance or corruption? Did you, by this proposal, mean to make war upon all arbitrations and references, which are intended to decide upon the merits of causes? It is well for schoolboys to receive subjects for composition and declamation. It is well for students of theology to receive subjects for trial exercises. In both these cases, however, as well as in arbitrations and references, the merits are decided by the committee. This, which is really the most innocent part of the business, and which has been the practice of the literary and theological world, time immemorial, does not please you; but you are delighted with the thought of returning to a state of minority, of engaging in a sort of polemical fencing, on a subject arbitrarily dictated by others, and conceiving the tendency of which to good or evil we are utterly ignorant. If the long parliament of England which you hold in such contempt, had been men of your liberal conscience, they would have given Archbishop Laud less trouble about the et cetera oath. But they complain, "We are here to swear to we know not what, to something that is not expressed; by which means we are left to the arbitrary interpretation of the judge." You and men of the same spirit often accuse us of a selfish adherence to the Assembly of divines convened by this parliament. This correspondence

( 34 )

should cause you to inquire again who is it that is most disposed to servile compliances. Is it the man who cautiously and prayerfully examines and compares the Westminster articles, and then adopts them because he finds that form of sound words consistent with the word of God? -- Is it he who, in sacred things, is unwilling to make a leap in the dark? or is it that man who pompously pledges himself to abide by the future decision of an unknown and mixt committee? and who takes frequent occasions of ridiculing the tender consciences of those who would rather know a matter before they answer it.

This alternative of your proposals is of course rejected. I must treat your four questions in the same way. On the three last of them we can come to no immediate issue. Lest a silent concealment of my disgust should again incur your resentment, I must tell you that the first of these four, and some others from the same quarter, are only calculated to darken counsel by words without knowledge.

To excuse yourself for so long persisting upon the right of prescribing what I should defend, you say that I first dictated twenty-one questions to you. I can find no excuse for this statement, except that you were on a journey when you made it, and had not my first letter with you. You will there find that they were "respectfully submitted for your consideration, and (if you please) for your adoption or rejection, amendment or selection, enlargement or diminution." Did I then, or have I ever since, made your adoption of them a condition of our meeting? So far was I from acting the part of a dictator, that you have more than once commended the spirit of that letter. So far from insisting upon their adoption after they were trammelled by your obscure and ambiguous questions, I have incurred the censure of inconsistency by abandoning them without a struggle. This I did in silence, not, as Dr. Keith has said, because I was afraid to meet you, but because I was afraid to tell you my opinion of your questions, lest it should prevent a meeting, by raising too high that magisterial indignation which has been manifested in several of your letters, and which, from a long habit of domineering without control, has become quite ungovernable. This same motive induced me entirely to suppress the first letter which was penned for your address, because, on reading it to my friend, Major Morris, he gave it as his opinion, that, by irritating your feelings with severe animadversions upon your book, it would prove an obstruction to our meeting. To the same cause you may ascribe my silence hitherto concerning your character, although mine occupied the introduction to your first letter. Whatever may have moved you to magnify my reputation and standing, I am sorry that I cannot praise your orthodoxy or piety. The numerous, respectable, and almost uniform reports against you in these respects, are corroborated by your various writings. It is said that you are polluted with the theology of your favourite author, the disciple of Dr. Priestly, whose Socinian and infidel pravity has been so completely exposed by his Baptist countryman, the excellent Andrew Fuller. If this be a mistake, you will rejoice to correct it: and be assured that such a favor will give me no less pleasure than yourself.

( 35 )

Until this is done, no devoted minister of the DIVINE SAVIOUR can desire any other intercourse with you than as an adversary.

Your declaration that I am convinced that the affirmative should open, (and of course the negative close,) notwithstanding my assurances to the contrary, is a much more modest insinuation than you are accustomed to making. In this respect it resembles a very delicate remark in your first address at Mount Pleasant. It is in the following words: "I cannot persuade myself to believe that they who affirm that Baptism came in the room of circumcision, really think so." A real Christian who could utter such things, not from hasty passion, or settled malignity, but from sincere conviction, could hardly wish to see me, except as an antagonist. In this capacity I am inclined to meet you; not from any favorable opinion of your piety or sincerity, but because you are allowed (and I suppose justly) to be the greatest champion of Anabaptism in America; -- because you have charged the Paido-baptist world with administering a factitious and pernicious ordinance; because you have publicly challenged them to stand on their defence; because you have publicly gloried in their silence, as arising from guilt, timidity, or incompetency; -- and because your partizans have bantered me, and thus given a particular direction to your general invitation.

To this invitation I at first objected, because, although it brings us to a speedy issue, yet it confounds things quite distinct, and it is clothed in unbecoming language. True, its exceptionable phrase, infant sprinkling, is not so low and profane an expression as David Jones' watery hocus pocus, yet it is intended as a sneer, and of course will never, by the lovers of piety and courtesy, be made a member of a question in debate. This proposition, however, with all its confusion of points and vulgarity of expression, is still preferable to any other alternative which you have offered. My former repeated acceptance of it is now confirmed. As you were mistaken about the superior eligibility of May's-Lick, I was reluctant to comply with your wish. Your friends and correspondents, Dr. Keith and Major Davis undertook the responsibility of requesting on your behalf that Washington might be the place of meeting. As this was to your advantage I consented. A copy of our joint publication is enclosed. W. L. MACCALA.

Sept. 27th, 1823.

MR. MACCALLA,

Sir -- Your long looked for favor of the 15th inst. came to hand last night. It assures me that you are now disposed to meet me at Washington, on the proposition printed in my general invitation. But under what regulations I know not; as you have declined referring the matter to the three moderators, and have said nothing in your last, on

( 36 )

what rules or order should be observed. -- It appears your conscience is too tender to allow the moderators such a liberty, as to say how the debate should be conducted, and which of all the topics and questions proposed should be dismissed. It appears also that you omitted to notice this proposal in a former letter for want of room; yet there is more than one third of a page of your letter blank; so that you must have had more to say about it in your former letter, than in your last; for you do not write so much on it in your last as might have been written on the blank in your preceding epistle, and you might as well have tried to arouse my feelings then, as now. It moreover appears, that your conscience was not so tender, on the subject of my character for "orthodoxy and piety," as to prevent you from insinuating, nay, from declaring, that Dr. Priestly's disciple was my favorite author, contrary to all evidence or fact from any thing in my writings, or from any "respectable" source. You shall, perhaps, soon know that I have no favorite authors in religion except one, and that man who says I am a first or second-hand disciple of Priestly or of any socinian author, is a man of no piety nor respectability of character: nor is there a man living who can say, or dare say in my presence, that I ever expressed a sentiment derogatory to the Lord Jesus as a Divine Redeemer, as Emmannel, God with us. Such insinuations may be circulated in Kentucky by those who would wish to impair my influence, in supporting a truth more hated by many of the "orthodox and pious" than socinianism: but here we regard them not. As to my piety, I know I have nothing to boast of; God alone is judge. As to my external deportment, men can judge. And whenever you bring forward any specific charge of

( 37 )

immorality, or unchristian deportment, we shall refute it. But as I shall, Deo volente, at some future day expatiate on the style and sentiment of your last, I proceed to say, that your reference to your first letter, in relation to the twenty-one questions is partial; and not altogether correct. You did propose the twenty-one questions in the first instance as you have quoted, but afterwards, you tell me, in the same letter, that you "fairly conclude that (unless suppressed by mutual consent) they will all be discussed, if we should ever meet." Query: Have we mutually agreed to suppress them? Or are they to be discussed at our meeting? I request that you will meet me at Washington, the fourteenth day of October, in order to arrange the business, for you have not agreed to meet me on any of the terms proposed in my last. At least you have not informed me so. But you have told me that you are to meet me as "an adversary," as ho Satanas. Well, I hope you will remember, that when Michael the archangel disputed with the adversary about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him a railing accusation. As you are celebrated for piety and orthodoxy, and I for want of them, a great deal will be expected from you, and very little from your

Humble serv't
A. CAMPBELL.

____

P. S. It would appear, from the circumstance of your contrasting what I said of your high standing, &c. with your deep sense of my want of "orthodoxy and piety" that you understood the high standing mentioned, to mean your high standing for "piety and orthodoxy." Lest this should have any undue influence on your mind, I think

( 38 )

it right to explain it -- You were never described to [me] by any Baptist or Paido-baptist, as of high standing for either "piety or orthodoxy," but that you once stood high as a lawyer, if I mistake not, as a chaplain in the army and now as a presbyterian teacher: and that you were highly distinguished for a peculiar kind of argumentative faculty, which you have displayed in debates, in sermons and in ecclesiastical courts. -- Excuse this much to prevent mistake. A. C.

( 39 )

INTERVIEW.
____

On the evening of the 14th of October I was introduced to Mr. Maccalla by Major Davis. We could only agree in the rules published below. Mr. M. would not agree to refer the arrangement of the rules of debate to the moderators. Nor would he agree to open and close and occupy double time. Neither would he allow the moderators to have any controlling power in the direction nor continuance of the discussion. In short, we parted that evening without any final arrangement; to meet upon the ground next day, and proceed some way, we knew not how, Mr. M's strong argument was, there were no rules attached to my challenge, and consequently I could not demand any. To insist upon rules was, with him, attaching a sine qua non to my challenge, a withdrawal of it. Rather than that we should meet in a disorderly manner, at the advice of some friends, I called on Mr. Maccalla, to concede the point on which we had separated.

Having called on Mr. Maccalla that same evening, in the house of Mr. Paxton to inform Mr. M. that I would concede that point for the reasons above specified -- I thought it expedient to inquire of Mr. M. on what grounds he had charged me with Socinianism and insincerity in his last letter. This I did in, the presence of Mr. Paxton, Bishop Sidney Rigdon of Pittsburgh, Bishop Wm. Vaughan of Kentucky, and a number of ladies. The only ground or reason Mr. M could produce for the first accusation was, that a certain travelling gentleman, whose name could not be given, had told him, that I was a Socinian. I asked Mr. M. to what part of my writings he had reference, as containing Socinian principles. He observed that I had recommended Robertson as an historian; that this Robertson was a Socinian, and that he supposed I must agree with him in sentiment. With regard

( 40 )

to the charge of insincerity, he had nothing to say.

On Mr. M's principle of accusing, every one that recommends Hume as an historian must be a Deist. Every one that recommends Gibbons as an historian must be an infidel, and every one that recommends Robertson's history of Baptism must be a Socinian, especially if some solitary traveller who has rode three hundred miles from home, should say he heard or thought he heard somebody say so.

I chose Bishop Jeremiah Verdeman as Moderator on my part. Mr. M. those the Rev. James K. Birch on his part, and these two chose Major Wm. Roper and appointed him president of the board of Moderators.

We met under the following regulations:

RULES.

Rules for conducting a Debate betwixt Messrs: W. L. Maccalla and A. Campbell, to be held at Washington, Mason County, Kentucky, October 15th, 1823.

I. That each of the parties choose a moderator, and that these two moderators shall appoint a third person, who belongs to neither party, for the purpose of merely keeping order.

II. That A. Campbell open the debate.

III. That each disputant shall have the privilege of speaking thirty minutes, without interruption, unless he is pleased to waive his right.

IV. That whatever books are produced upon the occasion shall be open to the perusal of each disputant.

V. That the debate shall be adjourned from day to day, until the parties are satisfied,

A. CAMPBELL,
W. L. MACCALLA.

( 41 )

A

D E B A T E

ON

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
_____

On Wednesday about 12 o'clock, the weather being fine, the moderators took their seats in open air. The Congregation were well accommodated on the ground shortly before used for a Methodist camp meeting.

Silence and good order universally pervading the large assembly, I thus began:

MEN, BRETHREN, AND FATHERS,

Through the goodness and mercy of God I appear before you, at this time, and in this place, for the purpose of contending for a part of that faith, and an item of that religious practice, once delivered to the saints. My prayer to God is, that, for the sake of his Son Jesus Christ, I may speak as I ought to speak; that, in the spirit of the truth, I may contend for the truth; that, with humility and love, with zeal according to knowledge and unfeigned devotion, I may open my lips, on every occasion, when I address my fellow mortal and immortal creatures on the subject of religion. Expecting that they and I will soon appear before the judgment seat of Christ, may I speak, in such a way, that I may not be ashamed nor afraid to meet them there. May I ever act under the influence of that "wisdom which cometh from above, which is first

( 42 )

pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and of good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." And may you, my friends, hear with impartiality, examine and prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.

The nature and design of our present meeting require, that I should intimate to you, respected auditors, the remote and proximate causes that have brought me to this stage of debate. This becomes the more necessary, as reports, prejudicial to my reputation, have been put into circulation, by those who unhappily differ from me in some religious sentiments. I have been represented, and even the gentleman who now has induced my appearance before you, has in his letters to myself, represented me as one extremely fond to provoke religious controversy: as having put the Paido-baptists to the necessity of coming forward on the defensive. He has, very modestly indeed, done me the honor of comparing me to Goliath of Gath, who defied the armies of the living God to single combat; and himself, to the stripling David, who, trusting in the God of Israel, ventured to meet the mighty Philistine. That I am not worthy of such honor will, I hope, appear from the following documents.

The following letter from Elder Birch once of the state of Ohio, now of the state of Virginia, will show that I did not provoke this controversy with the Paido-baptists.

Warren Township, Jefferson Co. Ohio, March 27th, 1820.

To the * rev. Alexander Campbell.

Dear Brother -- I once more undertake to address you by letter, as we are commanded not to be weary in well-doing, I feel disposed to persevere. I am coming

__________
* The term reverend we disclaim, as not suitable to ourselves nor any other sinner. We publish it here for the sake of making out the extract verbatim, from the original which we had with us on the stage. The tyrant custom leads many of the well-meaning to use it. A rev. sinner sounds in our ears as dissonant, and incongruous as, his grace the duke, his majesty the king, his holiness the pope.

( 43 )

this third time unto you. I cannot persuade myself to think that you will refuse to attend to dispute with Mr. Walker; therefore I don't feel disposed to complain because you have sent me no answer. True, I have expected an answer, signifying your acceptance of the same. I am as yet disappointed, but am not offended nor discouraged." -- "I can truly say it is the unanimous wish of all the church to which I belong, that you should be the disputant. It is brother Nathaniel Skinner's desire; it is the wish of all the brethren with whom I have conversed, that you should be the man." --

"You will, I hope, send me an answer by brother Jesse Martin, who has promised to bear this unto you. Come brother, come over into Macedonia and help us." --
"Yours in the best of bonds."

JOHN BIRCH.

From this extract it appears that I was earnestly solicited, yea thrice requested to dispute with Mr. Walker by the person challenged by Mr. Walker, before I consented to meet him. This letter is open to the inspection of my opponent: it shows that this controversy began not with me.

But I will also read Mr. Walker's letter which he wrote me, when he understood that Mr. Birch had obtained my consent to meet him in public debate It reads thus.

New-Athens, May 30th, 1820.
Mr. Alexander Campbell, Buffalo Academy.

"I think proper to intimate to you, that I have chosen the rev. Samuel Findley, to preside, at the time of to our public dispute, you have the privilege of choosing another, you will please to make such choice, and let him meet with Mr. Findley, prior to the day of public dispute, that we may not be detained. They should determine the manner of dispute, and fix rules by which we should proceed, and preside, not to give judgment, but to keep order." Your's, with respect,

JOHN WALKER.

( 44 )

The tone and spirit of this epistle shows, who was the active and leading party; -- the dictating party, in this controversy. -- It shows from what quarter the challenge came, and who prescribed the rules of conference. -- It is from these documents, we presume, sufficiently plain, that I did not begin or provoke this controversy. If so, I am unworthy of the honor done rue by my opponent, in comparing me to him who challenged the hosts of Israel. And whether he will prove the stripling David this debate will show.

But as I am represented as having given a challenge at Mount-Pleasant, it is necessary to advert to the circumstances accompanying it. The more so, as that challenge has been presented in an unfair light, in the various papers in this state which have notified the public of this discussion. The following notice, we presume from the pen of Mr. Maccalla does not fairly represent me as respects this controversy.

"From the tenor of a correspondence which we have had with Mr. Campbell of Virginia, we consider ourselves authorised to inform the public that if God permit, Messrs Alexander Campbell and W. L. Maccalla of the Baptist and Presbyterian connexions, will on Wednesday, the 15th of October, 1823, at 11 o'clock, A. M. meet in the town of Washington, Mason County, Kentucky for the discussion of the subject and mode of Baptism, according to a general challenge published by the former of these gentlemen, in the year 1820, in the following words viz. "I this day publish to all present, that I feel disposed to meet any Paido-Baptist minister of any denomination, of good standing in his party, and I engage to prove in a debate with him either viva voce, or with the pen, that Infant Sprinkling is a human tradition and injurious to the well-being of society, religious and political."

On the part of Alexr. Campbell, A. D. KEITH.
W. L. MACCALLA.

This plainly exhibits me as provoking this controversy. The reason is, my general challenge, as my

( 45 )

opponent calls it, is not fully published in its attendant circumstances. This notice begins in the middle of a sentence after a comma. The explanatory members of the sentence are ingeniously, or accidentally lopped off." The following words are wanting in the publication -- which are found in the first part of the sentence as it stands in the Debate at Mount-Pleasant, 2d edition, page, 141. "I have now accepted the invitation or challenge of the Seceders, and having now fully satisfied their most eager desires for an interview of this kind, I conceive it is my time to give an invitation or challenge to any Paido-baptist minister; and, to return the compliment with the utmost ceremoniausness," -- So much of the sentence is suppressed, which would have explained the subsequent part of it, or at least have presented it in another light. This part of the sentence would have shewn that I was merely returning a compliment, and not introducing a controversy; whereas, when suppressed, the latter part of the sentence represents me as throwing down the gauntlet and provoking a debate: as a braggadocio or champion challenging the world.

The exciting circumstances of this proclamation, were the following. -- I had, from a conviction of the propriety of public discussions, agreed to meet Mr. Walker of Ohio, who stood engaged to prove that, "infant sprinkling, or infant baptism is a Divine ordinance." Having found Mr. W. incompetent to prove this proposition, not only in my own judgment, or in that of the Baptists, but also in the estimation of the disinterested; I conceived it my duty, to invite any other Paido-baptist teacher, to try to do, that which Mr. W. failed to do. -- This I did, and I am now before you, pledged to prove, that infant sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religious, and political.

My present opponent, accepted he says, my general challenge in May last, but our correspondence has been continued until three days before my departure from home for this place, and even then he preliminaries

( 46 )

were not adjusted, I was however, notified that the time and place were fixed for holding this debate; and owing to the shortness of the time, and the stage of water in the Ohio, I was unable to bring any other books, than such as could be carried in my port-manteau.

The subject of our present controversy is one that has excited great interest elicited great zeal, and exhibited uncommon industry on all sides. Some great benefit, either real or imaginary, must be ascribed to infant sprinkling, by those who so ardently contend for it. Before we spend our breath, waste our time, or fatigue our bodies hi this discussion, let us know cm' bono, for what good, or what benefit to infants we contend. We Baptists contend that it is the duty of Christian parents, (and their love to their offspring should prompt them to it,) to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, to pray for them, and to exhibit before them a good example. I acknowledge no man as a Christian that will not perform these delightful duties. But when these duties are performed, we know of no benefit that could be conferred on them by sprinkling a few drops of water upon their faces.

As a father I love my children as dearly as I think any father ought to do. I would sprinkle them not only once, but seven times, if I thought it would confer any benefit upon them, or contribute to their salvation. I do not speak of sprinkling them with any disrespect. The term, I conceive, denotes the action. My opponent hinted in his letters that it is vulgar and impious to call this rite, sprinkling. We are for calling things by their appropriate names. If the name be vulgar, the thing is vulgar; if the name be impious, the action is impious. -- Whatever vulgarity and impiety my opponent conceives to be exhibited in calling the rite, for which he contends, infant sprinkling, he ought to consider, that the same vulgarity and impiety exist in the practice of it.

As my opponent contends for infant sprinkling he

( 47 )

must think that some benefit is communicated by it. Now as we know of none, it not only becomes him for the sake of consistency to point out numerically, in the first place, in the second, third, and fourth, &c. the advantages resulting from the practice, but it will also add to our zeal, and engage our attention, in discussing the subject. Let us see what is at stake, and then we shall enter into the debate with spirit and energy. I trust neither Mr. M. nor myself came hither for the purpose of displaying our talents, or our acquisitions. It was not, we assure you, my friends for the purpose of exhibiting our strength or the weakness of my opponent, that induced me to leave my family and visit this place. No such inglorious object could have induced me to undergo the privations and toils of my journey hither. If the physical strength of my opponent was equal to the carrying of two hundred pounds, mine to two hundred and fifty, of what should I boast! -- Why should I blame him, or praise myself! -- As there is nothing praise worthy in bodily strength, so there is nothing culpable in mental imbecility. No, my friends, it is not our own reputation, nor sectarian victory we have in view; it is the triumph of truth, it is the union of Christians on a proper basis. We ardently desire the union of all christians on the one foundation; we believe infant sprinkling to be a barrier, a stumbling block in the way, and therefore we wish to see it removed, that those who believe and love the truth may walk in the fellowship of it. But I give way to Mr. M. that he may point out the use of this rite, if there be no use in the thing, why contend for it? and if there be, God forbid, that I should oppose it.

Mr. MacCalla then arose: -- Religion, my friends, is a subject, of general, of infinite, and of eternal importance. It is the only subject which interests all classes, all ranks and degrees of men alike. Every human being has a soul, and this soul must be happy or miserable forever. The excellence of religion appears in its suitableness to every human being. It is adapted to

( 48 )

the noble and ignoble, and is necessary to the happiness of all. Without it the most illustrious amongst men are poor and unhappy beings; with it the most abased amongst man are exalted and ennobled. It is not only of general, of universal, but also of infinite importance. Every thing sublunary which occupies human attention, and commands human respect is limited in its value, and finite in its advantages; but religion is the inestimable pearl, the invaluable possession, the infinite felicity of all its subjects. It is of eternal excellence. It not only respects man as the passing tenant of this world, as the creature of time, as a mortal being, but it launches forth into eternity, and prepares its happy possessor for a blissful immortality; it views him as the child of immortality, and adapts him for the society of happy immortals. Who then would not admire Its excellence, be moved by its importance, and charmed with its superlative glory! Who will not confess, that if such be the excellence of religion, that every thing connected with it, that every institution, and every part of it, is worthy of our greatest reverence, of our utmost regard! I come forward, under these impressions of the nature and design of religion, to defend one of its institutions from the charges of our accuser.

Yes, my Paido-baptist friends, our adversary has accused us, has accused the whole Paido-baptist world, with holding and administering a factitious and pernicious ordinance. He has publicly challenged them to stand on their defence. He would now, as you have heard him, endeavour to exonerate himself from having given a challenge to the Paido-baptist world. He says, "I call it a challenge" but what does he call it? Does he not call it a challenge himself. Hear his own words -- Debate at Mount-Pleasant page 141. -- "I now," says he, "conceive it is my time to give an invitation or challenge," mark my friends the word challenge, "to any Paido-baptist minister;" -- to any Paido-baptist minister, does not this include the whole Paido-baptist world. Yet you

( 49 )

would think from what he has just now said, that he never gave a challenge. It is a challenge, and a tremendous one: it is not only a challenge, but it also contains a base accusation too. It accuses us of a crime, don't startle, my friends, at the word crime; for in administering Baptism to an infant, he says we practise that which is injurious to the well being of society, religious and political. Yes we are guilty, he holds us guilty, of a crime worthy to be punished by the civil law.

Let us attend to the words of this challenge. Our accuser, in his challenge, has engaged to prove that infant sprinkling is a human tradition. Observe the word tradition: a tradition is any thing handed down, whether in word or writing; whether viva voce, or with the pen. The apostles called their communications traditions. Hold the traditions, said Paul, which ye have received by word or our epistle. In this sense, then, every thing in the Scriptures is tradition; but they are Divine traditions, or which is the same thing, Apostolic traditions. Our accuser, however, is not content with calling infant Baptism, infant Sprinkling; or with saying that it is a tradition, but he calls it a human tradition. That is a tradition of men, something handed down from men only, in which there is no Divine authority, for which there is no Divine warrant. Not only is the Baptizing of infants, as respects the subject, called, by our accusers, a human tradition, but the very mode of administering Baptism, is called sprinkling, and this sprinkling is called a human tradition; so that the whole institution, as respects subject and mode is, by our adversaries, called a human tradition.

But this is not the full expression of their resentment, of their hatred of this holy institution, for our adversary adds another epithet, it is an injurious human tradition. Yes, injurious to every body and to all society, religious and political. What a monstrous evil is this ordinance -- a human tradition- -- an injurious tradition, hurtful to the church, and hurtful to the

( 50 )

state. Mr. Campbell, however, stands pledged to prove these four propositions; first, that infants are not the subjects of Baptism; secondly, that sprinkling is not Baptism; in the third place, that Baptizing an infant is injurious to religious and political society; and, in the fourth place, that sprinkling, the very mode itself, is injurious to the church and the world.

He proposed a question, but offered no arguments in his speech to you -- This question is a very strange one indeed, coming from my opponent. What good is there in infant Baptism? An appeal to reason -- yes, and to reason on the expediency and advantage of obeying a Divine command. Reason ought not to be appealed to on such matters. It is enough to know that it is commanded. Our duty is to obey, although we could see no propriety in the command, no good result from obedience. In his debate with Mr. Walker, page 46, he declaims against reasoning on Divine commands. -- He there says, -- "In positive institutions we are nott authorized to reason what we should do, but implicitly to obey. Not whether it be rational or proper to do so, but, go, do it." In positive institutions the Divine authority commanding, is that which the subject views in his obedience, he also adds, "that on no account whatsoever, are we to attempt to reason upon the expediency of the things enjoined, but implicitly to obey on all occasions." Yet, now, he asks what good is there in obedience! before he will obey the Divine command he must know what he will gain by so doing!! I say that reason is not to be appealed to on such occasions. -- It is enough for me to know that God has commanded infants to be baptized. I know that whatever he has commanded is right, useful, and profitable, and that when we obey the command of God, good will result from it, although, I might not be able particularly to define it, or specify what it is. If many who are commanded to obedience in the Scriptures, would refrain from obedience until they saw the good that would result from it, until they could numerically show first, second and third, this

( 51 )

and that advantage results from it, very few, if any, of the commands of God would ever be obeyed.

With regard to what my opponent has said on the unfairness of the public notice of this debate given in our papers, it is enough for me to say, that his friend and correspondent Dr. Keith signed it on his behalf, and that if any thing was amiss in it he was equally criminal with myself.

Mr. C. was to have opened this debate according to our agreement, but he sat down without ever offering one argument in proof of any of the propositions, contained in his general challenge. It is true, he talked about many things altogether irrelevant to our dispute, and occupied his time without attempting to do, what we would have expected would have been his first effort. As he has then, sat down without opening the debate, or offering any argument, it becomes my duty to open the debate, Mr. C. has declined it for some very important reasons, we shall then proceed to open it:

I came to this place to prove the very contrary of the propositions contained in Mr. C's challenge. I Came to prove that infant Baptism" is a Divine ordinance, an institution of heaven, designed for the most important purposes. The subject naturally divides itself into the subject and mode of Baptism. All disputants and writers of eminence have taken this method to illustrate and establish from Scripture the ordinance of infant Baptism. I maintain that faith is not essential to Baptism, and that immersion is not essential to Baptism. That the infant of a believer is a proper subject, and that sprinkling or pouring is valid Baptism. In the establishment of the first proposition or first branch of this subject, I will observe the following method.

In the first place I will produce a Divine Command for infant Baptism; a command of God authorising infants to be baptized. The infants of believers.

In the second place I will produce probable evidence of Apostolic practice of infant Baptism.

( 52 )

In the third and last place, under this head, I will produce positive evidence of Apostolic practice of infant Baptism.

This is the general method I will pursue in the prosecution of this controversy; subservient to which shall be all the different topics introduced, however remotely they may appear to bear upon the subject.

You will, then, my friends, remember that in the first place, I proceed to produce a Divine command for infant Baptism. This is the most influential of all authority for any practice. What greater authority can be adduced in favor of any practice, what more imperious than the command of the great God, whose right, whose exclusive right it is, to appoint his own worship, to ordain the institutes thereof, and to accompany all his injunctions with suitable sanctions? -- It is not human tradition that is an adequate authority to measure our faith, or to regulate our obedience Our church founds all her decisions, her laws, and her ordinances upon the commands of God, or the explicit declarations of his spirit, whether found in the old Testament or in the new, we esteem a command of God as obligatory upon us wherever it may be found. It is the same God that spoke by Moses and by Paul; and his authority is like himself, unchangeable. He has had a church in all generations constituted by his laws and governed by his statutes. Length of time, or vast antiquity, does not impair his authority, or render his precepts of less weight. A Divine command for any practice warrants, requires, and merits our immediate compliance. Even where reason discovers no immediate gain, no present acquisition, no palpable benefit. All Divine commands are not equally plain, yet they are equally authoritative; and they are all so plain, that when fairly interpreted they render the despiser or the neglecter without excuse. It must also be acknowledged that some of God's commands have been repealed, consequently not binding upon us; but it must also be rememembered, that such of them as are not repealed by his authority

( 53 )

are yet in force. There are other peculiarities of the commands of God which are worthy of notice, but of these hereafter. Mr. M. sat down.

I then proceeded: -- Mr. M. has very ingeniously proved that I gave a challenge. And who says that I did not! But Mr. M. was very silent on the point of dispute respecting this challenge. The question is, who first introduced this controversy. The documents I produced must forever exonerate me from having begun this discussion. -- It was the Paido-baptists that first challenged the Baptist world. And the only interpretation that candor and honesty can put upon the paragraph, cited from the 141 page of the Debate at Mount-Pleasant, is, that we did not claim the honor of having universally, and forever silenced the Paido-baptists, but that we would give any of them a fair, and full opportunity of doing better, than Mr. Walker was supposed to have done, if they thought they could make a better argument than he had done. This I did. And I must persist in saying, that Mr. M.'s first letter to me, is as fully an original challenge, as that given by me. But as Mr. M. in his address to you, did not so much as allude to the question, who first gave a challenge, but occupied his remarks in proving what was not denied, we presume this point is settled without contradiction.

But, my Paido-baptist friends, there is something in my opponents address that I exceedingly lament, on your account. I discover the spirit and design of a considerable part of it is, to arouse your passions, at the expense of your judgment. To lead you to view my challenge, as an accusation against the whole Paido-baptist world, and myself as an accuser: that I have charged you with a crime worthy of punishment by the civil law, My opponent appears to be so well acquainted with human nature as to calculate a good deal upon bribing your judgment in this debate, by a present to your passions. If he succeeds in leading you to consider me your accuser; my challenge,

( 54 )

an accusation; and your practice, as judged and pronounced by me criminal; if he succeeds in persuading you to consider himself, as your defender; his speeches, as a defence of your practice; his whole efforts as designed to free you from calumny; he wisely calculates that he has gained half the point in securing his dominion over you. Our design, my Paido-baptist friends, is not to widen the breach, or to throw stumbling blocks in the way, by inflaming your passions; but to endeavor to lead you to understand this most important institution of the Lord of glory, that whosoever of you feareth God may unite with us in keeping his commandments, as delivered unto us by his Holy Apostles.

Instead of pointing us, to the good effects and benefits of infant Baptism, as was requested: in my first address, he has entertained us with a disquisition on the impropriety of appealing to reason on such matters; and that too, by a reference to my remarks in Debate with Mr. Walker on positive institutions.

I am well pleased to find that my opponent and I agree co well on the nature of positive institutions. I request the congregation to keep in mind, that my opponent has declared, that in positive institutions, "reason, if not to be appealed to in such matters. It is enough to know that it is commanded. Our duty is to obey, although we could see no propriety in the command, no good result from obedience" This is an excellent sentiment, and we shall likely have use for its appearance again in this controversy. It, however, appears on this occasion, entirely out of place. When I asked my opponent to ennumerate the benefits of infant sprinkling, I did not call upon him to appeal to reason, but to revelation. His reply is, in fact, a concession that revelation says nothing about them, and, very judiciously indeed, he refuses to appeal to reason, for reason would be as silent, upon the benefits derived to infants from sprinkling, as revelation. -- We must compliment his ingenuity upon this occasion, and thank him for his beautiful episode upon positive institutions,

( 55 )

Had he, however, demanded of me the benefits derived to believers from baptism, I would have immediately made my appeal to revelation; and, in numerical order, exhibited the chief.

Mr. M. would have you think that I sat down without opening this debate, without submitting an argument. My remarks, it is true, were chiefly prefatory: yet I conceive there was an opening of the debate, and some argument in my introduction. If I did not open the debate, with whom was he debating in his speech? And as to argument, it is true, I did not submit one in the form of a syllogism, yet, I conceive, the strongest argument in the world was presented against the practice of the Paido-baptists. It was modestly affirmed that infant sprinkling was a USELESS practice; that there was no benefit resulting to the infant from it. My opponent affirms, necessarily affirms, that there is a benefit in it. Now, the proof always lies on the affirmer. I think there is no argument which can be adduced against any practice, or any undertaking stronger, or more convincing, than such a practice, or such an undertaking is useless, altogether useless. Suppose, for illustration, a man were about building an house upon the ice, which is practicable in many places. He might give it the most tasty form, he might divide it into the most convenient and elegant chambers; he might display the most correct and delicate taste in its internal arrangements, in its external figure and appearance. When about to engage in the accomplishment oi his design, or while in the act of prosecuting his plan, suppose, some person, acquainted with the climate, and possessed of what is called common sense, would tell him, the whole project, the whole enterprise was a useless one; for soon as the western zephyrs would breathe upon the foundation, yield it must to their influence, and down must come the whole superstructure. I say, what argument could be more powerful against his project, than that it was useless, or without benefit! And as my opponent has produced no benefit, no advantage, to be derived

( 56 )

to infants from sprinkling, or from baptism, we gained, in our first encounter, the strongest of all arguments against his practice.

But as my opponent complains that I have not opened the debate, and as I was compelled to consent to open the debate, contrary to my sense of propriety, or else it appeared we should have had none, as our correspondence will demonstrate; I will proceed to do it in a more formal manner, and as my opponent has been telling us his method of conducting the debate, though he himself has produced no argument as yet, in support of his theses, consequently, on his own principles has not opened it; I will submit my method of procedure in this controversy.

But I will first premise a few things, merely, however, to fix on certain principles to which we may appeal in any matter of doubtful disputation. I have not "* to consult my opponent on these, as they are already sworn to, or avowed by my opponent. I therefore take that confession of faith which he has solemnly vowed to teach; and vowed to be (according to his belief) the system of doctrine taught in the holy scriptures; -- and, from it, I will select such general rules as maybe pertinent to this discussion.

Presbyterian Confession of faith, chap. i. sec. 7. "All things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture, or other, that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." You will then bear in mind, my friends, that my opponent considers you all competent judges of scripture testimony, in a due use of the ordinary means; and, without any commentator or religious teacher, his confession of faith declares, that, though you were unlearned, you may attain unto a knowledge of the things necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation: because all those things are "so

( 57 )

clearly propounded and opened["] in some place of scripture or other.

In the same confession, and in the same chapter, sec. 9. you will find the following most excellent sentiment. "The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and, therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture which is not manifold, but ONE, it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." This article embraces one of the best rules of interpretation we have seen. The sense of every passage of scripture is ONE, not two, three, or manifold. How many thousands of volumes of sermons, and interpretations of scripture would it send to the flames, or to the moths, if it were duly recognized and acted upon! There is but ONE meaning in every passage of scripture, and that one meaning must be always found from its context. This golden rule of interpretation, recognized and acted upon, and controversy, about the meaning of scripture, becomes fair and easily managed. To these articles we shall appeal in all matters of disputation about the meaning of scriptures, adduced in this controversy. I feel myself happy to think that my opponent must admit them, or abjure his allegiance to the presbyterian church.

My text will be found in the twenty-eighth chapter of the confession of faith, first verse, and first clause. -- "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ." The term sacrament is the only term in our text, on which we shall offer a comment. The term sacrament we shall define first, generally, as signifying, any holy thing: second, specially, it signifies a holy ordinance. -- Our text, then, as defined reads -- "Baptism is a holy ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ." In handling this text polemically, and in proving the propositions contained an our general challenge, we shall observe the following method.

1. We shall go to the New Testament, and not to

( 58 )

the Old, to ascertain the nature, design, and subject of this ordinance.

II. We shall appeal to the words of Jesus Christ for the institution of baptism, as our text says, it is an ordinance of Jesus Christ; we shall have nothing to do with Moses in this matter, however useful ho may be in others. No doubt our opponent will feel his creed honored, and will acquiesce in our method as correct.

In proving the points contained in my challenge, I will first prove that, a believer is the only subject of baptism.

In the second place, that immersion is the only baptism.

In the third place, that infant baptism, or infant sprinkling is injurious to society, religious and political. These points being established, and it necessarily follows, that infant sprinkling is a human tradition and injurious, &c.

In establishing the first point, that a believer is the only subject of baptism, I will, according to my text, appeal exclusively to the New Testament; and reason itself will justify me in this particular; for who would go to the Old Testament to find an ordinance which is not in it, and which belongs exclusively to the New! In the first place, under this head, I will appeal directly to the law of Christ concerning this ordinance of his, which I find in the commission to baptize. Matt. xxviii. 18-20. Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and in earth is given unto me. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, (or make disciples out of all nations) baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you alway unto the end of the world." We shall also read the commission, or law of Christian baptism, as recorded by Mark, xvi. 15, 16. "Go ye, into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned."

( 59 )

The law of baptism, then, authorises none but disciples or believers to be baptized.

Having now, according to my text, read, the law of baptism, from Him, whose ordinance, the confession says it is; I will in the next place, read the practice of those persons to whom He first gave the law; and who, He said, should be witnesses for Him, in Judea, and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. We shall just follow them to Judea, thence to Samaria, and thence to the Gentiles, the uttermost parts of the earth, and see whom they baptized.

To Judea. -- In Jerusalem, the metropolis of Judea", we read Acts ii. 41. When Peter preached the Gospel first to the Jews, we are told -- "that, they who gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Thus the Apostles began to act under the law of baptism. They baptized only those who gladly received the Gospel, believed it, or became disciples of Christ.

To Samaria. -- Acts viii. 12. "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women."

To Ethiopia. -- Acts viii. 36. "See," says the Ethiopian Eunuch, "here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said, if thou believest, with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Then Philip baptized him.

To the uttermost parts of the earth. -- The Gentiles, in Cornelius' house, Acts x. 47. When they believed the Gospel which Peter preached. Peter says, "can any man forbid, water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

To Philippi. -- And when the Lord opened Lydia's heart, we are told, Acts xvi. 14, that "she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul, and then she

( 60 )

was baptized and her household." And, Acts xvi. 31. they said to the Jailer, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved, and thy house, and they spake unto him, the word of the Lord, and to all that were in the house. And he took them, the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized he, and all his straightway.

To Corinth. -- Acts xviii. 8. "And Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue believed on the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized."

My time forbids me now to make any remarks upon these testimonies; we see, at the first glance, whom the Apostles baptized, under the law of Christ. Let my opponent now read, in the New Testament, such passages as speak of infants, as subjects of baptism. I give place to him to read the New Testament records of infant baptism.

Mr. Maccalla then arose: -- I will read you, my mends, an extract from Mr. Robinson, the greatest Baptist historian in the world, pages 367, 368. This extract will show you how infant baptism has been attacked, with what reproaches it has been loaded, with what insolence and contempt it has been treated; and it will also exhibit to you what kind of spirit our adversaries possess. It reads thus:

"Soon after the passing of the conventicle act, a Baptist, named Headach, a man of fortune and reputation, was accused of having spoken treasonable words by a pretended brother, named John Poulter. Headach was ready to be arraigned at the bar on the oath of Poulter, and of course to lose both his estate and his life, when all on a sudden Poulter disappeared. It was soon found, that Poulter was the son of a butcher in Salisbury; that he was there reputed one of the most debauched and profligate of mankind; that he had turned informer, and had been employed by Dr. Mew, then vice-chancellor of Oxford, and Judge Morton, who used to call him John for the king, to

( 61 )

obtain in the county of Bucks a full account of what number of dissenting meetings there were; in what places they were held; what number of persons attended them; of what rank; whether of estate; where they resided, and so forth. Poulter, like the rest of his order, was sometimes a Quaker, and sometimes a Baptist, and, when he was found out in one country, he shifted quarters, and acted the same part in others, always protected and supported by some great persecutors then in power. Having committed many other Crimes, and been guilty of many felonies, which came to light at once, he fled the country. Headach was dismissed, and among other exploits it was found Poulter had in contempt of infant baptism, christened a cat, and in derision of the queen, had named it Catherine -- Catherina. So zealous an enemy was this pretended Baptist to infant baptism and civil tyranny over conscience.

Paul Hobson's soldiers christened a colt, that was foaled in St. Paul's church, by sprinkling it with water which he had made in his helmet, in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and because it was a bald colt, he named it Baal rex.

Captain Beaumont and his soldiers in 1644, christened a colt at the font in Yakesley church, Huntingdon shire, in the same manner, with the same sort of water, calling him, because he was hairy, Baal Esau.

History mentions ancient mockeries of baptism, but they were very different from these. Pyrnne collected two from Nicholas Cabasila. "It is recorded of one Porphyry, a Pagan stage-player, that he grew to such an height of impiety, that he adventured to baptize himself in, jest upon the stage, of purpose to make the people laugh at Christian baptism, and so to bring both it and Christianity into contempt: and for thiu purpose he plunged himself into a vessel of water which he had placed on the stage, calling aloud upon the Trinity, at which the spectators fell into great laughter. But to the goodness of God to this profane miscreant! It pleased God to shew such a demonstration

( 62 )

of his power and grace upon him, that this sporting baptism of his became a serious laver of regeneration to him, insomuch that of a graceless player he became a gracious Christian; and not long after a constant martyr." Credat Judaeus Apella.

"The like I find registered of one Ardalion, another heathen actor, who, in derision of the holy sacrament of baptism, baptized himself in jest upon the stage, and by that means became a Christian, God's mercy turning this his wickedness to his eternal good." -- Credat Judaeus Apella, Non ego."

I hope this extract will not offend our moderators as we know, indeed, that it is not suitable to be read in the audience of any respectable assembly, but Mr. Robinson, a Baptist, has written it, and we are justifiable in reading it, upon the present occasion, as it is So similar to many things said by our present adversary in his publication of the Debate with Mr. W.

[Here Bishop Verdeman, one of the moderators, addressed Mr. M. saying, that he might read of the baptism of cats and colts as much as he pleased, provided, he would drop the use of two words, of which he was in frequent use, these are the words adversaries and accusers. Mr. Verdeman observed, that he thought it very illiberal to represent the Baptists as accusers and adversaries of the Paido-baptists, and to call his opponent, Mr. C. an adversary and an accuser. Mr. M. must know that these are the names given, in Scripture, to Satan, who is called "the adversary" and "the accuser of the brethren." He thought that Mr. M. should treat his opponent as a gentleman and as a Christian, although he differed from him, on the questions under discussion. He hoped, therefore, that he would substitute the term opponent or any term less acrimonious, more consistent with candor and justice, In place of those offensive terms.

Something intended as an excuse for Mr. M. was said by the rev. Mr. Birch, but as no notes were taken of it, our recollection will not permit us to attempt a state his remarks,

( 63 )

Major Roper, the president of the board of moderators, whose right it was to decide, when any difference occurred between the other moderators, gave it as his opinion, that, however justifiable Mr. M. might be, in calling Mr. C. his accuser, it was certainly unwarrantable, and indecorous, to denominate the Baptist denomination as accusers, and adversaries. He hoped, therefore, that Mr. M. would dispense with the use of those terms.

Mr. M. said, in his own defence, that he had used the terms for the purpose of obtaining such a decision respecting Mr. C. as the president of the board had now given; and that being pleased, very much pleased, with the remarks of the president of the bench, he would desist from the use of those terms. *]

Mr. M. resumed his reading: -- I was about to read to you an extract from the Debate at Mount-Pleasant, breathing the same spirit of that read from Robinson, the- Socinian. It is indeed taken from Robinson, page 193.

The bill of fare of a dinner at Tynningham, the house of the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Haddington, on Thursday the 21st of Aug. 1679; when his lordship's son was baptized!

Fresh beef,
Mutton,
Veal,
Legs of Venison,
Geese,
Pigs,
Old Turkeys,
Young do.
Salmon,
Tongues and Udders,
Ducks,
Roasted Fowls,
Chickens roasted,
Do. stewed,
Do. frickaseed,
Do. in pottage,
Lamb,
Wildfowl,
Pigeons baked, roasted, and stewed,
Hares roasted,
do. frickaseed,
Hams,
A Puncheon of Claret, &c.

pieces 6
do. 16
do. 4
3
6
4
2
8
4
12
14
6
9
30
12
8
10
22
102
10
6
3

This is the way that our opponents take to ridicule and lampoon infant baptism. These are strong arguments, yes, these are their convincing arguments.

__________
* See p. 19. In his letter Mr. M. calls the Baptists his adversaries. So that he must have used these terms for a long time in order to obtain this decision!!

( 64 )

According to the method I proposed, in my last address, I will proceed to the first head of my method, which was to shew that there is a Divine command for infant baptism.

In the first place, I would observe, that there is a difference in Divine commands, some of them are express and others are not express. Some of them, in so many words, expressly command certain duties to be performed, and even the very way and manner In which they are to be performed is expressly propounded; as were many of the commands given to the Jews, respecting their worship, in its various ordinances. Thus it was with respect to the construction of the tabernacle, and its numerous utensils. -- Thus it was with respect to the ordination of the Jewish priesthood, and their various duties. Thus it Was with respect to the nature of their sacrifices, their different objects, and manner of presentation. Commands equally express were published with respect to moral duties, as were the commands in the decalogue. But besides these there were many things Divinely commanded, which were not express, but were to be taught, and learned from the import of sundry declarations, in which there was much scope given to the exercise of the rational faculties of man; and which were to be ascertained from a minute attention to many circumstances. For instance, there is no express declaration of the unity of God to be found in the Old Testament; no express proof in so many words; yet we know this truth to be a part of Divine revelation, as certainly as though it were expressly declared in so many words. Nor is there any express, command against duelling in all the word of God, yet we are as certain that God has prohibited this mischievous practice, as though it were expressly prohibited. Nor is there any express command against gaming in the Bible, and what christian is there, who does not know that it is Divinely prohibited? There is no express law authorizing christians to eat pork, not every christian eat pork with a good conscience,

( 65 )

with as much liberty, as though God had expressly said ye may eat pork! Nor is there any express command for independent church government, for which many so earnestly contend, as Divinely appointed. There is no express law for the observance of the first day of the week, as the Christian Sabbath; for female communion, and many other points, zealously contended for by the Baptists and Paido-baptists. In the same manner, we affirm, that, although, there is no express command for baptism, though it is not mentioned in the Old Testament, yet we can find a Divine command for it there.

When we propose to produce a Divine command for infant baptism, you are not, my friends, to expect that we shall produce, in so many words, a command for parents to have their children baptized. You will however plainly see that there is a Divine command for this practice by attending to the proof of the following propositions; for, from the five following propositions, we will very clearly infera Divine command for infant baptism. We will prove at least that infants, the infants of believers, are proper subjects of baptism. To the discussion of the following propositions we ardently request your attention.

Proposition I. Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church of God.

Prop. II. The Christian church is a branch of the Abrahamic church, or in other words; the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society, after Christ, are one and the same church, in different dispensations.

Prop. III. Jewish circumcision, before Christ, and Christian Baptism, after Christ, are one and the same seal, though in different forms.

Prop. IV. The administration of this seal to infants was once enjoined by Divine authority.

Prop. V. The administration of this seal to infants was never prohibited by Divine authority.

You will readily perceive, that, if the seed of Abraham were Divinely constituted a true visible church,

( 66 )

and, if the Jewish and Christian church are one and the same church; and, if the seal of circumcision and baptism are one and the same seal, in substance; and, that this seal, was once ordained of God, and was never afterwards prohibited, J say, you will then perceive, that we have, if not an express command, at least a Divine command for baptizing infants.

But as we must be at considerable pains in laying a good foundation, and in proving, in the most explicit manner the truth of these propositions, we shall take them up separately, beginning with the first:

The first proposition you will keep in mind, it is this. Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church.

You must not, however, suppose that all the seed of Abraham were Divinely constituted a visible church, for some of them were never taken into the covenant with Abraham, and others of them that were once taken in, were afterwards excommunicated from this church. Abraham was the father of many nations as well as the father of the holy nation and the kingdom of priests, which is, in scripture, called the church. Abraham had different wives, Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah, these all left issue to Abraham. Sarah bare Isaac; Hagar bare Ishmael; and Keturah bare him six sons. Now, not all the sons of Abraham were Divinely constituted a true visible church, for with Isaac only was the covenant confirmed. And even of the posterity of Isaac some were excluded or excommunicated, as, for instance, the Edomites who sprang from Esau, and dwelt after their excommunication upon Mount Seir. -- Mr. M's time expired.

I then addressed the congregation: -- So then my opponent is determined to affirm his own propositions, and not to deny mine. He will not attack my arguments nor respond to my address. He has not so much as alluded to my last address. What is the meaning of all this? Why did he contend with me so long in his correspondence, on the necessity of my

( 67 )

opening the debate? Is it possible, that he is going to read all the time out of this manuscript he has in his hand; that he has all his arguments written down, and will not abandon the course he has prescribed to himself! -- So then he debates with the pen, and I, viva voce, or rather he reads his arguments and dares not attack mine. And instead of reading the passages, in the New Testament, that speak of infant baptism, as I have done those, or, at least, some of those, which speak of believers, or of disciples, as the proper subjects, as the exclusive subjects of baptism; he has read from Robertson's history, of the sprinkling of cats and colts!! I say is it possible that he could find no passages in the New Testament to read respecting infants being subjects of baptism, but to cover his retreat, and to inflame the minds of a part of his auditors, has been obliged to read the above passage out of Robertson's history of insults offered to infant baptism and also to immersion!! And yet, after all the torrent of abuse poured on Mr. Robertson and myself, by my opponent, for the spirit which he says those extracts exhibit towards his people, one of themselves, to wit, the great Dr. Wall, in his history of infant baptism, abuses the Paidobaptists much more than any thing in Robertson's history, or in the Debate at Mount-Pleasant, which has yet been read, or which can be read by Mr. M. Hear, my friends, hear Dr. Wall, the celebrated Paido-baptist, who was dubbed D. D. for his history of infant baptism. -- "There has no novelty or alteration, that I know of, in point of baptism, been brought into the church, but in the way and manner of administering it. The way that is now ordinarily used, we cannot deny to have been a novelty, brought into the church (of England) by those that learned it in Germany, or at Geneva. And they Were not contented, with following the example of pouring a quantity of water, which had there been introduced instead of immersion, but improved it (if I may so abuse that word) from pouring to sprinkling, that it might have as little resemblence of the ancient way of baptizing, as possible." -- "And another struggle," says he, "whether

( 68 )

the child shall be dipped or sprinkled, will be with the midwives and nurses. These will use all the interest they have with the mothers, which is very great, to dissuade them from agreeing to the dipping of the child. I know of no reason, unless it be this, a thing which they value themselves, and their skill much upon, is the neat dressing of the child on the christening day, the setting all the trimming, the pins, and the laces, in their order. And if the child be brought in loose clothes, which may be presently taken off, for the baptism, and put on again, this pride is lost. And this makes a reason. So little is the solemnity of the sacrament regarded by many, who mind nothing but the dress and the eating and drinking." * So indeed Dr. Wall accuses, shall I say, or abuses the Paido-baptists; at least he declares that many of them are concerned more about the dressing, and decorating of the infant subject of baptism, than about the ordinance and that many of them mind nothing but the dress and the eating and drinking. Let Mr. M. produce any Baptist writer who has said any thing so severe, or so tart against those he defends, as the good Dr. Wall.

Mr. M's Divine command for infant baptism began to recede from our view, soon as he began to read about his not express command. I confess I felt somewhat elevated, and hot a little astonished, when I heard him propose to give a Divine command for infant baptism. But from his disquisition on express, and not express commands, I have quite recovered from my surprise. I am much mistaken, if his Divine command will not come out at last, no command at all. But we shall wait patiently for its appearance. He would place the unity of God, and infant baptism upon the same obscure footing. No express revelation of either. Did he ever read, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is ONE Lord." But, in fact, there can be nothing more absurd, than to place the "eating of pork," and the "baptizing of infants," upon one and the same footing: or the prohibition of gaming and duelling

__________
* Pp. 146, 147.

( 69 )

upon the same basis with the sprinkling of infants. Where is the fine episode on positive institutes that we heard from Mr. M. some time ago! -- He was prepared with a quotation, from my Debate with Mr. Walker, to show, that, on positive duties or institutes, we were not left to reason to find them out. He might have observed that the passage referred to, at that time, in the 45th page would have obviated his remarks on moral duties, and have shown when express commands were necessary. The conclusion of the passage referred to, thus reads. "In positive institutions, the Divine authority commanding, is that which the subject views in his obedience; in moral precepts he views, also, the rational and moral use and beauty of the duty commanded. In positive institutions, we are not authorised to reason what we should do, but implicitly to obey. "See, (said God to Moses,) that thou makest all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the Mount." Not whether it be rational or proper to do so, but, go, do it, In moral requirements, we are clearly shewn and commanded to perform certain duties, but left at liberty to reason, to ascertain in what these duties consist. A man is not to reason whether or not he should be honest or just, but to reason to know in what honesty and justice consist. Hence, the apostle Paul gives us general rules, which by our own reason, we are to apply to particular occasions such as Philip, iv. 8, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, if any praise, think on these things." Here we have general rules, left to be filled up by our own reflection and reason." To these remarks I will add those of two paido-baptist dignitaries, Bishop Hoadly, and Bishop Taylor. Bishop Hoadly says, "All positive duties depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes or ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them, and consequently to the due manner of performing them." --

( 70 )

Speaking of the Lord's supper, he says, "It cannot be doubted Jesus Christ sufficiently declared to his first and immediate followers the whole of what he designed should be understood by, or implied in, this duty; for this being a positive institution, depending entirely upon his will, and not designed to contain any thing in it, but he himself should please to affix to it, it must follow that he declared his mind about it fully and plainly; because, otherwise, he must be supposed to institute a duty, of which no one could have any notion without his instruction, and at the same time not to instruct his followers sufficiently what that duty was to be." * On this passage Mr. Chapin, a congregationalist, who became a Baptist, observes, "His lordship has here expressed truths which are equally applicable to baptism, and which no one can easily refute." p. 9.

Bishop Taylor's words are "All institutions, sacramental and positive laws, depend wholly on the will of the law-giver, and the will of the supreme, being actually limited to this specification, this manner, this matter, this institution: whatsoever comes besides, it hath no foundation in the will of the legislator, and therefore can have no warrant or authority. That it be obeyed or not obeyed is all the question and all the variety. If it can be obeyed, it must; if it cannot it must be let alone. He that does any thing of his own head, either must be a despiser of God's will, or must suppose himself the author of a grace, or else to do nothing at all, in what he does, because all his obedience, and all the blessings of his obedience, depend upon the will of God, which ought always to be obeyed when it can, and when it cannot, nothing can supply it, because the will of the law-giver is all the reason for obedience. †

From the words of these learned paido-baptists nothing short of an express Divine command can authorize a positive institute; so that Mr. M's not express,

__________
* See his True Account, &c.

† Ductor Dubitantium. B. ii. c. 3.

( 71 )

but Illogical, inferential, Divine command avail nothing when it comes.

My opponent has certainly abandoned his confession of faith. My text was taken from it, on the supposition that he believed it, and that its authority was felt and acknowledged by him; Has he recanted it, my paido-baptist friends? Has he not solemnly vowed his belief of it, as the system of doctrine taught in the Bible? Has he not promised, solemnly promised to teach the doctrines which it contains? Does it not say that baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament? Why then does he go to the Old Testament to find it? Does it not say that baptism was ordained by Jesus Christ? Why then does he go to Abraham and to Moses to authorize it? Does he not, in his first proposition, make it an ordinance of Moses, or of the Jewish church? Does he not originate it in the law of circumcision? Why then pledge himself to teach that "baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ? -- or, does the phrase New Testament mean both the Old and the New? And does the name Jesus Christ mean both Moses and the Messiah?

I see from the course or method projected by Mr. M. that the information I had, a day or two ago, concerning the quantity of matter he had prepared for this debate was correct. I heard from a respectable source, that my opponent boasted that he had "eight days' matter prepared," that the discussion of his "matter" would require eight days! Indeed, soon as I heard him read his five propositions, I felt assured that this discussion would be tedious beyond all necessary bounds. These five propositions are the first five questions of the twenty-one proposed in his first letter to me, merely changed from the form of questions into that of propositions. From the correspondence I had thought, when he refused to discuss the twenty-one questions which I proposed, that he had abandoned the idea of proposing his twenty-one. But it appears they are coming forward in another form.

( 72 )

To save time, I will answer them all with a yea or a nay, and let us come to some interesting point of discussion. Let Mr. M. propose them, one by one, and I will say yea, or nay, to each of them, and then, perhaps, he will reply to me.

But he should remember that I have opened the debate in due form, and submitted, from the New Testament, the law of baptism. I have also read the practice of the original witnesses in Judea, Samaria, and in the Uttermost parts of the earth; which clearly shows in what manner they understood the law of baptism," which law authorizes the baptism of disciples only. I have called, and called, upon my opponent to read his authorities from the New Testament for infant baptism, and will again sit down, before my time Expires, to hear him read those records in favor of his practice. I sat down.

Mr. M. arose: -- I believe the Old Testament to be the word of God as well as the New. And a command of God by Moses, and a command by Paul, are equally the commands of God and entitled to obedience. But as nothing will suit my opponent but what comes from the New Testament, and as he has read the commission to baptize disciples, it might suffice to tell him, that infants as well as adults are disciples, at least, I am able to prove from the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that infants are called disciples. "Why," says the Apostle, "tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples?" -- Now we know that this yoke was circumcision, and that infants were equally, to say the least, under this law with their parents. Again, the Saviour saith, "suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God." -- And Paul says that some infants are holy, consequently fit subjects of baptism. But as I have opened the debate and proposed the plan on which to proceed, I will go on to establish my first proposition: viz. Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church of God. Mr. C.

( 73 )

has said a great deal about my reading notes, and having a manuscript in my hand. It is true I have a little book here made up of a few sheets of paper closely written, and yet it is not all written, some part of it is blank. But my opponent has notes too. I see a book in his hand with questions to Maccalla written on it, why then complain of me having notes and reading from a manuscript? I suppose he intends to make use of his notes sometime in this debate. My opponent has said that he will answer the questions contained in these propositions with a yea or a nay. I would wish to know how he will answer this one: "Were Abraham and his seed Divinely constituted a true visible church?"

I answered forthwith, that a part of the Seed of Abraham was Divinely constituted a true visible church of God, but not all his seed.

Will you, said Mr. M. admit that a part of the seed of Abraham, as I have defined that part, was constituted a visible church of God?

I answered -- Read your definition of that part of his seed again, and I will give you an explicit answer.

Mr. M. then read, that all the seed of Abraham, with the exception of such as were afterwards excommunicated, was constituted a true visible church of God.

I objected to the term excommunicated as not being applicable to the Jews in Abraham's time, as being a modern ecclesiastical term too vague in its meaning, and of doubtful disputation, when used in such a connexion of ideas; but I observed that if Mr. M. would alter his proposition so far, as to insert the word part, before the seed of Abraham, that, I would, in order to save time and to avoid unnecessary disputation, without hesitation, say, that a part of the seed of Abraham was Divinely constituted a true church of God.

Mr. M. observed, that unless I would answer the question with an unequivocal yes, in the terms he had

( 74 )

proposed, he would proceed to prove the proposition, as he was determined to build strong bulwarks in his rear, that his conclusions might be unassailable.

I replied, prove it then, but it is altogether unnecessary, inasmuch, as I have admitted every thing that could affect the argument.

Mr. M. went on with his proof: -- There are certain peculiarities necessary to a church state. It is not every assembly that may or can exist that is a church of God. No indeed, for then a mob, a riotous assembly, a political convention, a civil court, or any ordinary meeting, might be called a church of God.

The first thing necessary to the existence of a visible church of God is, that the oracles of God be possessed by those who unite together in a church state. Without this acquisition, let a society possess what advantage it may, it cannot be called a church. For all knowledge of God, faith in him, and devotion to him grow out of the possession of the oracles, of God. That the seed of Abraham had these oracles committed to them we will prove both from the Old Testament and the New, Psalm lxxviii. 5-8. "He," said David the prophet, "established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel which he commanded our Fathers, that they should make them known to their children. That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born, who should arise and declare them to their children; that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God but keep his commandments: and might not be as their Fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God." -- You will observe, my hearers, that it is expressly said, by David the prophet, that a testimony was established in Jacob, and a law appointed in Israel which was to be perpetuated from generation to generation, and to be taught by parents to their children in every age.

To the same purpose speaketh Moses, Deut. xxx. 19. "I call heaven and earth to record this day against

( 75 )

you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore choose life that both thou and thy Seed may live; that thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him; (for he is thy life and the length of thy days;") that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy Fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob to give them." And, again, Deut. xxxii. 46. "And Moses said unto them, set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day; which ye shall command your children to observe to do all the words of this law." From these words we not only see that testimonies and laws were given unto Israel, and to be continued among them in their generations; but we see with what earnestness and desire Moses commits this charge unto Israel, assuring them that their life and felicity consisted in making a due use of those sacred oracles.

A more explicit testimony to this effect we have in Neh. ix. 13, 14. "Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai and speakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, (or laws of truth) good statutes and commandments; and madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandest them precepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant." -- This is so plain that no comment is necessary. In the same clear definite style sings David. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. "He sheweth his words unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any other nation: and as for his judgments they have not known them." This sheweth, not only that God committed his oracles to the seed of Abraham, but to them exclusively; and that no other nation could Worship the true God without his oracles, consequently no other nation but that of Israel could be a church of God.

The New Testament is equally, if not more explicit in proof of this proposition. Acts vii. 38. "This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel

( 76 )

which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us." This last clause is what we have particularly in view here. -- The lively oracles were received by Moses and given to the Jews.

Stephen also, the proto-martyr, in the same speech, Acts vii. 53, tells Israel, "that they had received the law by the disposition of angels and had not kept it."

But Paul in his epistle to the Romans, chap. iii. settles the point at once. He asks the question, "what advantage then hath the Jew? or, what profit is there in circumcision -- much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. And in the ninth chapter of the same epistle, he saith "that the giving of the law pertaineth unto Israel." Thus, my friends, we have proved the first point necessary to show that Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church; -- because they had the oracles of a church committed to them.

In the second place, I proceed to show that they had the second thing necessary to a church state, namely, the ordinances of a church.

To say nothing of the ordinance of circumcision, which, though not a social ordinance of worship, was, nevertheless, an ordinance Divinely appointed to the seed of Abraham; we shall proceed to the social ordinances that belong to, and require a church state. Of these the first is the ordinance of the passover. Ex. xii. 1-14." And the Lord spake unto Moses, and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, this month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, in the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: and if the household be too little for a lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of souls: every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.

( 77 )

Your lamb must he without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: and ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts, and on the upper door post of the houses wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenances thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste i it is the Lord's passover. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." This ordinance was to be kept for ever in all the generations of Israel and it was a social ordinance, a church ordinance, a significant ordinance. Hear Moses again, verse 24-27 -- "And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, what mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, it is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptian's, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped-"

The next ordinance enjoined upon the seed of Abraham was the feast of unleavened bread -- a social ordinance, and an holy convocation. "Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until

( 78 )

the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall bean holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. And ye shall observe the least of unleavened bread; for in this self-same day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt,therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses; for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread." Ex. xii. 15-20. This was a significant commemorative social ordinance of Divine worship.

We shall notice next the ordinance of the Sabbath, for it is given to Israel not only in the Jaw, with other precepts, but it was given as an ordinance. We shall read to this effect. "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." Ex. xxxi. 12-17. "And remember that thou wast a servant an the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm. Therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." To the same purpose Ezekiel the prophet, xx. and 12th, in addition to the statutes and judgments given them the Lord saith, "Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between

( 79 )

them and me, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." --

The next religious festival or ordinance appointed the Jews, of which we shall take notice, is the "Feast of Weeks," or as it is sometimes called, the "Feast of Pentecost." "And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave-offering: seven sabbaths shall be complete: even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer anew meat offering unto the Lord. -- Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave-loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the first fruits unto the Lord. And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt-offering unto the Lord, with their meat-offering, and their drink-offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the Lord. Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin-offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace-offering. And 'the priest shall wave, them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave-offering before the Lord, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. And ye shall proclaim on the self-same day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you; ye shall do no servile work therein; it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations." -- Lev. xxiii. 15-21.

Next the Feast of Tabernacles. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, saying, the fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the Lord. On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by "fire unto the Lord: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no

( 80 )

work therein. These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt-offering and a meat-offering, a sacrifice, and drink-offering, every thing upon his day: beside the sabbaths of the Lord, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your free-will-offerings, which ye give unto the Lord." Lev. xxiii. 33. 4-3. Of those three great festivals, those holy convocations, those sacred ordinances of religious worship. Moses speaks, "Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the Feast of Unleavened bread, and in the Feast of Weeks, and in the Feast of Tabernacles." -- Deut. xvi. 16.

Of the many solemnities ordained amongst the seed of Abraham we shall only particularly mention another, which belongs to, and takes the highest station of sacrificial ordinances. It is the great least of expiation. "And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, that sojourneth among you; for on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. -- It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever," -- Lev. xvi. 29-31. As a summary of religious ordinances of this character, hear Moses recapitulate, "Unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shall come: and thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave-offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your free-will-offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks." -- Deut. xii. 5, 6. To these solemn ordinances might be added the Feast of Trumpets -- of New Moons -- of Purim -- of the dedication of the Temple -- but these will suffice to shew that the Jews had the

( 81 )

ordinances of a church, which is the second requisite of a church state.

I now proceed to exhibit a third requisite of a church which we find the Jews possessed, and this is a very essential one indeed -- they had the officers of a church -- But my time has expired.

I thus spoke: -- Mr. M. was so condescending as to give us his New Testament authority for infant baptism, or to read us those passages that, he thinks, refer to infant baptism, although he made no reply to any evidence urged by me from that source. It must he admitted, however, that his remarks on the baptizing of disciples, importing that infants were called disciples, had some reference to my reading the law of baptism from the commission, recorded Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. But is it possible, that the sagacious, the learned, the wise, the shrewd Mr. M. affirms that a sucking infant can, with any reference to the correct meaning of words, be called a disciple or a scholar of Christ!! -- An infant a disciple! It is a contradiction in terms. But did Mr. M. prove that infants were called disciples? No, he asserted it. He said that they were so called in the xv. chapter of the Acts. Did he state the circumstances of ithe case, did he allude to the occasion, or refer to the context in which those words appear? No. Were infants mentioned in the chapter? No. A singular way of affording New Testament authority for infant baptism, to allude to a chapter, where neither infants nor baptism is mentioned!! His second New Testament reference was to the words of the Saviour, saying, "suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such, is the kingdom of God." This, though a more usual reference than the former, is just as irrelevant, for two substantial reasons; besides many others. The first is, this was spoken a considerable time before Christian baptism was appointed, consequently could have no reference to it whatever. In the next place, these infants were brought to Christ for one particular purpose, which is specified, consequently, as the Confession of Faith says, "the sense of Scripture is not manifold but One," can have no reference to infant sprinkling.

( 82 )

Until those reasons are impugned, or removed, it is superfluous to present others, though we have sundry at hand. His third and last New Testament reference, which is to holy children, unfortunately labors under the same general defectibility. Baptism is not there mentioned, and the holiness there spoken of belongs to those children until they die, notwithstanding they should be unbelievers and incapable of baptism all their lives. Mr. M's Confession of Faith lops off this text also from the service of Paido-baptists. -- The sense of scripture, Mr. M. you believe, is not two, three, or mauifold, but me. So, so. All Mr. M's New Testament accounts of infant baptism never mention the thing directly nor indirectly: and, so it comes to pass, that he has none -- It is better then, and he has done wisely, to tell us that a pail of the seed of Abraham was Divinely constituted a true visible church of God; perhaps be may squeeze some infant subjects out of this.

I complained, in my last address, that Mr. M. read his arguments from his manuscript and neglected to respond to mine, which he is bound to do, according to all established usage; or else, to yield the point at issue. But to excuse his constant attention to this little book, which causes him to neglect me, he has told you that I too, have got a manuscript. Yes my friends, here it is -- a few hundred references to the original scriptures, and a few extracts from ecclesiastical history, from authors which I could not bring hither, owing to the stage of the river, and (turning it round to the people) it is chiefly blank for the purpose of making notes of Mr. M's arguments. But I am glad of the opportunity now afforded me, of proposing to Mr. M. to give up all his papers and I will give up mine, and let our debate be viva voce as it was proposed.

Mr. M. still goes on to prove a point that I have not denied. He is determined to take his own course; whether his arguments are denied or affirmed. I told him, in the outset, that I admitted the proposition, that "a part of the seed of Abraham was Divinely constituted a true church of God" -- And this is all he contends for, in fact, though he would represent it in such a form as that there might appear to be a difference, worthy of contention.

( 83 )

He has read his proposition in one set of words, and proves it another sense. You will observe that the proposition reads, "Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church of God." Yet, he himself declares, that not all his seed belonged to it; for he has excepted Hagar's son, and Keturah's six sons, and of Isaac's seed, he has excepted the posterity of Esau. Why, then, in the name of common sense, does he object to my saying a part only; when he, in fact, proves only ap art of the seed of Abraham, to have been thus constituted? The term church signifies an assembly called out; therefore that part of Abraham's seed, in the line of Isaac and Jacob, who were afterwards called out, in the days of Moses, might be called a church of God, because called out by God. The term true attached to this church is to be admitted, or rejected, according to the sense attached to it. If it mean, not false, nor feigned, but genuine, we adrmit; but if Mr. M. means by it, that the Jews were a church of God similar to, or the same as, the church of Jesus Christ we reject it. -- Although we will admit Mr. M's first position, in the sense defined; we will positively deny his second when he brings it forward. If I should say that an horse was Divinely constituted a true visible creature of God; I presume my opponent would not deny it. Again, if I should say that an elephant was Divinely constituted a true, visible creature of God; I presume he would also admit it, but were I to say, therefore, because both a horse and an elephant were Divinely constituted true visible creatures of God, an horse and an elephant are one and the same true visible creature in different dispensations, or climates. I say, I presume, he would deny this conclusion, as being illegitimate, Just so his reasons, or will reason. He proves the seed of Abraham to be Divinely constituted a true visible church -- and then the Gentiles who believe in Christ to be a Divinely constituted true visible church -- and then he will infer that they are one and the same church in different dispensations. This conclusion we will deny, for the same reasons, that he would deny an horse and an elephant to be one and the same creature

Having now paid much more respect to his arguments than he has done to mine, I will, my friends, for the

( 84 )

sake of occupying a few minutes advantageously deliver you a short address on an important fact connected with the reference to the fifteenth of the Acts of Apostles. I will, perhaps, occupy some part of my time this way, until my opponent either attacks my arguments, or advances something worthy of an attack trom me.

The calling of us Gentiles to be fellow citizens with the saints, and to be a part of the household of God, was an event, unexpected by all the Apostles, for several years after the day of Pentecost. 'Tis true that the ancient prophets spake of it in the most elevated style. -- Yes, David's and Isaiah's hallowed lips foretold it. They pourtrayed it in such glowing colors, in such enraptured strains, in such extatic perspecuity, that we almost tremble to affirm that it was an event unknown to, and unexpected by all the holy Twelve. But when we reflect that Messiah's death, and resurrection from the dead were events of superlative importanct to the whole family of man; and that these events were not only revealed by the spirit of prophecy, in language of purer, of more perspicuous, of more sublime expression than mortals speak, than mortals, filled with enthusiastic ardor, utter; and that those events, though the subject of Messiah's parables, lectures, and familiar conversation with his pupils of the senior class, with the Apostolic school, were not understood by the wisest in that school, but that he banished them from his thoughts by saying, "that be far from thee Master, it shall not be so done unto thee, and that another of his class-mates said, with respoct to his resurrection from the dead, "Except I see in his hand the print of the nails, and put my finger to the print of the nails, and my hand to his side I will not believe." -- These considerations somewhat diminish our surprise at finding other subjects of luminous prophecy unknown to the Apostles; even after the enjoyment of clearer visions of Messiah's reign -- But, perhaps, all these reflections would not justify us in affirming, that these events Were unknown to the ancient prophets themselves that spake of them, and concealed from the Apostles, until they became the subject of new spiritual illumination; had not Peter, by the Spirit, said of the ancient prophets, that they searched after the meaning of the oracles which they delivered; and that they did not

( 85 )

utter these prophecies for their own benefit, or for the people of their time, but for those who believe the record that God has given of his Son. See 1 Pet. i. 10-12. Which Macknight thus translates -- "Concerning which salvation the prophets enquired accurately, and searched diligently, who have prophesied concerning the grace to be bestowed on you. Searching diligently of what people and what kind of time, the spirit of Christ, who was in them did signify, when he testified before the sufferings of Christ, and the glories following these. To them it was revealed, that not concerning themselves, but us they ministered these things -- which things have now been reported to you by them who have preached the gospel to you, with the Holy Spirit sent down from Heaven." And of the calling of the Gentiles, Paul thus speaks in two epistles, according to the same translator:

"The mystery of Christ in other generations, was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy Apostles and prophets by the Spirit -- that the Gentiles should be joint heirs, and joint body and joint partakers of his promise concerning Christ through the Gospel," Eph. iii. 5, 6. and Col i. 26. "The mystery which was kept hid from the ages and from the generations, but now is made manifest to his saints, to whom God was pleased to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery, concerning the Gentiles, which is Christ to you (Gentiles) the HOPE OF GLORY."

These oracles justify the declaration, that the calling of the Gentiles, to the full fruition of the blessings of the Gospel of Christ, was an event unknown to, and unexpected by, the prophets of antiquity, as well as by the Apostles, until revealed to them by a new revelation of the Spirit.

Peter to whom the Messiah committed the keys of kingdom of heaven; those keys for which priests have been so long contending; those keys which Peter took to heaven with him, and left not to a successor; no, not to Rome's haughty pontiff; neither to England's lord archbishops; nor to Scotland's high and dignified Sanhedrim of the elders of the land; lords in the state, and nobles in the church. I say, this same Peter, the ambassador of Heaven's eternal throne, having flung wide open to the Jews, the door of faith, having, to

( 86 )

his own nation, unlocked the gates of righteousness and life on the triumphant Pentecost, was sent for by an angel of the skies, was tutored, by visions of sheet-fulls of reptiles once unclean, but now sanctified to his use; was commanded by the impulse of the advocate of Messiah's cause, the illuminating spirit, to open, by the same keys, to the Gentiles, the many bolted door of all victorious faith. To the Centurion's house with speed he hasted, and having heard, from a Roman soldier's lips, the transporting intelligence that the reign of the Prince of Life was about to extend over all nations; and having surveyed the all impatient throng of Gentiles once unclean, he gave scope to the overflowings of his enraptured soul in these words, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no RESPECTER OF PERSONS, but, in EVERY NATION, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is ACCEPTED of him!!!" He opened the door of faith, he proclaimed the glad tidings of righteousness and life through Messiah's death and resurrection. He proved to them, that to Messiah all the prophets gave testimony, that, "through his NAME, WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH ON HIM SHALL RECEIVE REMISSION Of SINS." The spirit of God, with these words, fell on the whole congregation; they believed, and were baptized. -- Now the tidings ran, now ten thousand tongues with ecstacy pronounced -- "Then hath God granted unto the Gentiles repentance unto life." Now the question was, amongst some of the Pharisaic Christians of the Jews, shall we of the circumcision unite in one body with these uncircumciscd ones! -- Nay, verily; let them first be circumcised and keep the law; or else, let the door of our communion be locked against them. Some of the stricter sort fell on Peter with furious zea!, saying, why Peter, why did you go in and eat with uncircumcised Gentiles? Peter tells the wondrous tale, and by a Catachresis which words too far doeth strain, he throws the blame on God -- "What was I," said he, with the simplicity of a child -- "What was I, that I could withstand God!" If he gave them the same gift as he did unto us on Pentecost; if he made no difference betwixt them and us, purifying their hearts by faith, why should I refuse to enter their houses and eat a social meal with them? With these words scarcely could he maintain

( 87 )

his reputation for orthodoxy with the Jewish disciples. This would not yet suffice. Many reports were industriously divulged. Many said that some of the Apostles taught, and commanded the Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law or else they could not be saved. -- "When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissention with them on this topic, having heard that all the Apostles were assembled at Jerusalem, the Gentiles sent thither to have this matter at once settled. The Apostles, and elders, and the whole church of Jewish Christians in the metropolis, met together and talked the matter over. -- Peter, steady to his purpose, and acquainted better that they all, with the first calling of the Gentiles, in his usual warmth exclaims, (in the words quoted some time ago by Mr. M. to show that infants were disciples,) "Why," says be, "tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the beck of the disciples, (these Gentiles which have turned unto God, not young infants) which neither we, nor our fathers, were able to bear?" But we Jews believe, that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, with all our national advantages, we shall be saved just in the same manner as the Gentiles, i. e. by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Their decision respecting these disciples, these infants of my opponent, was, that no yoke, no greater burthen than these necessary things, should be laid upon those infants! That ye (infants!) abstain from meats offered unto idols, -- and from blood, -- and from things strangled, -- and from fornication, -- from which, if ye, (infants!) keep yourselves, ye will do well. Fare ye well, (infants.)!!

This view of the calling of the Gentiles, an event so interesting to us -- which we are sure cannot be set aside, at one glance, shows, the absurdity, the perfect absurdity, of Mr. M's hypothesis. -- But I shall give place to him to read farther on his Jewish church.

Mr. M. observed: -- As my opponent has proposed we should give up all our papers and debate viva voce. I will refer the matter to the board of moderators, and have their opinion on this proposal.

Major Roper, the president of the bench, observed, that it was optional with the disputants themselves,

( 88 )

that they had no authority to control the parties in such matters, that each disputant might avail himself of all advantages he could derive from his notes; and that they would leave them to act, in this respect as they pleased.

Mr. M. spoke to this effect: -- I feel satisfied with the decision of the bench. My opponent's proposal reminds me of a debate between Eckius and Carolostadius. The former being a more flippant and better practised disputant than the latter, proposed to Carolostadius to give up his notes, Carolostadius objected, and assigned as a reason the circumstance already mentioned. For the same reason, I feel disposed to avail myself of my notes, my opponent may act as he pleases, or say what he pleases about them.

I was about proving when I sat down that the seed of Abraham possessed the third requisite to a church, viz. the officers of a church.

By the officers of a church, I mean those who rule, and officiate in the worship of a church. -- Of this sort were the elders of Israel, the Levites, the Priests, and Prophets of the Israelites.

The elders of Israel were to be men of experience, of wisdom, and gravity. Their constitution into an ecclesiastical court, though first advised by Jethro, was afterwards sanctioned by the God of Israel. The commission given to these elders is recorded Deut. i. 15-17. "So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's, and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it."

( 89 )

Their appointment to office is recorded, Num. xii 10-17. "And the Lord said unto Moses, gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone." 24, 25, "And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Lord, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

The elders of Israel were, divided into two classes, viz. the elders of the whole congregation, and the elders of particular cities. The latter had particular or special duties assigned them, bath of a religious and civil nature. These can be learned to the best advantage by a reference to particular passages, such as the following: "But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood that he may die." -- Deut. xix. 11, 12. "If one be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities, which are round about him that is slain: and it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; and the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley,

( 90 )

which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: and the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: and all the elders of that city, that are next, unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley; and they shall answer and say, our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them." -- Deut. xxi. 1-8. "And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and. said, sit ye down here. And they sat down. And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's: and I thought to advertise thee, saying, buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it." -- Ruth iv. 2-4.

These elders existed in every city, as may be seen Ezra x. 14. "Let now our rulers of all the congregation stand, and let all them which have taken strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, aad the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us."

But the duties of the elders of the congregation; are so mingled with the duties of the priests and the Levites, that it will be necessary to take a view of them together. They may be seen in the following passages: "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shall thou

( 91 )

arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment; and thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest, that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously." -- Deut. xvii. 8-13. Again, when this institution was corrupted or neglected we find Jehoshaphat restoring it to its pristine purity. "Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem, And he charged them, saying, thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully, and with a perfect heart:" 2 Chr. xix. 8, 9.

With respect to the ordination services and duties of the Levites we learn the whole compendiously in Num. viii. 5-16. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and, let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. Then let them take a young bullock with his meat-offering, even fine flour mingled with oil, and another young bullock shalt thou take for a sin-offering. And thou shalt bring the Levites before the tarbernacle

( 92 )

of the congregation: and thou shalt gather the whole assembly of the children of Israel together: and thou shall bring the Levites before the Lord: and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites: and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel, that they may execute the service of the Lord. And the Levites shall lay their hands upon the heads of the bullocks; and thou shall offer the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, unto the Lord, to make an atonement for the Levites. And thou shalt set the Levites before Aaron, and before his sons, and offer them for an offering unto the Lord. Thus shalt thou separate the Levites from among the children of Israel: and the Levites ahall be mine. And after that shall the Levites go in to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation: and thou shalt cleanse them, and offer them for an offering. For they are wholly given unto me from among the children ok Israel; instead of such as open every womb, even instead of the first born of all the children of Israel, have I taken them unto me. 24-26. "This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation: and from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more: but shall minister with their brethren-in the tabernacle of the congregation, to keep the charge, and shall do no service. Thus shall thou do unto the Levites touching their charge." *

The priests were consecrated and ordained of God, not only to teach the people, but also to pray for them, and to offer sacrifices for them. The scriptures showing the duties of the priests are so numerous and familiar, that it is unnecessary to make a selection. -- Everyone that reads the Bible knows that the priests'

__________
* Not having minuted the precise number of verses read in each reference, we have, in order to give full satisfaction, given the whole of each reference.

( 93 )

lips were to keep knowledge; and the people were to learn-the law at his mouth. He was also to bless the congregation of Israel; and, sometimes, to denounce curses upon them.

With regard to the scribes of Israel, though the term was at first more general, it came at last to describe those who are sometimes called Doctors of the Law, expounders of Scripture, such as Ezra vii. 6, "This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him." 10. "For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments." The scribes in our Saviour's time, were the most reputable expounders of the law. -- "Why then say the scribes, said the disciples, that Elias must first come?" --

Thus we see that the Jewish church had regularly ordained officers -- Levites, Priests, Elders, Scribes, -- whose duties embraced every thing necessary to the prosperity of a church. Teaching, ruling, admonishing, exhorting, praying for, and blessing Israel, -- the church, were comprehended under the general and special duties enjoined upon them.

I now proceed to show that the church of Israel not only had the oracles of a church, the ordinances of a church, the officers of a church, but they also had the fourth requisite of a church, the religious worship of a church.

The ordinances of a church comprise in a great measure the worship of a church; for the observance of the ordinances of a church is the essential part of the worship of a church. In the ordinances of a church, God meets with the worshippers, and they of course meet with him. Hence we find that God says "Wheresoever I record my name, there will I meet with you, and there will I bless you."

But before the peculiar ordinances of worship were commanded Israel, they are said to have worshipped

( 94 )

God. They sang his praises when they crossed the Red Sea; and when Moses went up into the Mount, some of them "worshipped afar off."

David distinguishes certain acts of devotion as peculiarly the worship of God. -- In these the worship of Israel emphatically consisted. -- Ps. xc. 1-6.

They had a book of Psalms -- they had their courses of singers, -- they had their musical instruments, they had their social prayers and social praises. They had the reverential attitudes of worship, they had the solemnities of the house of God enjoined on them -- They were severely reprimanded for their departure from this worship, for apostatizing to the worship of the nations around them, as Stephen tells them Acts vii. 39-43.

The discipline of a church, inseparably connected with its worship, was also established among them. -- Thus we find certain persons stoned to death, and otherwise cut off by Divine authority for either corrupting the worship, transgressing the commandments, or departing from the ordinances of God.

In the next place, they had the members of a church. Persons professing the worship of the one only living and true God, and their offspring are the constituent members of a church. -- I need scarcely cite any scripture to prove this point. For who does not know that, in the very worst of times, there was a remnant according to the election of grace; not only of professors, but of possessors of the true religion? Thus saith God, in one of the darkest periods of the Jewish church, "I have reserved unto myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." But as this point requires no farther proof I will proceed to notice the last proof of this proposition -- which will be to show, that the seed of Abraham, was, by the Spirit of inspiration, called a church. But my time forbids me now to adduce the proof.

I then arose: -- As my opponent continues to prove points altogether irrelevant to this proposed discussion,

( 95 )

his own Confession of Faith being judge; and points too, not denied by me, at least, in no sense affecting this controversy; I will proceed to address you, my respected auditors, on a point of no small moment, on a subject of great significance, which if my opponent understood he would not be found, at this time, in the ranks of Paido-baptists, and much less in the van of the advocates of infant sprinkling. It is a topic which when it rises to our view, all these Jewish notions of a political church, a church composed of all born into the world, vanish, as the shadows nursed beneath the brows of the mountains, in the empire of night, disappear before the rays of the morning sun. I will but glance at it, in the mean time, for the purpose of preparing your minds for a more circumstantial attention to it, in some future period of this discussion.

It is the reign of Messiah the Prince, as appearing, as dawning upon the astonished eyes of Jewish prophets, through the long vista of many centuries. -- It is the developement, the gradual developement, of that glorious kingdom which many prophets, and righteous men, members of the church of Moses, desired to see, but did not see -- Its very intimation tothe Jews exposed the penury and meanness of their church state, and raised to the skies the expectations of the glorious felicities of Messiah's realm.

It pleased the Governor of the nations to give the king of Babylon a representation, in a vision of the night, of the mighty empires which should in succession rise; each upon the ruins of its predecessor. The image he had of these empires, these great heads of imperial- power; none of the wise men, none of the religious men, none of the scientific men in Nebuchadnezzar's court could unfold. Daniel alone, a prophet of the God of Israel, by the visions of the Almighty, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could unfold it, could explain the significant emblems. It reads thus: "Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs Of brass. His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone

( 96 )

was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that was of iron and clay, and brake it to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no plnce was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall te strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter's clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided , but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." -- Dan. ii. 31-45. Observe, my friends, that this prediction and representation were given while the Jewish church was in existence, in actual

( 97 )

existence, several hundred years before the sceptre departed from Judah -- before "the kingdom of priests," "the holy nation" -- (inspired names of the church of Moses) -- I say, before this church came to a close the prediction of ANOTHER was given. -- Before the holy nation, the kingdom of priests passed away. -- Messiah's kingdom in prospective dawns. -- The Babylonish or Chaldean empire then existed -- this was, Daniel said, the Golden kingdom -- This yielded to the Persian, or, the Silver kingdom. The Persian yielded to the Grecian, or the Brazen kingdom. The Grecian yielded to the Roman, or the Iron kingdom. The Golden, the Silver, the Brazen, and the Iron kingdoms were all seen by the kingdom of Priests, the holy nation. But, saith the prophet, in the days of the Iron kingdom shall the God! of Heaven SET UP a kingdom. Not the Golden, the Silver, the Brazen, the Iron, nor the Sacerdotal, -- the holy kingdom, for these had all been SET UP long ago. Had denotes the time past; shall, the time future. God had by his special agency, SET UP the holy typical kingdom; he had, by his providence, Set Up the Golden, the Brazen, and the Iron kingdoms. Human agency, by his permission, setup these. But in the days of the Cesars, said the prophet, he WILL SET UP a new kingdom -- an everlasting, an all-conquering kingdom, that shall never yield. How appropos the emblem! -- A little stone, cut out of the other kingdoms, the kingdoms of the world, without hands. This little stone is put into motion by the God of Heaven. It moves, it rolls, it grows, it magnifies, it strengthens, it becomes irresistable, it subdues, it destroys, it consumes all opposition; it becomes a mountain, an exceeding great mountain, it fills the whole earth.

The term Basileia in Greek, and regnum in Latin, signifies either the reign of a prince, or the people over whoom he reigns. The regnum of Great Britain signifies the kingdom of Great Britain. The regnum of king George signifies the reign of king George. The Greeks and Romans used one word, for which we use two. -- Hence the best translators of the New-Testament, amongst whom are Drs. Campbell and Macknight, translate the term Basileia both reign and kingdom, according to the context. When Basileia implies approximation

( 98 )

Campbell, in the Four Gospels, translates it reign; assigning as a most conclusive reason, that the reign of a king may be nearer or more remote, but the kingdom is always local, in one place. -- Thus where the phrase, the kingdom of heaven or of God is nigh, occurs in the New Testament, he translates it, the reign of God, or of Heaven approaches. -- Thy kingdom come, thy reign come: you shall see the kingdom of God, you shall see the reign of God; the kingdom of God is come unto you, the reign of God is come unto you: and so on uniformly, reign or kingdom, according to the context, and according to the reason assigned.

The kingdom of Messiah transcends the Golden, the Silver, the Brazen, the Iron, and the Sacerdotal or Jewish kingdom, in glory and excellence; as far as the excellence and glory of Messiah the Prince excels all the kings of the earth, as far as Emmanuel excels Moses, as far as the blaze of noon excels the twinkling of a Star.

None of the ancient prophets saw this reign commence. They wished to see it but they could not. Its glory charmed their eyes, and ravished their hearts. -- The New Testament opens with the annunciation of its near approach. John, the Dipper, began to proclaim, in the deserts of Judea, that men should reform, for the reign of God was at hand or nigh. The Messiah began to preach its approximation -- He sent the chosen twelve and the select seventy to announce to every village in the holy land that it was approaching. John the Baptist, however, died without seeing it come. Like Moses who came near the borders of Canaan and described it to the ransomed Jews, but entered not into it himself; so John, the second Elias, pointed to the Lamb of God, hailed the approach of his reign, informed his countrymen of it, but he was beheaded before Messiah the king was crowned. Well spake John, "he must increase, but I must decrease.["]

John not only preached its near approach, but he baptized into the faith of him that was to come. Jesus not only proclaimed that it was nigh, but taught his disciples to pray "THY REIGN COME." Many through ignorance or unbelief still pray "thy reign come," not knowing that this petition is out of season. It was for

( 99 )

a limited time, as was the preaching and baptism of John. Christ did not teach them in this prayer to make use of his name as an intercessor; but before his death he taught them, saying, "Hitherto ye have asked for nothing in my name, ask and it shall be given you, whatsoever ye ask in my name." But lo, Jesus himself the king dies before his reign commences. Yes, the Captain of Salvation must be perfected and raised to glory through sufferings. -- Before Pontius Pilate he witnessed a good confession concerning his reign. The testimony of this King of Martyrs was, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my subjects would have fought (as they did under Moses) that I should not be delivered." But tell Cesar, I am no rival prince of his -- Yes, tell him, Pontius Pilate, that none are claimed by me, as subjects of my reign, but such as believe, as hear and obey my voice -- "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

The king, after he rose from the dead, and was perfected to reign over his ransomed subjects, because he had been made like unto them in life, in temptation, in affliction, in corporal weakness, in privation, and sorrow; had tasted death in the bitterest "form ever presented to any of the human race, and had been a tenant of the house appointed for all the living, I say, after he arose from the dead, he frequently appeared unto his disciples, and during his various interviews discoursed with them concerning his kingdom.

That kingdom and that glorious reign of which they had heard him so often speak, that kingdom and reign which had been likened to so many things on earth in parables, and comparisons; the inspired Eleven did not yet understand. The scribes and the elders, the clergy of the Jewish Church, had, like their children in modern times, so often extolled the excellence of the Mosaic church, the church of God constituted at Sinai, the church of which my opponent has the most inadequate ideas, -- that the Jews never could admit the idea of any thing else but the continuance of the same church, under a form of additional glory. They interpreted all the prophecies of the Old Testament; and the Eleven understood all the discourses of Christ in the New, as my opponent understands them as referring to a continuation

( 100 )

of the same worldly church, worldly sanctuary, and carnal ordinances; but with some change of dispensation. The prejudices of education, and the influence of the Jewish clergy had berlouded their understanding, had benumbed their feelings, and spread a veil over the face of Moses and the prophets, insomuch, that the Eleven with all their cotemporaries could not look to the consummation and abolition of that church state. Thus, after the forty days tuition of tne risen Messiah, when about to ascend into heaven, they asked him a question which exposed their ignorance of his kingdom, "Lord wilt thou at this time restore the reign to Israel!!!" -- Go, said he, tarry in Jerusalem, say not a word about this reign, for ye are not accomplished for the work until ye receive a power from on High.

How fully does this illustrate Messiah's discourse with Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see or understand the reign of God, and except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." The Day of Pentecost is therefore called the regeneration, "Verily I say unto you, ye which have followed me, shall, in the regeneration, when Messiah shall be placed on his glorious throne, and crowned Lord of all, ye also shall be placed on twelve thrones, judging, pronouncing statutes and judgments to, the twelve tribes of Israel."

Matthias now filled the place of him who by transgression fell from the apostolic office. Now they are about ascending the apostolic thrones. Now the day of Pentecost is fully come. Now Messiah has ascended up far above all heavens. Now he is exalted a Prince and a Saviour to send the regenerating spirit, and fo give repentance unto Israel. When entering the portals of the highest heaven, his attendant angels say, "Lift up your heads, O ye gates -- be lifted up ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in! -- Angels and the spirits of the just around heaven's eternal throne exclaim, "Who is the king of Glory?" -- Messiah's attendant angels respond, "The Lord (Messiah) strong and mighty: The Lord mighty in battle." Messiah who vanquished sin, death, hades, and the devil by his victorious arm. All in heaven with one voice exclaim -- "Lift up your heads O ye gates, even lift them up, ye everlasting doors,

( 101 )

and the King of Glory shall come in." The everlasting doors fly open. The echo of the attendant angels without, and the re-echoes of angels and the spirits of patriarchs and Jews, Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elias, and myriads unknown, to mortals here below, repeat, "Who is the King of Glory? The Lord of hosts he is the King of Glory. Selah." Ps. xxiv. 7-10. Amidst encircling echoes and arching triumphs Messiah enters the everlasting gates. His Father and his God in awful majesty addresses him, saying, "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion; Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people, the people whom thou hast purchased, shall be WILLING in the day of thy power that power which thou shall send fronv on high. In the beauties of holiness, more than the womb of the morning, thou shalt have the dew of thy youth. Jehovah hath sworn, and will never regret. Thou art a Priest forever -- a Priest, upon thy throne, after the order of Melchizedeck." Ps. cx. 1-4. "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows," Thus was Messiah crowned. Then saith Messiah's Father. "Why do the heathen tumultuously assemble and the people meditate a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and; the rulers take counsel together, against Jehovah and against his Messiah, saying, let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their restraints from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak, unto them, in his wrath, niul trouble them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I crowned my king upon Zion, the hill of my holiness." -- Yes saith Messiah, "I will publish to the nations thy appointment, the decree of my investiture, that the Lord hath authoritatively pronounced. Thou art my son this day have I begotten thee." "Ask of me," saith the Father, "and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and live uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thine enemies thou shalt break, with a rod

( 102 )

of iron, thou shall dash them in pieces like a vessel." Ps. ii. 1-9.

Such was the attendant circumstances of the exaltation of our victorious king. Therefore on the day of the regeneration, when the noise of a mighty rushing wind was heard, blowing where it listed; no one in Jerusalem able to tell whence it came, nor whither it went, Peter declared that this power from on high came from Messiah. -- "Therefore," said he, "being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear. Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both the anointed King and Governor of all." Having opened the reign of God to the Jews, three thousand were born of water and of the spirit on that self-same day, and thus entered into the new kingdom; as volunteers put themselves under the reign of Messiah the Prince and Saviour.

In the days of the Cesars, then, the God of heaven SET UP or constituted this new reign, this new kingdom, of which Daniel spake. Hence, the kingdom that required regeneration of the Spirit and of the water did not commence till this day. The king being crowned, his reign necessarily commenced. These few hints, my friends, will prepare your minds for the demolition of the Paido-baptist views of the kingdom of God when my opponent shall have brought his argument to a close.

Mr. M. thus spake: -- Mr. C. has given you scraps of sermons which he has committed to memory; and thus endeavours to entertain you by exhibiting his skill in interpreting scripture. His interpretations, however, appear more ingenious than solid, more flippant and light than substantial. Many of them indeed are altogether novel, and not only novel, but contrary to the generally received sense of scripture by most divines of solid learning and real piety. I am not going to follow him in the warm flights of his imagination, in the fervid meandrings of his fancy from Genesis to Revelation. Solid argument and conclusive reasoning is all that I aim at, I choose rather to

( 103 )

follow in the beaten path of the wise, the learned, and the pious, that have gone before me, than to follow him in his extravagant excursions, in the trackless paths of a vivid imagination. I aim not at orginality of thought, nor even of argument. I move on slowly in the frequented paths of sober reason, and common sense. It is not my fault if I do not possess the most brilliant parts, but it is my fault if I do notapply my faculties to proper objects in a proper course.

Mr. C. has eulogized Campbell and Macknight as translators, more than once to day. Because, I presume, they favor him, in his fanciful interpretation of scripture, more than the common translation of the scriptures. I cannot agree with him in his encomiums on these men. They were men too similar to himself. They treated the scripture too lightly, and did not treat men of superior standing with becoming respect. I venerate them not. The one, I consider was a hypocrite, and the other an unbeliever. They were men of talents and erudition, but they lacked, what was of much greater value, true piety.

But I was, when I last sat down, commencing the last item in proof of my first position, which was to show that not only did the seed of Abraham possess the necessary requisites of a church state, but they had been actually called a church; they had received by the spirit of inspiration the very name church. They are called the church of the Lord, of Jehovaty both in the Old Testament and the New. Let us now attend to the application of this name to the seed of Abraham, 'It first occurs in the book of Deuteronomy. I mean the word ekklesia which is the word used by the writers of the New Testament and which is usually translated church.

Deut. ix. 10. "And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone, written with the finger of God; and in them was written according to all the words which the Lord spake unto you in the mount in the day of the assembly or in the day of the church. In the Septuagint greek it reads "hemera ekklesias" -- in

( 104 )

the day of the church. The authority of the style of the Septuagint is rendered unquestionable, from the circumstance of its being the style of the New Testament, and from its having been most frequently cited, in the very words of the text, by our Lord and his apostles. It was generally read in all the synagogues of the Helenestic Jews, before, and at the Christian era, and was consequently of high reputation amongst the Jews who were very much attached, even to a superstitious degree, to the letter of the Old Testament.

Again, Deut. xviii. 16. "The Lord thy God wilfc raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken: according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly." Here the words are the same as in the ix. 10. of the same book -- "te hemera tes ekklesias." In the day of the church. -- In both these passages the writer has the same event in view. He refers in both to the day in which all Israel was assembled at the base of mount Sinai in Arabia; the day in which the first written oracles of God were committed unto the Jews. On this occasion, then, they received by the Jewish prophet Moses the inspired name of the church.

The term ekklesia occurs in Judges xxt. 5 and is; there rendered congregation, and in the eighth verse of the same chapter it is rendered assembly. Verse fifth. "And the children of Israel said" who is there among all the tribes of Israel that come not up with the congregation unto the Lord? for they had made a great oath concerning him that came not up to the Lord to Mizpeh, saying, he shall surely be put to death," Verse eighth. "And they said, what one is there of the tribes of Israel that came not up to Mizpeh to the Lord? And behold, there came none to the camp from, Jabesh-gilead to the assembly." In the fifth verse it is en te ekklesia, and in the eighth it is eis ten ekklesion.

Joshua viii. 35. It occurs again, "there was not

( 105 )

a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them; -- here it is pases ekklesias, all the church, or all the congregation. The phrase pase ekklesia occurs 1 Sam. xvii. 47. "And all this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord's and he will give you into our hands."

Ekklesia occurs three times in 2 Chron. xxix. 28-32. "And all the congregation (ekklesia) worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished. And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped. Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped. Then Hezekiah answered and said, now ye have consecrated yourselves unto the Lord, come near and bring sacrifices and thank offerings into the house of the Lord. And the congregation brought in sacrifices and thank offerings: and as many as were of a free heart burnt offerings. And the number of the burnt offerings, which the congregation brought, was threescore and ten bullocks, an hundred rams, and two hundred lambs: all these were for a burnt offering to the Lord."

Nehemiah xiii. 1, 2. saith, using the same word, "On that day they read the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should come into the congregation of God forever; because they met not trie children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them, howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing."

In the book of Psalms it frequently occurs -- Ps. xxii. 22. 25. xxvi. 5. 12. xxxv. 18. xl. 9. lxviii. 26. lxxxix 5. cvii. 32;

( 106 )

In the New Testament some of those passages read from the Old are quoted; as that from Deuteronomy ix. 10. or xviii. 16. is cited by Stephen, Acts vii. 38, 39. "This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel -- A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel that spake unto him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; who received the lively oracles to give unto us." Here the ekklesia translated assembly in Deuteronomy is rendered church, which shows that the words assembly and church were supposed to be equally expressive of the meaning of the original. And indeed the word sunagoge rendered congregation and synagogue is also applied to the same assembly in many passages in the Old Testament, such as Ps. xl. 9, 10. "I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation." Here the same congregation is called ekklesia and sunagoge. In Ps. cxi. 1. Boule and synagoge are applied to the same congregation, and in Ps. viii. 9. v. 7. Boule and ekklesia are applied to the same assembly -- and indeed, the word sunagoge is applied in very many passages to the same congregation which is called he ekklesia the church.

In Hebrews ii. 12. Paul cites Ps. xxii. 22, and our translators render the word ekklesia in the Hebrews, church, and in the Psalms, congregation. -- Thus Paul says, quoting the words of Christ, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren in the midst of the church. will I sing praises to thee." -- And David speaking of the same person, Ps. xxii. 22. saith, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren. in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee." The original Greek is the same in both. Thus I have shown that the seed of Abraham in the Old and New Testament, in their

( 107 )

associate state, are called a church, the church of the Lord. Now hear Mr. C's remarks in his debate with Mr. Walker, pp. 40, 41, Stephen uses the phrase, "the church in the wilderness" -- Here the whole stress of his proof rests upon the word "church" -- without any epithet to qualify or explain its acceptation. New I will cheerfully admit the testimony of Stephen, in all its force; and I will call the congregation of Israel in the wilderness, a church: but will this prove that this congregation was a church of Christ?. Mr. Walker, I presume, understands the word church, without an epithet, to mean neither more nor less than "an assembly" -- I presume he will also confess, that a mob is once called a church in the New Testament. If he does not, I am ready to prove it -- Acts 19th, we read of Demetrius, the silver-smith, and the mob which he raised against the apostle and his companions: the whole town was in an uproar -- the town clerk appeased this mob by an oration he delivered them, telling them that in a lawful "church," (ekklesia, the same word used Acts vii. 38, the "ekklesia" in the wilderness) their cause would be tried -- and verse 41, when he had thus spoken, (apeluse ten ekklesian) he dismissed the assembly or church. In this chapter, the word is applied to a mob, or an unlawful assembly, and it is also applied to a court, or lawful assembly, met to hear and judge causes- Thus the word ekklesia, or church, was used by the holy penmen of the New Testament, to denote any sort of an assembly. Like the word synagogue, the epithet made it either an assembly of Jews or a "synagogue of Satan" -- this criticism, I am confident, neither my opponent nor any man acquainted with Greek, will deny. Hence it follows, that this quotation from the 7th of the Acts, proves nothing favorable to his views, inasmuch as it means no more than an assembly or congregation in the wilderness, without any respect to the character of it. It was an assembly or church, of Jews, and not an assembly of Christians or a church of Jesus Christ."

( 108 )

"Seeing I am on the word" ekklesia," I may further observe, that as this word is composed of two Greek words, ek, out of, and kaleo, to call, the word ekklesin signifies "the called out." The Jews in the wilderness were "called out" by Moses the messenger of God -- the mob of Ephesus was "called out" by Demetrius; and the lawful assembly of which the town clerk spoke, was an assembly "called out" by those in authority -- the church of Jesus Christ is an assembly "called out" of the world by his grace, or separated from the world by his word and Spirit -- hence, says Christ, "ye are not of the world, I have chosen you out of the world," Consequently no nation, as such, ever was the Church of Jesus Christ."

So then the church of God in the wilderness is called an assembly only, without respect to its character, and Mr. C. will have it, or leave others to make it, a mob or a synagogue of Satan; for if it was not the church of God it must have been a mob, or a synagogue of Satan. But I have proved that this assembly, this church in the wilderness was Divinely constituted a true visible church of God from the fact of its having possessed

1. The oracles of a church,

2. The ordinances of a church,

3. The officers of a church,

4. The members of a church,

5. The worship and discipline of a church,

6. And because it had the inspired name of a church.

consequently no mob, no synagogue of Satan.

To-morrow, my friends, I will prove that the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society, after Christ, are ONE and the SAME church in different dispensations.

Mr. M. ceased, and a motion was made to adjourn.

I begged leave to remark that my opponent, in the conclusion of his address, had endeavoured to make a very uncandid, and a very incorrect impression on the mind of the congregation respecting the quotation

( 109 )

read from the Debate at Mount-Pleasant, as if I had either said, or insinuated, that the church in the wilderness was a mob, or a synagogue of Satan. I say that it is not fact, that I either said, or insinuated any such thing. I had merely said that the term ekklesia denoted an assembly of any kind, and that it was the epithets or circumstances attached to it that gave it a definite meaning, The congregation before us in this camp is not a church of Jesus Christ. -- According to my opponent it must be either a mob or a synagogue of Satan! I am sorry that I am compelled to correct so gross a misrepresentation.

So stood the discussion at the close of the first day. It was adjourned till 11 o'clock next day.

Met in the same place on the 16th, at 11 o'clock, A. M: I thus began: -- My friends and brethren; -- Mr. Maccalla occupied your attention yesterday, in proving one position, which we did not controvert. This was done, as he said, for securing his future conclusions from assault. These impregnable fortresses in his rear, which he has engaged in erecting will appear, in the detail, as either useless, or worse than useless. The position to be proved to-day we boldly deny. And when he shall have proved it, in his way, we pledge ourselves to present facts and documents subversive of it, and irrefragible by Mr. M. In the mean time we shall make a few remarks on the word ekklesia, the design of which will be to show, that in the New Testament it is appropriated to represent an assembly, essentially distinct from that which it represented in the Old. Many words have an appropriated and an unappropriated meaning. This we shall illustrate by a few plain instances. The word congress in its common or unappropriated meaning signifies any kind of meeting together. -- Such as the congress of streams, of lakes, of seas, of roads, of people. This no scholar will deny. This term, like the lands of the country, was once unappropriated; it denoted any kind of meeting of fluids or solids, of things animate or inanimate, of beings rational or irrational. But A few years since it was appropriated, as some of our lands are, for a certain purpose -- to denote the great national

( 110 )

legislative meeting of the United States. Now the term "the congress," in every one's mouth, denotes this great national legislature. Who would say that there is any ambiguity resting on the present popular use of the term, or, that it signified the same thing in every English book, one hundred years ago, that it now signifies in the United States. The same may be observed of the terms synod, assembly, association, convention. They all have their appropriated meanings, in the mouths of those who have selected them, as terms of designation of certain bodies religious or political.

But, to come nearer to the term in dispute, I will select a few kindred terms from the Old Testament, which have been appropriated in the New, to represent something essentially different from their common, or unappropriated signification. A few of note will suffice. -- We shall begin with the word Episcopos, literally signifying over-seer, sometimes translated bishop. This word in its unappropriated meaning signifies any kind of an over-seer, or bishop. Thus in the Old Testament, it is used, Num. xxxi 14, to denote the captains of the Jewish army, called bishops of the host. Judges ix. 28. Zebul, a military officer, is called a bishop. It is used in the same sense, 2 Kings xi. 15. Three times in the Old Testament military officers are called bishops.

Those who superintended the repairs of the temple, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12. 17. are called bishops of artificers. Those who had the management of the temple, keeping it safe and in order, are called "bishops of the Lord's house. Those whom Nehemiah placed over the city are called, chap. xi. 9, bishops of the city. Eleazar, the son of Aaron, is called bishop, from over-seeing the tabernacle and its furniture. Num. iv. 6.

In all these passages, and in some others, the word episkopos occurs in the Septuagint, which is the word rendered bishop in the New Testament. It is plain from the instances given, that the term bishop, in its unappropriated sense applies to any kind of over-seer. Now, in the New Testament it is appropriated to denote the over-seer of a church. One that teaches, and rules, or keeps order in the church of Christ, who is himself the only Archbishop of souls. As well, then might Mr. M. affirm, that because captains of thousands, chief artificers,

( 111 )

and superintendants of cities, are called bishops therefore the bishops of the Christian church are to be captains of thousands, &c. because they have the same "inspired name!!"

Of the same kind of unappropriated terms in the Old Testament are presbuteros, and diakonos. The one translated an elder, the other a deacon, minister, or servant. Each of these terms, in their unappropriated sense, are applied in the Old Testament to officers very different from those designated by them, in their appropriated sense, in the New. This we are assured our opponent will not deny. Now the term ekklesia, in its unappropriated sense, in both Testaments signifies ANY KIND OF AN ASSEMBLY; but in its appropriated sense, it signifies a society of disciples of Christ meeting in one place. But to bring forward an authority which Mr. M. we presume, will not contradict, asserting the same things, in substance, with those we have asserted, we will cite Dr. John Mason. As he is a violent Paido-baptist, his concessions on this topic are the more worthy of regard. -- See his Essay on the Church of God, pp. 8, 9 "The Hebrew words (cahal and gheda) in the Old Testament; and the corresponding one, (ecclesia) in the New, all signify an assembly, especially one convened by invitation or appointment. That this is their generic sense, no scholar will deny; nor that their particular applications are ultimately resolvable into it. Hence it is evident, that from the terms themselves nothing can be concluded as to the nature or extent of the assembly which they denote. Whenever either of the two former occurs in the Old Testament, or the other in the New, you are sure of an assembly, but of nothing more. What that assembly is, and whom it comprehends, you must learn from the connexion of the term, and the subject of the writer. A few instances will exemplfy the remark. In the Old Testament (cahal) is applied to the whole mass of the people. Ex. xii. 6. To a portion of the people, who came upon Hezekiah's invitation to keep the passover. 2 Chron. xxx. 24. To the army of Pharaoh. Ezek. xvii. 17. To an indefinite multitude. Gen. xxviii. 3. To the society of Simeon and Levi. xlix. 6. So also (gheda) is applied to the whole nation of Israel. Ex. xvi. 22. xxxv. 1. To the particular company of

( 112 )

Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Num. xvi. 16. To the assembly of the just, as opposed to the wicked. Ps. i. 5. To the judicatory, before which crimes were tried. Num. xxxv. 12. 24; compared with Deut. xix. 12, 17, 18. -- In like manner (ecclesia) rendered "Church," is applied to the whole body of the redeemed. Ephes. v. 24. 27. To the whole body of professing Christians. 1 Cor. xii. 28. To local organizations of professing Christians, whether more or less extensive; as in the apostolic salutations, and inscriptions of the epistles. To a small association of Christians meeting together in a private house. Col. iv. 15. -- Phil. i. 2. To a civil assembly lawfully convened. Acts xix. 39. To a body of people irregularly convened. Acts xix. 32. This specimen is sufficient to show that no person can answer the question "what is the Church?" without carefully examining the thing as well as the name." This is just what we have always contended for on this topic, and this is what every scholar must admit, which way soever his prejudices run. This being granted, my opponent's labor yesterday, and the toils of to-day, may ruin his cause, but it is impossible that they can advantage it. All that he, or Dr. Mason, or any other Paido-baptist, can prove, the above being granted, concerning the Jews, is, that they were from the day of their constitution in the wilderness at Mount Sinai, a Church of God in some sense, but not in the Christian sense of the term. This we hope to prove in this discussion against all opposition. *

In the mean time, however, we must redeem the pledge we have given to the public, let my opponent pursue what course he may. From this we shall not be diverted. We stand pledged to prove first, that infant sprinkling is a human tradition. This, we have already said, requires us to do two things, first, to prove that believers only are the legitimate subjects of baptism. In the next place, that immersion is the only baptism. These are both affirmative propositions, and require, in a regular debate, to be oppugned by my opponent But this he appears determined not to attempt. He has his own affirmative propositions to prove, which I am not bound to oppugn, according to our agreement. I was pledged to

__________
* See Animadversions, No. I.

( 113 )

affirm, and he to deny. He, notwithstanding, affirms and leaves me without an opponent in strict propriety. -- On his plan of managing this discussion, I could make a boy of sixteen dispute with the lord Archbishop of Canterbury. I would tell him to collect as much matter as would require many days reading; and to have it rendered so familiar, that he could read it very fluently, looking off now and then, and making a few extempore remarks. I would charge him never formally, to attempt to reply to his lordship, but when his lordship had done speaking, to go on and read another half hour, and if his lordship should attack and discomfit his arguments, never to appear to feel it; never to attempt to defend his positions, but to pursue his notes: taking care, however, in the course of his reading, to say any thing that might occur to his mind as very pert: in the mean time, never venturing to lose sight of his manuscript. In this way his lordship might become wearied, and might not be able to speak so many days as he could read; and if he should only succeed in continuing longer than his opponent, the majority would think he had the best of the argument; and if he only held on to the end, many would still say he had the best of the argument; at all events, all would say, if his lordship should excel, that he had his hands full, and had little to boast of.

I have, in the proof of my first proposition, according to my text, in Mr. M's Confession of Faith which saith, "that baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ," submitted, from the New Testament, first the law of Christian baptism, and secondly, the execution of this law by the apostles. On these two points I design to be more particular, than in my first reference to them.

The law of Christian baptism as expressed in the commission, is, baptize the disciples, or the believers of the gospel. It thus reads, "Go ye, therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name, &c. Now math eteusate, the word here rendered teach, is conceded by all intelligent Paido-baptists to signify, make disciples or disciple. This is, unquestionably, the proper rendering of the term matheteusate. The verb matheteuo, when governing an accusative, Parkhurst, the Paido-baptist lexicographer says, signifies "to make a disciple," p. 412.

( 114 )

It is not the nations, indiscriminately, that were commanded to be baptized; for, ta ethna, the nations, being neuter, is not the antecedent to autous, which is masculine, and which is the accusative governed by matheteusate. Its antecedent is mathetas, in the verb mathetemate.

Again, the phrase, "teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you," respects the disciples exclusively. For Christ did never command nations, indiscriminately, to observe his ordinances; but only his disciples. He commanded all nations to repent and believe the gospel, and then, as his disciples, he commanded them to keep his commandments. Hence, the word rendered teach, in the 20th verse of Matt, xxviii. is not the same as the word rendered teach, in the 19th verse. It is didaskontes, a word importing the office of a preceptor to those who had been put under his tuition. It is expressive of that tuition, which teachers owe to their disciples or pupils. Two things, or two classes of duties, were enjoined on the apostles, in this commission. -- The first was the work of discipling or making disciples. -- The second was the education of those disciples, collected into churches or schools. Now, inasmuch, as the apostles were authorized by the law of Christ, to baptize disciples only. This law. in fact, amounts to a prohibition of the baptism of those who are not disciples. This I cannot now illustrate better than by a reference to the Appendix of Debate with Mr. Walker, to which Mr. M. so often refers, p. 209. "A limited commission implies a prohibition of such things as are not contained in it; and positive laws imply their NEGATIVE. The commission under which the apostles acted was limited, as every Christian will confess. The duties of those who act under it are pointed out: and indeed every creature must act under a limited commission, for the very term itself imports something committed from a superior, or from the supreme.

The items contained in any commission, are all the things which the commissioned are authorised to perform. If this were not the case, a formal commission is quite an unmeaning thing. Hence, the commission of a magistrate points out, and circumscribes the duties of his office; if this were not the case, he might attend to

( 115 )

the duties of the Sheriff, the Alderman, or the Legislator. Now his commission prohibits him from practising as a Legislator, and authorises him to act as a Justice of the Peace. In like manner the commission to baptize believers or disciples, prohibits the baptism of others -- yea, it forbids infant baptism as plainly as "thou shalt not steal," implies thou must be honest, or as, "I have appointed the sons of Levi to minister in the service of the tabernacle prohibits the sons of Benjamin or any other tribe, from ministering in those things. Unless Paido-baptists can shew a new commission from Heaven, and confirm it by miracles authorizing them to baptize infants, they should candidly give up their cause, for this argument completely overthrows it; and if there was not a second argument in the world against their cause, in this respect, all their genius, learning and talents combined, are unable to remove it."

That "a believer or a disciple, is the only subject of baptism is proven from the law of baptism, which authorizes the baptism of such only, and virtually prohibits the baptism of such as are not the professiag disciples of Christ. This is our first argument submitted yesterday to be impugned by Mr. M. It is now illustrated and enforced by the above criticisms and remarks, and if not impugned by M. M. we shall consider it unanswerable.

My second argument in support of this position, is, that the apostles who received this commission and law of baptism, must have understood it perfectly, and that they, neither in Judea, Samaria, nor to the uttermost parts of the earth ever baptized any but the professed disciples of Christ. I need not again read over those Scriptures, as my opponent did not oppugn this argument when presented. I shall merely illustrate and enforce it by a remark or two. In the first place, we are positively told, in so many words, that all baptized on the Day of Pentecost, first gladly received the word preached, i. e. believed the gospel, before they were baptized. We are positively told that "when the Samaritans believed Philip preaching the gospel, they were baptized both men and women." -- We are also informed, that Philip refused to baptize the eunuch until he professed faith. We are moreover informed, in the most positive language, that the first Gentile congregation all

( 116 )

believed before they were baptized, and, that many of the Corinthians, "hearing, believed, and were baptized."

Now, being so formally, so minutely, so circumstantially, informed of the apostolic practice, in so many places, it was not necessary to tell us, in every instance, that every individual first heard, then believed, and lastly was baptized This would have been altogether unnecessary. For illustration, the laws of our country require that no man be put to death, or deprived of his liberty, unless he has been regularly convicted according to law: that is, there must be a jury, a judge, witnesses, &c. Now, we are not always informed, when we read of a person being hung, or sent to the penitentiary, that he was tried in a court legally established; that there was a judge regularly sworn into office, sitting upon the bench; that there was a jury of twelve men, lawfully empanneled; that witnesses were sworn in open court; that the jury brought in a verdict of guilty; and that the judge pronounced the sentence, &c. &c. Yet we know, as soon as we hear that a man was hung, or sent to the penitentiary, that all these things must have first existed, because the law so requires. -- In like manner, when we read of any person being baptized, after we understand the law and the practice of the apostles, we are sure that be first professed the faith, that there was water, and an administrator present. And why? because the law required it.

In the next place, on this topic, when the historian Luke was so very minute in detailing all the circumstances of the baptized, such as their sex, and condition of life, in no one place, does he mention the baptism of infants. He mentions men and women, and when he speaks more summarily of households, such circumstances are stated, as preclude the supposition of any infants being included. From these premises, we deduce our second argument which is, that the apostles baptized believers or professed disciples only.

Our third argument is deduced from the design or import of baptism. On this topic of argument we shall be as full as possible, because of its great importance, and because, perhaps, neither Baptists nor Paido-baptists sufficiently appreciate, it. I will first merely refer to the oracles of God which shew, that baptism is an

( 117 )

ordinance of the greatest importance, and of momentous significance. Never was there an ordinance of so great import or design. -- It is to be but once administered. We are to pray often, praise often, show forth the Lord's death often, commemorate his resurrection every week, but we are to bo baptized but once. Its great significance may be seen from the following testimonies. The Lord saith "He that believeth and is BAPTIZED shall be saved." He does not say, he that believeth, and keeps my commands, shall be saved: but he saith he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He places baptism on the right hand of faith. Again he tells Nicodemus, that "except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." -- Peter, on the day of Pentecost, places baptism in the same exalted place -- "Repent," says he, "and be baptized every one of you, FOR the remission of sin." -- Ananias saith to Paul "Arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." -- Paul saith of the Corinthians," Ye were once fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, rioters, extortioners, but ye were WASHED in the name of the Lord Jesus," doubtless referring to their baptism. He tells Titus, God our Saviour saved us by the WASHING OF REGENERATION and renewing of the Holy Spirit. -- See again its dignified importance! Peter finishes the grand climax, in praise of baptism -- "Baptism doth also now save us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." I have thus, in the naked import of those testimonies, shown, that it is of vast import, of glorious design. -- We shall leave these testimonies, for the present, to speak to your understandings, my friends, resuming them again when Mr. M. shall have addressed you.

Mr. M. rejoined: -- I agree that baptism is an important institution, but I am not going to waste my time, nor my strength, in refuting every thing that may be said about it, inconsistent with scripture and sound reason. I will not labor for nought. To refute all Mr. C. may say is not necessary to support the side I have espoused. In saying so much upon the subject, it would

( 118 )

be unreasonable to suppose, that every thing he may say is erroneous, or that every thing said would deserve a reply. Nor do I wish to derogate from the significance and importance of this rite. -- Yet this would be no reason why I should elevate it beyond due limits. There is no occasion to exaggerate the import of baptism, for the sake of shewing its importance or design. Nor dare I go so far as my opponent has done, in his late address, in his exaggeration of baptism, as to place it on the right hand of faith, to the exclusion of hope and charity. For the apostle says, there are three important graces, whith still abide on earth, and these three are faith, hope, and charity: now, the greatest of these is charity. But my opponent would place baptism as superior to hope and charity.

With respect to the passage, read from Dr. Mason, I know that the Doctor has said such things as my opponent has read, but in this instance, I think the Doctor has gone too far. But I do not like this way of quoting authors. If Mr. C. will quote from Dr. Mason, in this instance, why not take his word or his criticism in others? Besides, my opponent would draw other conclusions from these remarks of the Doctor's than are legitimate: for he will draw conclusions from them subversive, intentionally at least, of the subsequent views of the Doctor.

But as my opponent is talking of proving certain points, I will tell you what he has to prove -- or else he will fail to do what he has proposed. He must prove,

I. That infant baptism is a human tradition.

II. That any thing short of immersion, is not baptism.

III. That sprinkling an infant is injurious to religious and political society.

IV. That anything short of immersion is injurious to the well being of both church and state.

All these points he must prove, else he fails to redeem his pledge. I have proposed to prove the contrary of these propositions -- I have laid down my plan, which you recollect was,

( 119 )

I. To produce a Divine command for infant baptism.

II. To afford probable evidence of apostolic practice 0f infant baptism.

These points established, and the proper subject of baptism is determined. Our attention, then, will necessarily be called to the mode of baptism -- or, in honor of my oponent, perhaps, we should call it, the action of baptism.

In producing a Divine command for infant baptism, five things, I told you, yesterday, were to be done:

1. To prove that Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church of God.

2. That the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society, after Christ, are ONE and the SAME church in different dispensations. Or, that the Christian church is a BRANCH of the Abrahamic church.

3. That Jewish circumcision, before Christ, and Christian baptism, after Christ are ONE and the SAME SEAL, though, in different forms.

4. That the administration of this seal to infants rvas dice enjoined by Divine authority.

5. That it not having been prohibited, by the same authority, that ordained it, it consequently remains in full force. -- These five points established, and a Divine command for infant baptism is adduced.

The first of these five points was proven yesterday, viz. that Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church of God. While I was engaged in proving this fundamental position, my opponent was, a part of his time, delivering patches of old sermons which he memorized several years ago, which had nothing to do with this position; at least, their bearing upon the points at issue, was so faint as not to be very perceivable. For what is it to the truth, or falsehood of the position under consideration, to tell us of the calling of the Gentiles, the history of the Chaldean, the Persian, the Grecian, and Roman empires -- the meaning of a petition of the Lord's prayer -- the exaltation of Christ, and many other points, which, how true soever, leave the grand question where it was.

( 120 )

He has also read and commented on several passages of the New Testament respecting baptism, particularly the commission to baptize. He has laid great stress upon the word disciples; -- and upon the phrase, "disciple all nations." -- I thought it quite sufficient to show that infants were really called disciples, and this being shewn, the commission will authorize the baptism of infants. -- It may be affirmed with the greatest safety, to our cause, that disciples only should be baptized, or that the Lord Jesus Christ commanded none but disciples to be baptized, in the commission given to the apostles, provided we can make it appear that the spirit of inspiration has actually called infants, disciples, and this appears from the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the apostles, where the apostle Peter asked the question, "why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples?" i.e. circumcision. Now we know that infants were circumcised at the age of eight days, consequently the persons alluded to were actual infants, and these very same infants are called disciples, so that Mr. C's criticism upon the commission being admitted as correct, it will nevertheless follow that infants are to be baptized, being included in the commission, under the general term disciples. To this agrees the name given to infants by the Fathers, the immediate succcssDrs of the apostles, who were wont to call them "Fideles" -- that is faithful ones. This name they gave to baptized infants, the infants of believers, to contradistinguish them from unbaptized infants, or pagans. Indeed, the word fideles, though not altogether synonymous with the word disciple, is equivalent to it in this usage. -- A disciple signifies a scholar or a follower, and the term fideles signifies a faithful one, who possesses truth, and is under the influence of it in some sense. Such were infants in the estimation of the fathers, and such, in substance, were they called by the apostles.

You would think from the number of scriptures my opponent has referred to, that all the scriptures, were in favor of his views, and that there were no passages

( 121 )

at all that speak of infant baptism. But you remember, my friends, that I read to you the positive command of Christ addressed to some in that age, who, like my opponent, forbade infants to be brought to Christ. This command is a very positive command. It is delivered with very great vehemence. "Suffer little children to come unto me; and forbid them not." How convincing the reason assigned, "for of such is the kingdom of God!" It is true that this command was delivered before the commission to baptize in the name of Christ was delivered to the apostles; but that does not affect our argument, inasmuch as infants are here said to be members of the kingdom of God. They were so in the visible church of God, instituted among the seed of Abraham, and the Saviour here declares that they are members of his kingdom as instituted under the gospel. Infants were circumcised because members of the church in the wilderness, and they are recognized as members of the church of Christ, consequently their privileges are not circumscribed or limited because members of the New Testament church. -- When the disciples of Christ were thus taught that infants belonged to his kingdom, they could be at no loss in determining whether they should be baptized after they had received the commission to baptize disciples. -- To the same effect, as was observed, the apostle called them holy. Hence we read of whole households of infants being baptized, but of this more particularly hereafter in its proper place.

Mr. C. will tell you no doubt again, as he has done already, that because baptism is not mentioned in those passages, they ought not to be referred to in this controversy. -- Yes, and from the same principle he has told you that you ought not to use the Lord's prayer, because it was taught in the early part of Christ's ministry. In this way of proceeding, a great proportion of the scriptures is useless, as respects Christians now. Indeed, according to him, but very little of the New Testament belongs to Christians -- I understand

( 122 )

he teaches that all the Old, and some of the New, is not worthy of the regard of Christians; that is, such parts of the divine word as suit his notions and designs are obligatory, and such as do not coincide with his schemes are obsolete and inapplicable to our times. This is taking a very handsome license with the Bible, and well suits those who wish to innovate or introduce a new order of things in the Christian church.

I now proceed, after this formal recapitulation and reference to the arguments of yesterday, to prove the identity of the church under the old and new dispensations. The proposition now before us, is, "that the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society, after Christ, are one and the same church in different dispensations. -- In fact, that the Christian church is a branch of the Abrahamic."

As a visible society they are one and the same. As there has never been but one real church so there has never been but one visible church. A visible saint is one who appears to human eye to be a real saint; in the same manner, the visible church is a body visible to the human eye appearing to be an assembly of real saints. Now since the time that there appeared on earth a visible body of worshippers of the true God, there has been but one such at one time. The body of real saints on earth, has always been one and the same body, and was never distinguishable from the body of visible saints. The visible body of saints has always comprehended within it all such as were known as real saints -- and as there has been but one real church in the world in all ages, so there has been but one visible church. This is as evident as that there cannot be two bodies visibly distinct, which yet appear the same. As the real church, then, has always been the same, so the visible church has always been the same.

Many Baptists have been obliged to admit the identity and perpetuity of the real church, who, very inconsistently, deny that the visible church has always

( 123 )

been one and the same. Perhaps this inconsistency may have originated from mistaken views of the nature of the identity for which we contend. We do not contend that they are the same in every item. No two things in the world could, on this principle, be called the same. In these things that are so much the same, as not to be distinguishable by even very minute notice, there are still some circumstantial differences; yet they agree in so many prominent features, as to be with propriety called the same. For instance, a board of trustees are appointed by the legislature, to whom a certain concern is committed in trust. Now this board of trustees may continue for a century, until all the original trustees are succeeded by others once or twice. Yet it is still the same board, entrusted with the same concern, for the same general purposes. Who could with propriety say that it is another board of trustees, because the death or resignation ef its members had given rise to new appointments! Nay, it is the same board, acting under the same laws, performing the same duties, guarding and directing the same concern, and responsible to the same tribunal; although there are some circumstantial differences.

Again, the human body is continually changing, yet it is the same human body. New blood, new flesh, and new fluids of every kind, are forming every minute, so that in a little time all the blood, flesh, and even solids in the human body are changed; and not a particle existing of what composed it a few months or years ago; yet, who will not say, that it is still the same body, distinguished by the same general characteristics, the same properties, and that it is the same temple, of the same immortal soul!

Also in the body politic, the same constitution and government may continue to exist, and yet changes may be introduced of considerable variety, and to a considerable extent, yet it is the same state, constitution, and government. The British constitution and government which, since the year 1689, although administered

( 124 )

by different persons, and with some diversity of administration, is still the same constitution and government.

I then addressed the assembly: -- My opponent represents my late address as fragments of old sermons which I memorized some years ago. How, think ye, does he know this? Perhaps my opponent judges of others by himself. We must, however, inform him that we never write our sermons or memorize them. For seven years we have not written seven pages for public addresses. And, never but once did we attempt to memorize a sermon. Written sermons, and premeditated prayers, are the meanest commodities in the world.

Mr. M. will have infants, disciples, yes, speechless babes disciples of Christ, inferred from Acts xv. Although we yesterday demonstrated that the disciples mentioned in that chapter, to whom he referred, were Gentile converts, capable of the actions of manhood. But as Mr. M. has not impugned my criticism on the commission, but endeavours to shelter himself under the assertion, that although none but disciples are to bs baptized, yet infants of eight days old are called disciples, in this passage to which he has twice referred; I say, seeing he has not impugned the aforesaid criticism, and rests his escape from its truth on the assertion that "infants are called disciples in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, I now propose to him, in the presence of you all, that if he will prove that infants are called disciples in that chapter, I will give up the cause which I have espoused. Let him then lay aside every other topic, and open this chapter. I will pledge, my erudition, my critical acumen, my respectability as a scholar, that he cannot, upon the investigation of that reference -- nay, I will rest the whole controversy upon it. If he proves this one point we shall say all is proved, and his cause, triumphant. The conditions are assuredly most easy, and this "brings us to a speedy issue."

His references to "suffer little children," and to the "holy children," are condemned by his own confession of faith, according to the rules of interpretation prescribed in that confession. He has not, in his late address, adverted

( 125 )

to the objection I made to them before, from that rule of interpretation. "The sense of every passage of scripture is ONE;" consequently, as baptism was not referred to, on the occasion of the pronunciation of these words, they have no reference to this controversy.

I am not a little surprised at his remarks on a criticism mentioned yesterday, on a petition of the prayer taught by the Lord to his disciples. Indeed the whole ministry of John appears to be very indistinctly apprehended by Mr. M. The different ages or dispensations, as they are called, are, by Paido-baptists in general, very slightly noticed. The patriarchal age, the Jewish age, the ministry of John, and the Christian age, are marked in the volumes of inspiration with very striking characters. The patriarchal, with propriety, may be assimulated to star-light; the Jewish, to moon-light; the era of John the Baptist to twilight; and the Christian age to Sun-light. Light encreased from the first promise made to Adam until the ministration of the Spirit was completed. Different forms of worship existed under all these ages by Divine authority. What would have been acceptable worship in the days of the priesthood of Melchisideck, would not have been acceptable in the age of the priesthood of Aaron; and what was acceptable in the days of Aaron, would not be acceptable in the days of our Great High Priest. It is a maxim of great significance, and of universal application pronounced by the Prince of commentators. "The priesthood been changed there is of neccesity a change also in the law." The worship of the Patriarchs, Jews and Christians, though addressed to the same God, was notwithstanding very dissimilar. This, we presume, needs no proof. But with regard to the ministry of John we would be more particular. His light was neither Star-light, Moon-light, nor Sunlight; it was twilight, or a mixture of the three. -- The burthen of his preaching was, "Reformation, for the reign of God approached." His doctrine, manner of life, baptism, and exhortations, were all in many respects novel. He even taught his disciples to pray in a way suited to his teaching. Great, however, as this prophet was, the least prophet under the new reign of God was to be a greater prophet than he; better instructed in the nature of the reign of Messiah,

( 126 )

in the meaning and design of the kingdom of heaven or Christian age, than this Reformer of the Jew's religion, and herald of the Christian. John preached a new doctrine, practised a baptism suited to it, exhorted the people suitably thereunto, and taught his disciples to pray conformably. The Messiah honored this man and his baptism. He commended him as the greatest teacher ever sent to Israel, and submitted to his baptism as a Divine institute. "Thus" said he, when soliciting John's compliance, it "becometh me to honor every Divine institute."

The first commission given to the Twelve and the baptism annexed thereunto, was of the same nature as that of John. The same doctrine of reformation was taught by our Lord, the Twelve, and the Seventy; and the same motive urged -- viz: -- "The reign of heaven approached. The geographical lines that bounded the tribes of Israel, bounded their labors. The prayers taught, and the religious worship enjoined, were adapted to this state of things as exclusively as Solomon's prayer, 1 Kings viii. was exclusively adapted to the dedication of the temple. Mr. M. might as rationally, as scripturally, as consistently, teach his people to pray, in the words of Solomon's dedication, as in the words of the prayer in question. They were both Divinely inspired too, and both perfectly adapted to a precise object. Dull is the apprehension, and prejudiced the mind, that cannot see a distinction so plain, so palpable, so important too, as the distinction now offered. Let my opponent consider how he would reason with one who would now worship God according to the priesthood of Aaron, and he will find arguments forme to put him to silence when advocating that Christians should now pray for the "reign of God to come," when it has come; and for addressing God without the name of Jesus when he is placed a priest upon his throne, an intercessor within the true holy place.

The design of John's baptism and the design of the baptism instituted by Christ is very different. John's baptism, like his preaching, was, the "Baptism of reformation." His errand into the world was to prepare a people for the Lord. His preaching, his baptism, and

( 127 )

his prayers, were alike, preparatory. We know that many have said that John's baptism and Christian baptism are one and the same, as my opponent affirms of the Jewish and Christian churches. But it is as impossible to prove that these two baptisms are one and the same, as it is to prove that two churches are one, as M. M. affirms. How two things can be one, and how things different can be the same, requires the sagacity of Paido-Baptists to comprehend. The action of baptism is the same whether a man, a woman, a child, a table, a cup, or a spoon be baptized. As far as the modus is concerned all baptisms are the same. But the nature and doctrinal import or design of these two baptisms are quite different. Let us hear Paul expatiate on the "baptism of John." Acts xix. 4. "John," said Paul, "verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the; people, that they should believe on him that was to come, or which should come after him i. e. on Christ Jesus." This exposition of the meaning of John's Baptism is infallible, and shows it to have been of an import different from that ordained by Jesus Christ. So much so, that those baptized of John were to be baptized for the, remission of sins, in the name of Christ as having come. Luke tells us in the same chapter, that when the subjects of John's baptism heard the nature and design of that baptism explained, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." And of all the thousands in Jerusalem, in Judea, and in the region round about, who Lad been baptized in the baptism of John, some of whom doubtless believed in Christ as having come, not one was received into the church until baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. We never read of one having been exempted, or excused from being baptized for the remission of sins, because he had been baptized by John, confessing his sins, in the baptism of reformation; but we read of some having been baptized in both the "baptism of repentance, and the baptism for the remission of sins." A proper subject of John's baptism was one who professed repentance, confessed his sins, and reformed; declaring his persuasion that the reign of God was at hand, that Messiah the King was just about to reign. A proper subject of the baptism ordained by

( 128 )

Christ, is one who declares his belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, that he has come, and is crowned Lord of all, and that remission of sins is bestowed through his name to all who believe and are baptized. The subjects of John's baptism were immersed in the act of confessing their sins, and avowing their reformation of life; the subjects of the Lord's baptism are immersed calling upon the Lord, washing away their sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. -- How different were the views of those who expected, and only hoped for the conning of the Just One, and the views of those who believed that Christ crucified was he! -- But our time forbids us to attempt to finish our remarks on the design and import of Christian baptism.

Mr. M. proceeds: -- When I last addressed you, my friends, I was going on with the demonstration of the identity of the Jews and Christian churches. I had observed that many things may be said to be one and the same, which yet differ in some circumstantial matters. Even the Baptists themselves, who pride themselves so much in the peculiarity of the constitution of their churches and discipline, have existing among them, in their church covenants, a very considerable diversity, yet they contend that the constitution of their churches is one and the same. And although in their discipline they may widely differ in some points, yet they say that their discipline is essentially one and the same, because executed on the same general principles. Some of them, indeed, would represent their church as being the same with those mentioned in the New Testament, and as having been always one and the same, in regular descent from John the Baptist until now, although they are unable to trace their existence for some hundreds of years up to John.

The church at Augusta over which I preside, it is known, has undergone considerable change since I was placed over it. -- It has been new modified in some respects, and alterations to a considerable extent

( 129 )

have been effected, yet who would say that it is not the same Presbyterian church, yes, one and the same essentially.

The people also that compose a state may be one and the sanae people, though living under different constitutions. The constitution, of Virginia and that of Kentucky are different constitutions, yet the people who have lived under both are still the same people. Their privileges may be diversified and magnified to a great extent, there may be very material alterations in their circumstances living under different constitutions and laws, yet they are still the same people. In fine, many things may be identically the same in the common conceptions of mankind, and yet different from each other in some respects. And if we were to allow that no two things are the same, which do not coincide in every instance, in all their essential and accidental properties, in all their primary and secondary qualities, we should be constrained to banish from our dictionaries, and from our mouths, the word identity; and to affirm that no two things are, or can be the same.

These things premised, I proceed to observe that the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society, after Chirst, are one and the same church, though in different dispensations, insomuch, that the latter is merely a branch of the former.

In proving the truth of this proposition I will observe the following method. I will prove,

1. That they had the same religion.

2. That they had the same inspired names.

3. That they had the same covenant.

These we conceive to be the grand essential properties which constitute religious societies one and the same, in all primary points. Any two religious societies that possess the same theology and morality, that are called by all the same names and appellations, and that exist under the same grand constitution or covenant, form but one and the same social compact

( 130 )

and are called, in the proper and legitimate use of the word, one and the same church.

1. They had the same religion.

It must he admitted that the Jews and Christians were both professors of religion. Now the Jews professed the true religion as Divinely revealed and instituted. I presume it will be allowed that the visible church under the present dispensation professes the true religion. As there is but one true religion, and as both the Jewish society and the Christian society have professed, the true religion, it is, we think, evident that they both professed the same religion. If any person should deny that the Jews professed the true religion, we have recorded truths to produce for their conviction. Deut. xxvi. 17. Moses saith, "Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his commandments and to hearken to his voice." This is not only a solemn, but a formal avowal or profession of the religion appointed of God. Moses was a witness, and a credible witness of this formal profession of all Israel, to walk in the ways, and to obey the commandmtnts of the Lord. Now as there is but one God, and one heaven, and only one way from this world to the heavenly world, ever since the fall of Adam, there has been but one true religion. And we have already seen that the seed of Abraham professed this one true religion; but Christians profess or avow the Lord to be their God, and promise to walk in all his ways, consequently profess the same religion with the Jews.

In the next place they not only professed the bame religion, as respected the object of religious fear, reverence, and respect, but they had substantially the same ordinances of religious worship. Circumcision, the passover, and the sabbath, were primary ordinances amongst the Jews, and these were substantially the same as baptism, the supper, and the Christian sabbath. Circumcision was to them a mark of separation, a sign of regeneration, the token of putting off the sins of the flesh. Infants and adults were both

( 131 )

proper subjects of circumcison. The children of the members of the church were circumcised at the age of eight days, because they were the children of the faithful, and born within the covenant. Adults, who had been aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, on being morally convinced of the true God, and of the true religion, before they entered the congregation of the Lord, were commanded to be circumcised. In like manner, the infants of believers are to be baptized, because the children of the faithful, and born within the same covenant. Adults also, whose parenfy belonged not to the church of Christ, and who are morally convinced of the true God, and of his salvation, are to be baptized, before admission into his church.

The passover was a commemorative ordinance substantially the same as the Lord's supper. The former commemorated the redemption of Israel from Egyptian darkness and bondage, by means of the shedding and sprinkling of blood. The latter commemorates our redemption from ignorance and the bondage of guilt, by the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God, that taketh away sin. -- The former was eaten with every sign of repentance and with all holy preparation of heart, with sojemn convocations, and religious self-denial, the latter is observed by all true Christians in a similar manner. Days of solemn preparation, fasting and thanksgiving accompanied the eating of the paschal lamb, and similar days of preparation, fasting, and thanks-giving, do accompany the celebration, of the holy supper.

The sabbath also amongst the Jews and Christians is a day of holy rest, of holy convocation: a day set apart for profound contemplation, worship and edification, in which no manner of servile labor is to be performed, no part of the time appropriated to our own works, except so much as is taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.

In the third place, the Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, have adopted

( 132 )

the same forms of worship as well as the same granci Ordinances. The children of Israel sang the praises of the God of Jacob in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. They lifted up the voice of praise and thanksgiving. The melody of joy, gratitude and praise was heard in the dwellings of Jacob, in the assemblies of Zion. In the stated meetings of the congregation of the Lord the psalms of David, the same psalms which are yet sung, and by many Baptists too, were sung. -- They stood upright, and kneeled down in their worship, and used, in general, the same forms of worship which are yet used in the congregations of the saints. Can these religious societies be essentially distinct which have professed the true religion, worshipped the same God, observed the same ordinances of worship, and the same forms of prayer, of praise, and thanksgiving!!

The same injunctions have been laid upon the visible church in all ages, and uniformly she has been subject to the same requirements. God now requires his people to be holy, holy in all manner of deportment, for, "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Now the same injunctions were laid upon the Jewish society before Christ. See Lev. xix. 2. "Speak unto all the congregation of Israel and say unto them, ye shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy." Love to God also, with all their souls, might and strength, was required from the Jewish society as well as from the Christian. And, with respect to our neighbors, the good Samaritan does not remind us more fully or forcibly of our duty, than the injunctions laid on Israel by an ancient prophet. -- "Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God."

I arose: -- The identity of the Jewish society before Christ, and the Presbyterian society or Episcopalian society, after Christ, may be rendered very plain and striking; by Mr. M.; but that the Christian church, and the Jewish, are one and the same, is another question. The very assertion that any two societies can be one and the

( 133 )

same shocks all common sense, as well as oppugns the most explicit testimonies of holy writ. But we shall let Mr. M. get through with his proof before we examine his argument. In the meantime we will state two facts, which, so long as you keep them in mind, volumes of such arguments as you have heard will avail nothing in reference to this controversy.

The first fact is, that Nicodemus an honorable member of the Jewish society, yea a teacher of Israel, AN OFFICER of the Jewish church could not be admitted unto the Christian church, though a LAWFUL MEMBER of the Jewish, and a REGULAR OFFICER of the church of Israel, unless born again, of water, and of the spirit. If the two churches are one and the same, Mr. M. -- How could this be!!

A second fact is, that NOT ONE of all the members of this Jewish society before Christ, how pious, and holy soever; NOT ONE of the members of the church of Israel was admitted into the Christian church, after its exhibition on the day of Pentecost, until born again, of water and of the spirit: until repentance and a new faith was professed. If the two churches are one and the same Mr. M. how could this be!! Unless Mr. M. my friends, can disprove what I have now said, unless he can set aside these facts, it is of no consequence to tell us about the identity of two societies that withal he admits to be different in come respucts!! These facts you will please keep in mind as a sufficient refutation of the misapplication of many things proposed on the subject of "identity," until more formally exposed.

But I have something to say on my opponent's plan and design in introducing the identity of the two churches that may, and ought to claim a place in your attention. It is this. Mr. M. theologically considered is digging his own grave. He is, in fact, about to defeat his own cause, and to subvert his own theses; for as soon as he has proved the identity of the two societies so soon will he have destroyed his whole scheme. This we now assert, and we pledge ourselves to make it manifest as soon as, he says, he has proved the point.

The case will stand thus, if Mr. M. does not prove the "identity" of the Jewish and Christian societies, being fundamental in his schemes he is, on his own

( 134 )

principles, defeated. And I now assert, and pledge myself to prove hereafter that if he does prove their identity he has not only killed, but buried himself. In either case, his cause is lost. On this ground it will be proven that the Paido-baptist cause is untenable.

While I am noticing this position of my opponent, it way not be amiss to express my astonishment not only at the boldness of my antagonist, but at his imprudence in calling the Christian church a "branch" of the Abrahamic church. He should not have laid himself open to be discredited, or to be put to silence by every stripping who could ask the following question: Is not a branch inferior to the stem or trunk from which it grows? Look at these trees around us, shew us a branch that is not inferior to the trunk from which it receivs its nourishment. And is, Mr. M. the Christian church but a branch of the Abrahamic, inferior to the Jewish!!! Tell it not to those who admire the superlative glory, and dignity of the Christian religion, and Christian church, in comparison of the commonwealth of Israel, and the weak and beggarly elements that Mr. M. has proved it to be only A BRANCH of the Abrahamic!!!

I now proceed to finish, if possible, my third argument in proof of my first proposition, viz: that a believer is the only subject of baptism. You will recollect that my third argument is drawn from the import and design of Christian baptism. I have in my two last addresses, paid some attention to this consideration, in my first address this morning, I read sundry portions of the New Testament expressive of the important place that baptism occupies in the Christian religion, and of its great significance. In my last address I contradistinguished its design from that of John's baptism. In exalting baptism to its proper place, I did not exaggerate its import, as Mr. M. would have it. Nor did I elevate it so as to displace hope and charity. These are graces, the fruits of true faith, and true baptism. I know it will be said that I have affirmed that baptism "saves us," that it "washes away sins." Well, Peter and Paul have said so before me. If it was not criminal in them to say so, it cannot be criminal in me. When Ananias said unto Paul, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," I suppose Paul believed him, and arose, was baptized,

( 135 )

and washed away his sins. When he was baptized he must have believed that his sins were now washed away, in some sense, that they were not before. For if his sins had been already in every sense, washed away, Ananias' address would have led him into a mistaken, view of himself; both before, and after baptism. Now we confess that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses us from all sins. Even this, however, is a metaphorical expression. The efficacy of his blood springs from his own dignity, and from the appointment of his Father. The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token, of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins." The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquital, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washes them away in the water of baptism.

To every believer therefore, baptism is a formal and personal remission, or purgation of sins. The believer never has his sins formally washed away or remitted until he is baptized. The water has no efficacy but what God's appointment gives it, and he has made it sufficient for this purpose. The value and importance of baptism appears from this view of it. It also accounts for baptism being called the WASHING OF REGENERATION. It shews us a good, and valid reason for the despatch with which this ordinance was administered in the primitive church. The believers did not lose a moment in obtaining the remission of their sins. Paul tarried three days after he believed, which was the longest delay recorded in the New Testament. The reason of this delay was the wonderful accompaniments of his conversion and preparation for the apostolic office. He was blind three days, scales fell from his eyes, he arose then forthwith and was baptized. The three thousand who first believed, on the selfsame day were baptized for the remission, of their sins. Yea, even the Jailer and his house would not wait till day-light, but the "same, hour of the night, in which he believed, he and all his were baptised." I say, ihis view of baptism accounts for all these otherwise unaccountable

( 136 )

circumstances. It was this view of baptism misapplied that originated infant baptism. The first errorists on this subject argued that if baptism was so necessary for the remission of sins, it should be administered to infants whom they represented as in great need of it on account of their "original sin." Affectionate parents, believing their children to be guilty of "original sin" were easily persuaded to have their infants baptized for the remission of "original sin," not for washing away sins actually committed; But of this again.

Faith in Christ is necessary to forgiveness of sins, therefore baptism, without faith, is an unmeaning ceremony. Even the confession of faith, or at least the Larger Catechism, Quest. 185. says that baptism is a sign of remission of sins. How then can it be administered to those without faith. Is it to them "a sign and seal of engrafting into Christ, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his spirit," as the answer to this question declares!

Our argument from this topic is, that baptism, being ordained to be to a believer a formal and personal remission of all his sins, cannot be administered unto an infant without the greatest perversion and abuse of the nature and import of this ordinance. Indeed why should an infant that never sinned, that, as Calvanists say is guilty only of "original sin," which is an unit, be baptized for the remission of sins!!

We have heard some Baptists reduce this significant ordinance to the level of a moral example, or a moral precept. Says one, "I was baptized to follow the example of Christ who was baptized in a river." When you are baptized to follow the example of Christ. You are honest too, and speak the truth. In these respects you follow the example of Christ. You place honesty and baptism on the same footing, as alike moral duties. But, says another, "I was baptized in obedience to a divine command." I presume you "don't steal" for the same reason. You then make baptism and honestly alike moral duties. The intelligent and well instructed Christian, however, is baptized to obtain the formal remission of his sins. He is baptized. "TO WASH AWAY HIS SINS" calling upon the name of the Lord.

Here let us pause and admire the Divine philanthropy

( 137 )

which has appeared to all men. God so loved the world that, unasked, unsolicited, of his own free will, and pood pleasure, he sent his only begotten son into the world, not to condemn it; but that WHOSOEVER believeth in him, or in other words, believes the record he has given of him, might be saved; might be pardoned, accepted, raised incorruptible, and enjoy eternal life. He appointed baptism to be, to every one that believed the record he has given of his Son, a formal pledge on his part of that believer's personal acquittal or pardon: so significant, and so expressive that when the baptized believer rises out of the water, is born of water, enters the world a second time, he enters it as innocent, as clean, as unspotted, as an angel. His conscience is purged, from guilt, his body washed with pure water, even the washing of regeneration. He puts himself under the priesthood of Jesus, under his tuition and government. If afterwards he sins through the weakness and corruption of human nature, or the temptations of the adversary, he, in the spirit of repentance, comes to his advocate, confesses his fault, and obtains pardon. Thus the Christian religion teaches all who are initiated how to enjoy peace with God, to have a conscience void of offence, and at the same time to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present evil world, looking for the glorious appearance of the great God our Saviour, Jesus Christ; They who object to this view of the abundance of Divine grace, because of its supposed licentious tendency, have yet to learn that love constrains to holiness, and that the more fully it is manifested, the greater is its influence in purifying the heart, and in reforming the life.

Before I sit down I wish to remind the congregation of the challenge given my opponent to investigate the 15th. chapter of the Acts, and that in his last address he did not so much as name it. He has then given up that point.

Mr. M. arose: -- Mr. C. reminds you of his challenging me to a disquisition on a part of the xv. of the Acts; and because I will not leave my course to meet him there, he proclaims me vanquished. He resembles

( 138 )

one who challenges some person to fight him, after a while some person encounters him, he then challenges that person to let go, and because he will not let go, he proclaims himself victor. It seems that I must be vanquished at all events. Take what course I may, I must be defeated. Like a friend of mine who was invited to dine with a gentleman of a very singular turn of mind. He was often requested to eat, and indeed censured for not eating more. He was so hard pressed that he addrssed his host, saying, "I have eaten as much as I can," and, replied his host, "what a glutton you are to eat as much as you can!"

In proving the identity of the Jewish and Christian, church I have first proposed to prove that they had the same religion, or theology and morality. They both professed the true religion -- had substantially the same ordinances -- were under the same requirements -- and had the same forms of religion.

Again, the same doctrines were taught in the Old Testament and in the New, and the same promises were given. Luke x. 27. "A certain lawyer stood up and tempted Christ saying. Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him what is written in the law? How readest thou? And he, answering, said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him thou hast answered right. This do and thou shalt live." Thus we see on a point of saving importance, the same doctrine was taught in the New Testament that was taught in the Old. This also shows us that the way of salvation was the same in all ages. This was something very like making baptism a saving ordinance, or ascribing to it the power of washing away all sins, as my opponent has lately done.

The promises made to the Jews and Christians are also the same. The Lord promised temporal blessings, to his followers Matt. vi. 33. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all those things shall be added

( 139 )

unto you;" that is food and raiment sufficient for your comfort. "Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." Thus Paul taught the Christians, exhibiting temporal promises as well as spiritual. The same arguments made use of by David are used by the Apostle Peter, to excite to a virtuous and happy life. "If a man will live long and see good days, let him refrain his lips from evil, and let his lips speak no guile; let him do good, let him seek peace, and pursue it: for the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open to their cry." The same kind of temporal promises are made to the Jews, Lev. xxvi. 3, 6. "If ye walk in my statutes and keep my commandments, and do them; then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid, aflat I will send evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land." Many, yery many similar promises were given unto Israel respecting temporal blessings. To the church of Israel he gave also spiritual promises." Fear not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed for I am thy God," said he to Israel. -- To the saints in the New Testament he says "lo I am with you always to the end of the world." He promised to defend the Jewish church, "The Lord of hosts will defend Jerusalem, and passing over he will preserve it." He also promises to defend the Christian church, 2 Thess. iii. 3. "The Lord is faithful who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil." "The gates of hell shall not prevail against my church," said its Founder. He has promised to build up the Christian church, and to the ancient Israel he promised the same. Acts. xv. 16. Jer. xxxi. 3, 4. "I will build thee and thou shalt be built. O virgin of Israel. I

( 140 )

have loved thee with an everlasting love." How similar the promises made to the saints under the Old Testament and the New, in a church state, and in an individual capacity.

The church under the former and the present dispensation has been under the same discipline at least under similar discipline. Under the Old the law was, "thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, thou shall in any wise rebuke thy neighbour" and "not suffer sin upon him," Lev. xix. 17. Christ now says "if thy brother trespass against this go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone."

Under the Old Testament it was, when the offender shall bring his sin offering, and in token of repentance lay his hand upon its head, the victim shall be slain and he shall be forgiven Lev. iv. Christ now says "if thy brother repent forgive him."

Under the law, "The soul that doeth aught presumptuously, and will not hearken to the priest, nor to the judge, the same hath reproached the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from his people." And under the gospel dispensation, the rule is, "If the offender will not hear the church, let him be cut off from her communion, and become to you as an heathen man or a publican." Assurdly the similarity of discipline in the congregation of the Lord, under Moses, and in the church of Christ, must strike every person with force, and prove the identity of the two churches.

The government of both churches is the same. It was by presbyters or elderS, it was in this sense presbyterian. See Acts xiv. 13. "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed." "For this cause left I thee in Crete," said Paul to Titus, chap. i. 5." that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee." Here we read of the elders of the city, and of the elders of the congregation in the New Testament, and you all remember my friends, in speaking of the officers

( 141 )

of the Jewish church, that we showed they had elders of cities, and elders of the whole congregation. So far the prominent features of their government are one and the same. In the next place their manner of discipling was the same. Rom. xi. 20. Those that believed were added to the Jewish church by circumcision, and they were broken off through unbelief. Under the gospel dispensation believers are added to the church by baptism, and he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark xvi. 16. Indeed the visible church under every dispensation has been composed of characters essentially similar. It has been always of a mixed character. Good men and bad men, hypocrites and faithful disciples have been found in the church in every age. In the words of Mr. Porter we may say, "Revivals and declensions, divisions and sects, defects and excellencies, have existed in it, and been common in each and every period of time, from its commencement to the present moment." See his Dis. on baptism, pp. 24, 27.

Thus we have seen that the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, have had the same religion, in profession, in ordinances, in forms of worship, in requirements, in doctrine, in promises, in discipline, in government, and in members.

I now proceed to shew, in the second place, that they had the same "inspired names." Names are signs of things, they are the representations of things -- words are the representations of ideas, and ideas are the images of things. When names are different, the things are different; and, when names are the same, things are the same. It may happen that fallible beings may affix the same names to things that differ and thus mislead the judgment of others, but when God has affixed the same names to things we are sure that there is no mistake: the things are really the same. Now the Jewish society and the Christian are called by the same inspired names.

I then addressed the assembly: -- My friends, this is the most singular discussion I have either seen or

( 142 )

read of. What is the subject of controversy? What were your expectations in coming hither? To hear a discussion upon church government, discipline, doctrine? &c. &c. Is this the topic under discussion? In this course of procedure, there can be no debate. Mr. M. and I resemble two ships at sea; he sails in latitude 40 north, and I in latitude 40 south; each bound for his own port. We may pass each other in one latitude on our voyage. We may then salute each other and proceed. Is this the order of debates in schools, in deliberative bodies, on any topic, in any country? Have I not opened this debate, or have I not taken an affirmative proposition? If Mr. M. be my opponent, he is, I presume, bound to respond to me; he is bound to proceed according to the rules of respondents: if he be not my opponent, why did he engage to discuss this subject? Why did he agree to take the negative side in this controversy? Before I proceed in waging this strange and unprecedented warfare in which my antagonist will not attack me, ner defend himself when attacked, but is fighting with some unseen antagonist, and occasionally talking to me, I say, before I proceed farther in this course, I will appeal to the moderators on a question of order.

Gentlemen, I know your powers in moderating this controversy are very limited. This is not my fault. I was willing to lodge all necessary power in your hands. To this Mr. M would not agree. Yet still, I think, you have the power of deciding whether we ought to procede this way. One of those items in your hand, says, that you are "to keep order," in this discussion. The question then is -- Is it order, in controversy, for the respondent to introduce affirmative propositions on any subject he pleases; and, instead of responding in the negative to his opponent, to spend his time in proving his own affirmations on other topics? This question I respectfully submit to your decision.

[Bishop Verdeman, after a number of remarks and references, (which we are sorry cannot be correctly stated, as there were no minutes taken of the speeches of the moderators on such occasions) gave it as his conviction, "that it was out of order for Mr. M. to proceed in this way." The rev. Birch replied to the bishop that his opinion was different; that he knew from

( 143 )

his own experience that Mr. M. was taking the only correct course to substantiate his cause, and that there was no other way of proceeding orderly to prove the points at issue.

Major Roper apologized that he was not skilled in such questions, that in deliberative bodies he knew that etiquette required the respondent to speak to the question submitted, in reference to which he spake. But that he knew of no rules obliging him so to do, and that, therefore, the parties, he presumed, in consequence of the limited nature of the rules authorizing their interference, would have to pursue, each his own course.]

I then proceeded: -- We must then, it seems, just proceed in this way. To this course I must submit; yes, I will cheerfully submit, although I differ in opinion with the decision of the bench. On these principles we shall have no debate unless I formally attack Mr. M. This I will do from necessity, when ever he brings his second argument to a close

In the meantime I return to the baptism of believers. Mr. M. in his last speech, incidentally remarked, that I had ascribed a saving power to baptism. Why then did he not accuse Paul and Peter of the same, for they spake as ungardedly on this topic as we? Or, rather, why did he not tell us the meaning of those scriptures that were adduced, on this item? So long as we affirm that baptism ACCOMPANIED WITH FAITH IN THE SUBJECT, washes away all sins, and that baptism, WITHOUT faith, is an insignificant ceremony; so long we feel ourselves invulnerable on every side, from every attack, from every arm. Let Mr. M. refute my views now if he can, and not hereafter say, that I said so and so. Here I am to defend them and to illustrate them still farther.

On this topic I would rally again. Its grand importance to all disciples will excuse me for being diffuse on this subject; also its aspect to paido-baptism is such as to frown it out of the world. This Mr. M. sees, and therefore he frowns contemptuously at it. Peter promised to three thousand Jews forgiveness on repentance and baptism. "What shall we do." said they, in an agony of despair? Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins. The preposition "eis" here means, in order to --

( 144 )

in order to the remission of sins. Now, I would say to any person or persons enquiring, what they should do, just what Peter said, "Repent and be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, in order to the remission of sins." "What God hath joined together let not man put assunder." God hath, in the first opening of the new religion, associated repentance and baptism in order to the remission of sins; -- and let him take heed to himself, who preaches repentance in order to the forgiveness of sins, without baptism in water; or who preaches baptism in order to forgiveness, without repentance or faith. We have already seen that Ananias preached baptism to one possessed of faith in order to the washing away of sins, -- so that we may safely say, that a believer unbaptized, has not his sins washed away in a very important sense. If, as Paul affirms, Titus iii. 3-8. God our Saviour saved sinners dia loutrou paliggenesias, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the holy spirit; then indeed, we may be bold to affirm, "except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," and he only that believes, and is baptized shall be saved.

My baptist brethren, as well as the Paido-baptist brotherhood, I humbly conceive, require to be admonished on this point. You have been, some of you no doubt, too diffident in asserting this grand import of baptism, in orgin; an immediate submission to this sacred and gracious ordinance, lest your brethren should say that you make every thing of baptism; that you make it essential to salvation. Tell them you make nothing essential to salvation but the blood of Christ, but that God has made baptism essential to their formal forgiveness in this life, to their admissicn into his kingdom on earth. Tell them, that God has made it essential to their happiness, that they should have a pledge on his part, in this life, an assurance in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, of their actual pardon, of the remission of all their sins, and that this assurance is baptism. Tell the disciples to rise, in haste and be baptized and wash away their sins calling on the name of the Lord." *

__________
* This paragraph was spoken in the third person, it is here changed into the second person, for the purpose of giving it greater emphasis.

( 145 )

In the next place, under this head, all the promises connected with baptism are addressed to such as believe. Remission of sins; the promise of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost; their participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and every other promise connected directly, or indirectly, with baptism, is given to such only as believe before they are baptized. Of this all the Epistles are proof. If you have been planted together in the likeness of his death, you shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection, said Paul to the Romans. To the Corinthians: ye who were once vile, abandoned, profane, are renewed and accepted because washed in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." All the promises made to the churches were made to them, as Paul spake to the Hebrews, "as having," said he, "our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with "pure water," or with clean water; so called from its cleansing power by Divine appointment.

In the last place, under this head, all the actions said to have been performed by such as were baptized, are of such a character as preclude the idea of any other than believers having been baptized. The baptized are said to have gladly received the word -- to hear the word, to rejoice -- to be added to the church on the day of their baptism, to continue in the Apostles' doctrine, in breaking of bread, in prayers, praising God. They are said to have put on Christ, to have put off the old man; to have crucified the flesh, and to have men with, Christ, &c.

I have, I humbly conceive, my friends and brethren, fully established my first proposition on scripture premises, viz. "that a believer is the only subject of baptism." You will recollect that out of the many topics of proof, I only selected the five following as evidence:

I. That the law of baptism authorises the baptism of believers only, and, in fact, forbids virtually the baptism,

of any others.

II. That the Apostles, in the execution of their commission in. Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth never baptized any other than a professed believer or a disciple.

( 146 )

III. That the nature and design of baptism is suited to believers only.

IV. That the promises connected with baptism are addressed to believers only.

V. That the actions of the baptized at the time, and immediately subsequent to their baptism, mentioned in all the New Testament, are such as infants could not perform. These topics of argument we deem sufficient to prove the above proposition. And you will have the goodness to bear in mind that not one of them has been formally impugned by Mr. M. We consider them then, as far as respects him, unanswerable.

Mr. M. read as follows: -- I am now to show that the Jewish and Christian societies are called by the same inspired names.

The Jewish society are called a bride, or married wife, Jer. iii. 14. "Turn O backsliding children, saith the Lord, for I am married unto you; and I will take you one of a city and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion; I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding." We plainly see who is here recognized as a bride. And in Revelation xxi. 9. The church of Jesus Christ is called by the same spirit of Revelation, "the bride, the Lamb's wife" one espoused to Christ as a chaste virgin. Says Solomon, "my love my undefiled is one," speaking of the church, as all agree.

They are both called a house. Heb. iii. 2-6 "The high priest of our profession Christ Jesus was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses in as much, as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house; for every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses, verily, was faithful in all his house, as a servant for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after, but Christ as a son over his own house, whose house are we, If we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the

( 147 )

hope firm unto the end." Here the Jewish society are called a house over which Moses was faithful, and we Christians are called a house over which Christ is faithful. Jesus Christ is here said to have builded, and to have been proprietor of that house, in which Moses was merely a servant.

The visible church under both dispensations is also exhibited as the flock of Christ, Psalm. lxxx. 1. "Give ear O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph as a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims shine forth. This same person whom David calls the Lord his Shepherd; the shepherd of the flock of Israel, is called by Paul, Heb. xiii. 20. the Great Shepherd of the sheep: -- and these sheep are Christ's flock.

The Jewish and Christian societies are called a barn and the same threshing floor. -- Matt. xiii. 30. "gather the wheat into my barn." John the Baptist saith, he will throughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into his garner. Now this was the Jewish floor that he was to cleanse -- and the wheat was to be put into his barn or garner.

They are both called a nation and kingdom. Ex. xix. 5, 6. M If ye obey my voice, and keep my covenant then ye shall be unto me a peculiar treasure above all people. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation." Thus he spake to the Jews. Now hear him address the Christians 1. Pet. ii. 9. Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people."

The Jews and Christians are called the people of God. "I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people." He says of the Christians too, "I will dwell in them and walk in them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people." Lev. xxvi. 12. 2 Cor, vi. 16. here they are both called by the same inspired names.

The visible church under both dispensations is also called an "olive tree." Jeremiah addressing the Old Testament church, says, (xi. 16.) "the Lord called

( 148 )

thy name a green olive tree, fair and of goodly fruit." Hosea the prophet uses the same language, (xiv. 6.) "His branches shall spread and his beauty shall be as the olive tree." This olive tree which the Apostle makes so much use of, represents the visible church of God. It must mean the Jewish church exclusively, or the Christian church exclusively, the invisible church, or no church at all. It cannot mean the Christian church commencing on the day of Pentecost, for the Jews never belonged unto it. It could not mean no church, for from what were the branches broken off: the branches could not mean infidels! Nor could it mean the invisible church, for from this there is no exclusion, nor cutting off; If it does not mean no church, nor the Christian church, nor the invisible church, then it must mean the Jewish visible church. From this the unbelieving Jews were broken off, Rom. xi. Into this, the Gentiles, or the branches of the wild olive were grafted in. That this is the meaning, the paragraph when read will show. "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting sway of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? for if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if, the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God; on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness,

( 149 )

if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?" Rom. xi. 13-24. In reading this, for the good olive tree substitute the Jewish church, for the natural branches substitute the Jews, for those broken off, the unbelieving Jews, and for the wild olive, the Gentiles, and for partaking of the root and fatness, substitute participating with the Jews in church privileges, and there is no difficulty in the passage.

They are both called the kingdom of heaven. "Many," said the Saviour," shall come from the east and from the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." By the words "kingdom of heaven" we cannot here understand the kingdom of glory, the mansions of future bliss, for none of the members of that kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness. Those "coming from the east and west," must mean the Gentiles; "Sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob", must mean, entering into the Jewish church, becoming one with it. -- The children of the kingdom must mean, the then members of the Jewish church, to whom belonged first of all the blessings of membership, in that kingdom: their being "cast out" is equivalent to their being "cut off" from the good olive tree; and the Gentiles sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is precisely equivalent to the branches of the wild olive, being grafted in among the natural branches.

How remarkably coincident are those portions of the oracle of God in expressing one grand fact, one important truth, of deep interest to all the church to know, else it would not have been [so] often repeated, and inculcated

( 150 )

with so great variety of illustration; with such marked emphasis, and with so much perspicuity! The church of Israel being called the good alive tree and the kingdom of heaven; the breaking off of the natural branches, and the casting out of the children of the kingdom; the engrafting of the branches of the wild olive, and the people of the east and west sitting down with the heads of the Jewish church, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; not only applies the same inspired names to both societies, but shows that both societies make but one and the same church, or kingdon of heaven.

I then rejoined: -- As this discussion is likely to be long protracted, I will now address you, my respected friends, on the word religion. As Mr. M. has spent much of this day in asserting the identity of the Jewish and Christian religion, I may be allowed to make some remarks on a topic that engrosses so much of his attention. You are not, however, to consider me as formally attacking his argument. Yet my remarks will have some bearing upon it. A complete refutation of it we promise you when it is closed.

Religion is a word of very common occurrence, yet Tike many others in common usage, it is not on that account the better understood. Some people are said "to have got religion," and others are exhorted "to get it." This religion is something that is supposed to dwell in the heart, and is sometimes called "heart religion." -- We have never seen any person who had not some kind of religion. Indeed, religion has been supposed to be so common an endowment that some logicians have made it the differential quality, or attribute of man. Hence said they, -- "man is a religious animal." Religion considered in this light, is simply "respect for a Supreme Being;" and, as the poet sings, it makes little matter what he is called. His infidel verse thus read,
"Father of all, in every age,
In every clime ador'd
By saint, by savage, and by sage,
Jehovah, Jove, or Lord."
This illustrates that religion of which we now speak. --

( 151 )

For having too much of this religion, Paul censured the Athenians, "I perceive," said he, "that in all things ye are too religious," in the common version, "too superstitious." To say the least, then, it is talking very much at random to say that one "has got religion," and it is a very vague address to exhort one to get religion. The term religion requires an epithet to give it any definite meaning. Hence the Apostle James says, "Pure and undefiled religion (as respects the practice, for of this he speaks,) before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless, and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted by the vices in the world." But the term religion is often used to denote a set of opinions and practices that resjpect a Supreme. Thus we have the Pagan religion and the Mahomedan religion. There are pious pagans and devout musselmen, in their own way. Opinions of Deity or deities, and practices addressed to him or them, according to those opinions constitute religion in this sense. In every religion there is a God acknowledged, and certain rights supposed to belong to him. Those who sincerely acknowledge those rights, and respect them are called pious. From the days of the "Pius Eneas" yea, and long before, down to a pious Turk, common opinion has so decided. In this respect all religions in the world are "the same" or similar. Mr. M. might find many arguments to prove that the Pagan, the Mahomedan, and Jew's religion, are one and the same. It is true he would have to acknowledge they were not precisely the same; but, in that respect, "no two things in the world are the same."

The affixing of one epithet to religion, if there were not another, implies two kinds at least. The epithets true, pure, sound applied to religion, imply that there may be false religion, an impure, and unsound religion. Saul of Tarsus, when a Christian, said "You have heard of my conversation in the Jews' religion," and how I profited in the Jews' religion above many of my equals, Gal. i. 13, 14. Now this fairly implied that he was not at the time of writing this, of the Jews' religion; he was of another religion, a religion now called the Christian. But Mr. M. would have told Paul that his former religion and his present religion were "one and the same religion." For "the Jewish society and the Christian society are

( 152 )

one and the same society, or church" because "they had the same religion!!" Paul, at another time, said in the presence of a king -- "after the strictest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee." But he renounced his own religion or that of his nation, and they persecuted him for teaching another religion; fools that they were! had Mr. M. been there be would have told them he was preaching "one and the same religion!!"

But lest we should encroach too close upon this argument for "identity" with differences attached to it, we would observe that all the human race that have entered life, have been saved by virtue of the sacrifce of Christ; whether patriarchs, Jews, or Christians; whether adults, infants, or idiots. But that they all understood the mature, design, and meaning of the Messiah's death, I presume, not Mr. M. himself will affirm. If this be admitted, as we know it must, on principles already stated, then it will follow that there was a very important difference betwixt the religion of Patriarchs, Jews, and Christians, on a very fundamental point. Our views of the nature and design of Christ's death, affects our whole religion. But I fearlessly affirm, though this controversy does not require it, for it can be maintained on other ground; I say, I affirm that the nature and design of Christ's death, although prophesied of, and typified in the Patriarchal, and Jews' religion, was not understood by the Jews or patriarchs. They all, who died in faith, expected the Messiah and anticipated glorious things in his reign, but they had no distinct apprehension of them. Nor was it necessary they should, in order to [--] their salvation, any more than it is necessary for infants to understand the sacrifice of Christ in order to their salvation. The righteous ancients were saved by implicitly believing what God revealed to them -- Thus Abraham, the father of the faithful, Was justified by believing the promise," So shall thy seed be." Noah's faith is described by Paul as a belief that God would save him, and destroy his cotemporaries by a deluge. -- By faith was the harlot Rahab justified in receiving the spies in peace. By faith Moses when he was come to years of maturity, refused to he called the son of Pharaoh's daughter. For "faith" in general terms, "is the substance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things

( 153 )

not seen." The Jews, to a man, expected a triumphant and victorious Saviour; they never thought of a suffering and crucified one. Hence the general infidelity of the times respecting the humble one who claimed the honor due to the Son of God. Hence the difficulty to convince his disciples that it behooved the Messiah first to suffer, and then to be glorified. The Apostles themselves, had no more idea of being saved by the death of the Messiah, until it was accomplished, than I now have of being saved by religious penances. The four evangelists are proof of this.

Before we affirm or deny any thing concerning religion, we must first determine what the thing is. If religion means the acknowledgment of one God, then all who have acknowledged one God have the same religion. -- Jews, ancient and modern, Mahomedans, and Christians, on this principle, have one and the same religion. -- For these all acknowledge one God. Again, if being saved in one way constitutes religion, then Patriarchs, Jews, Christians, infants whether of Pagans, Mahomedans, or Christians, and idiots, if any such are saved, had all one and the same religion. For all that are saved, are saved by the death of Christ. If offering to heaven prayers and thanksgivings constitute one religion, then Pagans, Mahomedans, Jews, and Christians have one religion. If offering sacrifices to a Supreme Being constitutes religion, then all Pagans as well as Jews have had one and the same religjon.

Again, if coincidence in one, or two, or a number of religious opinions and ptactices, notwithstanding many differences, constitutes one and the same religion, then all religious nations and individuals, from Noah to the present day, have had one and the same religion. For all nations and individuals have agreed in one, two, or a number of religious opinions and practices, notwithstanding many differences.

But if even a belief of the same leading doctrines, and a coincidence in the same leading religious practices are all that is necessary to constitute one and the same religion, then there never were two forms of religion one and the same. No, on this principle, the Jewish and Christian religions are essentially different. One of the essential constituents of the Christian religion is,

( 154 )

yea, the essential attribute of it is, a belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God. This no man from Adam to John the Baptist believed. Now we say that he that disbelieves this New Testament fact is not a Christian; but he maybe a Jew, a Mahomedan, or a Pagan. For all that disbelieved it, when first proven, were debarred the Christian community. Again, a second primary essential attribute of the Christian faith is, that Jesus the Messiah made, a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, Gentiles as well as Jews. This, no man from Adam to John the Baptist believed; nor could they, for it was not revealed. A third, that Jesus, the Messiah, after he had made this propitiation, was buried and rose again the third day in the same body. This, no man from Adam to John the Baptist believed; nor could they, for it was not revealed. As proof of this, if it is admissible to attempt to prove that the sun shines when its beams fill our eyes, we would remark that so soon as any one believed these essential doctrines of Christianity, so soon the members of the Jewish church cast him out as an apostate from their religion. That it is one thing to expect a Messiah, and another to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is he, and not "one and the same thing," the excommunication of all Jews from the Jewish church that believed in Jesus, by those who expected a Messiah, is a proof, a proof irrefragible.

Again, if baptizing a person in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit be necessary to the constitution of a person a disciple of Christ, or, if the celebration of the Lord's death be a practice essential to a professed Christian, none of the Jews having participated in these ordinances, from Moses to the death of Messiah, can be considered as professing one and the same religion with Christians.

To affirm that the Jewish and Christian religions are one and the same religion is not only a logical error, for no two things are one and the same, but it is a theological error that shocks all common sense. To say that the Jewish circumcision, altars, priests, sacrifices, oblations, tabernacle, festivals, holy days, new-moons, jubilees, tythes, lents, temples, timbrels, harps, cornels, vestments, views, feelings, prayers, praises, &c. &c. constitute one and the same religion with Christian faith,

( 155 )

hope, charity, baptism, and the supper, is as absurd as to say, that the human body and the soul are one and the same thing, and to, attempt to disprove it, by serious argument, is like to disproving flesh and spirit to be one and the same thing. To say that because they were types of the Christian religion, therefore they are one and the same, is similar to saying that because Canaan was a type of heaven, and Jerusalem a type of the heavenly city, therefore Canaan and heaven are one and the same place, therefore the Jerusalem in Canaan, and the heavenly Jerusalem are one and the same city.

And to affirm, as Mr. M. does, that they were different in some respects destroys his whole argument, for if different in some respects, we then say they were different in this, that baptism and circumcision were different in their nature, manner of operation, subjects, and design, and so at last the whole argument is lost, and comes down to a controversy on this one point. For if I should admit they were similar in all other respects, but different in this, then he has lost all his pains and is obliged to dispute this one point. So that his plan is as injudicious as his arguments are inconclusive.

In the last place on this topic, to say that they are the same in substance, helps the matter nothing, for a house, a table, a chair, may be all of wood; that is made of the same substance. To say that the Jews and Christian religion because substantially the same, are one and the same, is as absurd as to say, that because a house, a table, and a chair, are subitantially the same, therefore a table, a chair, and a house, are one and the same thing.

Mr. M. argues the identity of the two churches from the circumstance of their being both called the olive tree. As he has laid so much stress on this circumstance, we shall just advert to it at present. The scope and meaning of this paragraph so often attended to, and which is so fully examined in my Debate with Mr. Walker, pages 27-30, begining with the 16th verse of Rom xi. is well given by Macknight, in his paraphrase of the first clause of this verse "For if the first Jewish believers have been accepted of God, the whole nation will be sowhen they believe."

[On the stage we read and commented on the whole passage in Macknight's translation, which is too tedious

( 156 )

for insertion here, we shall give the substance at another time.]

Mr. M. should remember that the Jews and Gentiles now stand by faith, not by natural relationship, and this would correct his views of the whole passage.

Mr. M. again resumed his notes: -- "Thou standest by faith." Mr. C. would have to be a refutation of my argument from Rom. xi. But if there he but one faith, as well as one Lord, the Jews, before Christ possessed this one faith and stood by it, as well as the Jews or Gentiles since the Christian epoch. This may be safely said of all the faithful of the seed of Abraham: they stood by faith and were saved by faith. By faith too in the great gospel facts exhibited to them in type. Mr. C. would represent that there have been almost as many different faiths as saints in the Old Testament. Abraham had one faith, Noah another, Enoch another, Moses another. Strange indeed! But Paul said these all died in faith: in what faith? In that faith which is the substance of things hoped and the evidence of things not seen.

But to proceed. The term vineyard is a term applied to the Jewish and Christian states of the church. In Isaiah the house of Israel is called a vineyard. "Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful field: and he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein; and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: and I will lay it waste: it shall

( 157 )

not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns; I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry." Is. v. 1-7. Here the house of Israel is called the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, and for their corruptions they are threatened with losing their high state of privilege. But let us hear the Redeemer of Israel on this same topic, "Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: and when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, they will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, this is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? -- They say unto him, he will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their season." Matt. xxi. 33-41. Here we find the most striking proof of the identity of the two societies. -- Here is one vineyard and two sets of husbandmen. -- The two sorts of husbandmen represent the two sorts or classes of occupants and servants, that should have the rule and management of this vineyard or church. The Jewish teachers, doubtless, had the care of the vineyard, or Jewish church, and the Jewish people had the privileges of it. These were the husbandmen

( 158 )

that defrauded the proprietor of the vineyard, and finally killed his son. He takes the vineyard from those husbandmen, those occupants of the church, he unchurches them; but the same church state he gives to others who will bring forth fruits, and will thus correspond in their lives with a visible church state. Look again at the metaphors of the parable, the vineyard, the husbandmen, the proprietor's son; the fruits or vintage, the husbandmen's killing him, the vineyard taken from them, and given to other husbandmen. See how facts accord with these metaphors. A vineyard planted, hedged and digged -- beautiful emblem of the Jewish visible church state, The husbandmen enter into the enjoyment of the vineyard -- the Jews were born into these privileges. The prophets sent unto them, were the servants sent to demand of the people, the occupants, fruits suitable to this state. They persecuted them. They beat Jeremiah, killed Isaiah, and stoned Zechariah, son of Jehoiada in the temple. The Proprietor's Son, the Saviour Jesus, the heir, who was entitled to all the fruits of this vineyard, they killed him with the intention of possessing the inheritance and abusing it for their own base purposes. We all know who took the lead in the crucifixion of the Son: the chief priests and elders of the people together with many of the nation. Again, we see the Jews turned out, the hedge torn down, the winepress demolished, the Gentiles called, and thus the visible church state given to them. These facts show that the interpretation is true.

The prophecy connected with this parable has been precisely accomplished. The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. So the fact is. The visible church state enjoyed by the Jews has been taken from them and given to the Gentiles.

The term commonwealth is virtually applied to both the Jewish and Christian societies. "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the

( 159 )

flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." -- Eph. ii. 11-13. The Gentiles were once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and they were once strangers from the covenants of promise. But now, in Christ Jesus, the Gentiles who were once so far off, from this commonwealth and those covenants, are made nigh; so much so, that the Apostle adds, he, to-wit, Christ, hath made both Jews and Gentiles one; that is one commonwealth: having broken down the middle wall of partition that was between them. So that with propriety it may be said that the same inspired name commonwealth has been appropriated to both societies.

Again they are both called brethren, Ps. xxii. 22. "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I sing praises unto thee." Now Paul, Heb. ii. 11, 12, quotes the same words and applies them to the Christian church -- thus, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." And, indeed, in the next verse the Christians are called children: this same one saith, "Behold I and the children whom God hath given me." And the Lord by Jeremiah, (iii. 4.) says to the Jews, "Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, my Father, thou art the guide of my youth." This is, in effect the same as calling them children. Thus the members of the visible church under both dispensations, have been called the same brethren, and the same children.

They are both called Zion, Is. xlix. 14-23. In this beautiful passage, observe particularly verse 20th, two classes of children are spoken of. The one class are represented as being lost to Zion, and the other class are represented as having been placed in their stead.

( 160 )

"The children which thou shalt have, the Gentiles, after thou hast lost the other, the Jews, shalt say again in thine ears (O Zion the mother of both the one and the other,) the place is too strait for me, give place to me that I may dwell." The great increase of members to Zion from amongst the Gentiles is here strikingly exhibited. Observe, however, it is the same Zion or church, who is thus addressed; and who, after the numerous accessions she receives from the calling of the Gentiles, thus exclaims; -- "Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive and removing to and fro? And who hath brought up these? Behold I was left alone; these, where have they been? The Gentiles, saith the Lord, shall bring thy sons in their arms and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders." Nothing can more clearly represent the doctrine taught in the allusion to the olive tree, and the other passages quoted from the New Testament.

Mr. C. read you Macknight's translation of the passage quoted from Rom. xi. and would represent it as differing from my views, but I see nothing gained from him; fanciful as he is, he agrees with me on this topic.

On this part of the subject we shall merely state a fact, and a very forcible one. The disciples of Christ, whom he called to be his attendants, his eye and ear witnesses, and whom he afterwards called Apostles, were all Jews and members of the Jewish church. In this church they continued their membership during his whole life time. In it they ate the Lord's Supper after they had eaten the Jewish passover. After his ascension into heaven, we find them in the temple mingling with the Jews; and on the day of Pentecost they appear in the same church, acting as ministers. No man can show when, or by whom, they were cut off from this church. And if not, doubtless the Christian church is a mere continuation of the Jewish. We hope to resume this position in the morning.

Thus ended the second day. -- Adjourned to meet next morning at 10 o'clock.

( 161 )

Third day. -- Met at 11 o'clock, in a large meeting house belonging to the Baptists, the weather having become colder. The rev. Mr. Lyle opened, the proceedings of the day with prayer. -- I proposed to Mr. M. through the moderators, to take if necessary, two hours to finish his second argument, on condition that an equal portion of time would be allowed me to review it. The moderates referred the overture, to Mr. M. who refused compliance with the measure:

I then proceeded: -- My friends; Having proved my first position, "that a believer is the only subject of baptism," I now proceed to the second, viz. "that immersion is the only baptism." Mr. M. and I both agree that the element to be used in this ordinance is water. But whether the subject is to be brought to the water, or water to the subject; or whether the subject is to be immersed in water, or water sprinkled, or poured upon the subject, is the question to be controverted. The scriptures either afford us the means of determining this point, or they do not. If they do, then there is only one way of administering this ordinance acceptable unto God and profitable unto men. If they do not, it is a matter of perfect indifference, and of equal import, whether water be sprinkled upon the face, or poured into the mouth, or applied to the hands, the feet, or the whole body. If the scriptures do not determine this point, it is either because the Instituton of baptism could not, or would not determine it. If he could not determine it, it could only be in consequence of the impossibility of finding a word in the language in which he spake, of sufficient precision, of fixed meaning, of definite import to express the action he designed to have performed. -- This might have been the case in some languages which are exceedingly barren. But it is admitted on all hands that the Greek language, which was the language chosen by the Founder of Christianity, in which to reveal the way of life to all nations, was the most copious and the most definite language ever spoken. The reason of this is found in the people that spake it. For the language of every people is similar to themselves. Nations uncultivated, like individuals, have but few ideas, and consequently few words. But the Greeks, were the most philosophical,

( 162 )

the most shrewd, captious, inquisitive, religious, and eloquent nation that ever existed. Forty thousand gods were acknowledged at one time in Greece. How many ideas would so many divinities acknowledged introduce! How many disputes, sects, and opinions would they give rise to!

With respect to the various uses of that most useful element water, they had a variety of terms corresponding to those uses. The following words and their compounds were in common usage amongst the people, and, indeed, most of them in common usage in the Septuagint of the Old Testament, and in the Greek of the New. Raino, Rantizo, Cheo, Echeo, Nipto, Louo, Pluno, Bapto, and Baptizo, Agnize, Kathairo, and some others of less note. Now all these words are used with a reference to the application of water for various purposes. Some of these words express different actions, and others the same action with regard to different objects. Now, in so many words used in reference to water, is there not one of them of such definite import as to determine one particular application or use of water? This would be an unparalleled circumstance. We shall take the English Bible and its translators for evidence in this case. I have here written down three hundred and seventy six references to the original scriptures. After a most minute investigation of every portion from Genesis to Revelation in the original scriptures, and the common version, I think I may safely affirm, that not one place has been overlooked.

In the English Old, and New Testament the word sprinkle occurs sixty-two times. The word pour, and its derivatives, one hundred and fifty-two times. To wash and its derivatives, one hundred and thirty-nine times. To dip with its derivatives, twenty-two times. To plunge, once. Now the question that determines the point is, did the translators, in one instance translate the same word, to sprinkle, and to dip. We positively say no. Another question may be asked as conclusive as the former, viz. Did they ever, in one instance, translate the same word as signifying to dip and to pour? We positively answer No. Bapto and Baptizo are never translated either to sprinkle, or to pour. Again, Raino and Rantizo are never once translated to dip, immerse, or

( 163 )

plunge. This shows, that in the judgment of the translators these words were so definitely expressive of certain actions that they never could be translated into our language by one and the same word. To sprinkle is one action, to dip is another action. Sprinkling and pouring are actions so nigh to each other, and in effect so much the same, that Raino and the compounds of Cheo, are both translated sprinkle. But so impassable the gulf between either pouring or sprinkling and dipping that never once is either raino, or cheo, louo, or nipto, or pluno translated dip, immerse, or plunge.

In the judgment, therefore, of the translators of the scriptures, our Saviour could have got a word so definite in its meaning as to express one action to the exclusion of two others at least: that is, he could have got the word baptizo which never was translated and never signified to sprinkle or to pour, and therefore sufficiently definite for this purpose. Again, if he had fixed upon sprinkling or pouring, he could have got words that never were translated, and never signified to dip, or immerse, and thus forever have debarred dipping or immersing.

Remember, my friends, that we said, if the Saviour has not determined whether believers are to be sprinkled or immersed, it must have been either because he could not, from the ambiguity of that language in which he spake, or because he would not. We have shown that he could if he had pleased: if then it is not determined it is because he would not. Let us also test this principle.

If he would not, then his wisdom and philanthropy would have led him to have found a word that could not be understood as referring to any particular use of water. He would have adopted not cheo, lest pouring should be thought to be the action he intended; not raino, lest sprinkling should have been practised; not baptizo, lest dipping should have been supposed to be his desire; but he would have adopted a word that respected no action in particular, such as agnizo to purify, or kathairo to cleanse, in any method of applying water. The inevitable conclusion from these plain considerations and facts is, that as he did not adopt an indefinite term, he did not command an indefinite action to be performed; and as he did not use a word definitely signified to sprinkle or pour, he did not

( 164 )

command those actions to be performed; but as he adopted a word that definitely signified to dip, or immerse, he commanded definitely this action, and this only to be performed.

The term wash and its derivatives washed and washing, are as frequently in our language, and in Greek, the name of the effect of an action performed, as they are of the action itself. Accordingly we find the word wash an ambiguous term in our language, as far as the manner of washing is regarded. The term wash and its derivatives occur one hundred and thirty nine times in the scriptures. In our translation it is found in connexion with the hands, feet, face, body, clothes, garments, and a variety of other articles which make its occurrence frequent and indefinite. Not so however in Greek. -- Of these one hundred and thirty nine times wash in English, it is nipto thirty-eight times, louo forty-nine times, pluno forty-four times, and bapto five times. So that the Greek is much more definite in the use of this term than the English. Nipto is generally applied to the hands, feet, or face; pluno, to polluted clothes or garments, or other polluted substances; louo to the whole body, and of the five times which bapto is translated wash or washing, it is as the effect of dipping. -- Such as when Paul was commanded to be baptized or immersed, to wash away his sins -- here washing is an effect ascribed to immersion or baptism.

That Mr. M. may have the fairest opportunity of detecting me, if imposing on you false criticisms, I would inform him that I have the above mentioned three hundred and seventy-six references in this manuscript, with the words in construction with those mentioned. I will therefore lay myself completely open to detection in the following specifications.

I. Sprinkle and its derivatives, occur 62 times in the Old and New Testament: 31 times it is raino, 23 times the compounds of cheo; 8 times other words but not once bapto or baptizo.

II. To pour with its derivatives occurs 152 times. 94 times it is cheo and its compounds, 53 times other words and phrases. Of these there are 27 varieties, but not once bapto or baptizo.

III. To wash occurs 139 times -- 19 times nipto, face,

( 165 )

hands, or feet. 49 times louo, the body; 44 times pluno, garments, or such like. 5 times bapto or baptizo the effect of immersion, 3 times cheo and chruzo metaphorically.

IV. To dip, occurs with its derivalives, 22 times. -- Once it is moluno, properly to stain, as when Joseph's coat was stained, our translation, dipped in the blood of a kid. It is 21 times bapto and baptizo. Never once raino, cheo, nipto, louo, pluno, or any of their compounds, or derivatives.

V. To plunge, occurs but once, and there it is bapto.

VI. Tebel in the Hebrew Old Testament occurs 17 times. In the Septuagint it is 16 times translated by bapto or baptizo, once by moluno, to dye. Junius and Tremmelius translate it 16 times by tingo, immergo, and demergo; and it is translated 16 times in English by dip and plunge, once by dyed.

The result of the above investigation is briefly this, that as the Institutor of baptism selected a word the most definite in the language to express his will, and that word signifying literally to dip or immerse, his will is, that a disciple should be immersed in water and not sprinkled with water.

If Mr. M. impugns this criticism we have a great variety of documents to present in suppjrt of it; but in the meantime shall only read a criticism or two from Drs. Campbell and Macknight, and Father Simon, a Jesuit. Campbell and Macknight, whom my opponent without any ceremony sent to the infernal regions, were distinguished brethren of his own church. But because they were honest men, in this instance, in acknowledging that bapto and baptiso ought to have been translated immerse, and that baptism, is immersion, Mr. M. would place them amongst hypocrites and unbelievers as you have heard. [Here I read from Campbell's preface a large extract, too long for insertion, indicative of the excellence of his character.] The following extract from Campbell's preliminary dissertations confirms the remarks we have made:

"The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies, to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin Fathers,

( 166 )

tingere, the term used for dying cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning -- thus it is, enudati, en to Jardane. But I should not lay much stress on the preposition en, which answering to the Hebrew beth, may denote with as well in, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. Accordingly the baptized are said anabainein, to arise, emerge or ascend, verse 16, apo tou udatos -- and Acts viii. 39, ek tou udatos, from or out of the water. Let it be observed farther, that the verbs raino and rantizo used in scripture for sprinkling, are never construed in this manner. I will sprinkle you with clean water, saith God, Ezek. xxxvi. 25. or as it runs in the English Bible literally from the Hebrew: I will sprinkle clean water upon you, in the Septuagint -- Raino eph'umas kalharon udon, and not as baptizo is always construed Rano umas en katharo udati. See, also, Exodus xxix, 21: Lev. vi. 27 and xvi. 14. Had baptizo been here employed in the sense of raino, I sprinkle, which as far as I know, it never is, in any use, sacred or classical,) the expression would, doubtless, have been, Ego men baptizo eph umas udor, or apo toa udatos, agreeably to the examples referred to. When, therefore, the Greek word baptizo, is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved, so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted, that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgement to be warped by lthe sentiments and CUSTOMS of the SECT which they prefer. The true partizan of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the spirit by that of that party." -- Diss. vol. iv. p. 24,

Dr. Macknight declares, vol. i p. 81. "Castalio has misrepresented the meaning of scripture, in translating baptizo by lavo to wash, and baptisma by lotto, a trashing." In his notes he frequently declares that baptism is immersion, and that it ought so to be administered. -- Rom. vi. 4-6, on which he remarks, "Christ submitted to be baptized -- i. e. to be buried under the water by John, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of his future death and resurrection." Other extracts to the same effect were read.

( 167 )

Simon the Jesuit, on Matt. iii. 11, in his translation from the Vulgate, observes, "To baptize literally signifies to dip; and to this day, throughout the east, baptism is performed no other way, according to the ancient practice of the Christians." These three modern translators with other Paido-baptist critics to whom we shall refer, coincide with our previous remarks. -- Yes, all Protestant and Catholic critics of eminence concede this point that immersion is the proper meaning of baptism, and that it does not signify sprinkling or pouring. Our first argument in proof of the position that immersion is the only baptism is that the word baptism, a Greek word, literally signifies immersion only, or what is equivalent to it, dipping or submersing under water. Blackstone says, that in interpreting all laws, words are to be taken literally, or in their common acceptation.

Mr. M. again began: -- Mr. C. has got far a-head of me. He is already done with the subject of baptism and has introduced the mode. We travel slowly; but I hope surely. His last address will be noticed in its proper place. I wish you to keep in mind one assertion he made in his last speech, viz. That Calvin and Beza were the first who taught that baptism was called circumcision. This we shall disprove in its proper place.

I came here my friends, to defend the Paido-baptist world from the charges of our opponent. In defending them from his imputations, I proposed first to give you a Divine command for infant baptism. [Here was a long recapitulation of his method and progress.] I have been lately engaged in proving that the two societies were one and the same church. First, because they had the same religion and morality. Secondly, because they had the same inspired names. For instance, they were called the same bride, house, flock, barn, floor, vineyard, kingdom, commonwealth, olive tree, brethren, treasure, Zion, and by other names equally applicable to both societies, and indicative of their identity.

I come now, in the last place under this head to

( 168 )

show that both societies had one and the same covenant.

A covenant is essential to a church state. A people cannot be associated into a visible form or society, but upon some grounds, or upon some associating principle, and for some proposed end. This is as true in the state as in the church. In the state there is a certain instrument adopted and recognized as formative of the social compact. This is called the constitution, in which the grand principles are asserted on which the people unite, and in subordination to which, they profess a willingness to be regulated or governed. The end proposed, if not always expressed, is always understood: it is the welfare of the people. Now a covenant bears the same relation to the church, as a constitution does to the state. Indeed we may very consistently, both with the nature of things, and also with the import of the original word translated covenant, call it the constitution of the church. As the body politic, called the state, is inseparably and essentially connected with, nay, built upon, its constitution, so the church is indissolubly and necessarily connected with, or built upon its constitution. A number of persons united under a constitution promising temporal benefits, prescribing certain rules, enforcing certain duties necc ssary to the present welfare of society, is called a state, a nation, cr a kingdom. In like manner a number of persons united under a constitution, promising spiritual benefits, prescribing certain rules, and enforcing certain duties necessary to the spiritual and eternal welfare of the society thus associated, is called the church or kingdom of Jesus Christ. Destroy the constitution and the state is destroyed; the bond of union is severed, the union is dissolved. Change the constitution and the state is changed, it is new modified, and cemented upon new principles. If then we change the covenant or constitution, we change the church. This is, we presume admitted on all sides. These things premised, and it is evident that if the covenant on which

( 169 )

the Christian society is constituted into a visible church be the same as that on which the seed of Abraham was constituted into a visible church, then the Jewish and ths Christian societies having one and the same covenant, are one and the same church.

Now let us enquire what was the covenant which the church of Israel had, which constituted them a visible church of God. In ascertaining this I will unhesitatingly say, that it was not the Sinaitic covenant, for God had before that time promised to be a God to the seed of Abraham, and that they should become his people. The Sinaitic covenant we admit at once was done away, but in admitting this, we are prepared to prove that this was not the covenant which united Israel as a church. Mr. C. in his Debate with Mr. Walker, labored to show that the Sinaitic covenant was done away. If Mr. W. viewed the Sinaitic covenant as the covenant on which the Jewish church was founded, he was doubtless mistaken, and the triumph gained over him by my opponent, on that view of the matter, does not affect our argument in the least. For instance, the following passage from the Debate at Mount-Pleasant represents Mr. W. as holding the covenant at Sinai to be the constitution of that church. [Here Mr. M. read extracts, pp. 38, 39, too long for insertion here.]

The covenant which is done away, and with which, the new covenant is contrasted is the Sinaitic covenant. Let us hear the Apostle, "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with, them, he saith, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in

( 170 )

my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." -- Heb. viii. 6-13. Here you observe the new covenant is contrasted with that covenant made with Israel, in the time when God took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; that is, when they came to Sinai.

The Apostle also, in his Epistle to the Galatians, thus speaks: (iv. 22-31.) "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabu and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not

( 171 )

children of the bondwoman, but of the free." Here the covenant at Sinai is plainly said to be done away. Observe that Hagar denotes the Sinaitic covenant, and Sarah the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant, being everlasting in its nature, and prior in its establishment to the Sinaitic covenant, is here fitly contrasted to a covenant that was but temporary in its nature, and subsequent to it, in its publication. The Abrahamic covenant is by Moses, Deut. v. 3, 4, plainly distinguished from the covenant at Horeb. -- The latter being made with the whole nation of Israel, and the former with the father of many nations. Moses saith, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all here alive until this day." The Abrahamic covenant differs not only in the allegory of the Apostle from the Sinaitic, which is compared to Hagar the bond-woman; but also the Apostle distinguishes them in point of date: the former being 430 years prior to the latter. The nature and tendency of the two covenants are also contrasted by the Apostle in the same passage. The former engenders liberty, the spirit and disposition of sons and heirs; the latter produces the spirit of bondage, the disposition of slaves. The blessing of all nations by a remission of their sins was promised in the Abrahamic covenant, but this greatest of blessings was not promised in the Sinaitic, consequently they are not the same covenant.

The covenant made with Abraham is, then, the covenant on which the Christian church is founded, and on this the Jews were constituted a peculiar people, "made the people of God. The Abrahamic covenant may therefore, with the greatest propriety, be called an ecclesiastical covenant.

That this covenant still exists, and that it is an ecclesiastical covenant is capable of the fullest proof. That it never has been abolished might be sufficient to prove that it still exists, and if any person affirms that it is abolished, let the proof be adduced. This is

( 172 )

indisputable: for, inasmuch, as it must be admitted that it once existed, it therefore must exist unless abolished. No such evidence exists.

Not only the calling of this covenant an everlasting covenant is positive proof of its perpetuity, but the very nature of the covenant demonstrates that it is perpetual. Let me ask what is the nature of a covenant. I answer, promises and requirements. These are essential to a covenant. What then were the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. I answer, in general terms, they were both temporal and spiritual. "I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee," is a most comprehensive promise, including things temporal and spiritual. Jesus Christ was promised in it. "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Thus, the gospel was preached unto Abraham, the same gospel which is preached unto us. The requirements also of this covenant are invariably the same. When God promised to be a God to Abraham, it was required that he would receive the Lord as his God. -- When a Redeemer was promised, it was required that he would believe in him. When circumcision was enjoined upon him, that of which it was emblematical was required viz. the circumcision of the heart. These requirements continue to exist, consequently the covenant which originated them still continues to exist. That this covenant was ecclesiastical in its very nature appears from the fact that it necessarily separated the seed of Abraham into a church, and also even under another dispensation has necessarily formed a church not of Jews only but of Gentiles. Hence Zacharias saith Luke, i. 72, 73. that the blessings of the New Testament were a performance of the mercy promised to Abraham. His words are, "To perform the mercy promised unto our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware unto our father Abraham."

I then arose: -- As Mr. M. is now coming to the of the proof of his second position, and as there is some

( 173 )

hope that this part of his argument will soon be finished, I think it inexpedient, in the meantime, to pursue the topic introduced in my last address. And having now heard the last item to be alleged by Mr. M. in proof of the identity of the two churches, and this item being sufficiently detached from the preceding two, I shall just strike in with him here. He has, you see, utterly declined to be my respondent, I will therefore become his respondent, and attack him, hoping that I will have all the privileges of a respondent granted to me. The preceding items will be adverted to in due time. As the last is quite distinct from the preceding it affords me a proper commencement.

There is one disadvantage I wish to apprise you of, inseparable from the predicament in which I am placed. My subsequent addresses, for a time, must often be distributed into three parts, One part will always be a reply to the speech of my opponent immediately preceding; another part will be a review of such parts of his argument, yet behind; in consequence of my having till now, as far as possible, gone on with the proof of the positions which he was obliged to impugn. I hope, however, soon to surmount this difficulty. The third part of my addresses will, as far as practicable, be devoted to the full establishment of the points yet remaining to be proven, and for the proof of which I stand pledged, I shall only add, on this occasion, that I am very much mistaken if my opponent's course in this discussion will not manifest that he was conscious in his own breast before it commenced, that he could not act the part of a respondent; that he was not able to refute the arguments to be adduced, and therefore projected this easy course of reading, and commenting on, the gleanings of his leisure hours; and thus, on the cheapest terms, acquire the fame of having so many days defended the Paido-baptist world.

Mr. M. has asserted that the covenant, or constitution of both churches is one and the same; that this covenant is the Abrahamic, and that this Abrahamic covenant was an "ecclesiastical covenant." Circuitous and intricate are the paths of error. What a labor, what a toil to establish infant membership! The rev. Samuel Ralston it seems borrowed this ecclesiastical covenant from

( 174 )

Dr. John Mason, and Mr. M. appears to have borrowed it from father Ralston. What a valuable acquisition! How much more are we indebted to philosophical divines for their discoveries, than to that Spirit of revelation that guided the tongues and the pens of the holy Apostles! The old and the new covenant were the covenants on which the Apostles wrote and talked. They, poor simple and unlettered men, never used such phrases as the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, the ecclesiastic covenant. No, it was reserved to the age of reason, to unfold the covenant of works and of grace; and, to the last century, together with the urgent demands of infant sprinkling, are we indebted for this last discovery, this ecclesiastic covenant. But where this covenant may be found, my antagonist has not condescended to inform us. We shall then, as a favor, request him to specify where this covenant may be found. Is it in the xii. xv. or xvii. chapters of Genesis? Till then we must merely conjecture. In our Appendix to the Debate at Mount Pleasant we were somewhat particular in fixing the meaning of the term covenant, as used in the holy scripture. Mr. M. so often as he has referred to that Debate, has not called in question the facts there stated The term diatheka is there exhibited as signifying, either appointment, constitution, covenant, or testament, and it is there proven from matter of fact; that promises and commands are called covenants. The scriptures on this subject are very plain. They speak of a plurality of covenants belonging to the Jews. There was the "covenant confirmed of God in relation to Christ" 430 years before the giving of the law; and there was the "covenant of circumcision" 24 years after the former. There was the covenant at Horeb, 430 years after the covenant confirmed of God in relation to Christ. Here are three covenants, The latter Mr. M. has discarded as that covenant on which the Christian church is founded, but which of the two former is his ecclesiastical covenant, he saith not.

The law given at Sinai is called a covenant by Moses and by Paul, the two tables on which that law was written are called by Paul (Heb. ix. 4) the tables of the covenant; and the ark in which these two tables were deposited is called the ark of the covenant. That there

( 175 )

was a plurality of covenants made with Abraham, and therefore pertaining to his seed, Paul himself affirms, (Rom. ix. 4.) "Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption and the giving of the law (the covenant at Horeb,) and the covenants, whose are also the fathers." Besides, and prior to the covenant at Sinai, there was a plurality of covenants. Now if we should say there were three covenants, or only two covenants made with Abraham, it affects this question in a similar manner. -- If we should call the transaction mentioned in the xv. chapter of Genesis a covenant, it alters not the distinction between the covenant of God in relation to Christ, made 430 years before the giving of the law, and the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham when 99 years old. The distinguishing characteristic of the covenant, Gen. xii. is the promise of blessing all nations in the seed of Abraham. And the prominent blessing mentioned iu Gen. xv and xvii is the inheritance of Canaan and the multiplication of the posterity of Abraham. Circumcision was not attached to the promise in Gen. xii. but to that in Gen. xvii. 24 or 25 years afterwards. These are plain and obvious facts, we conceive, unassailable. They at once prostrate in the dust my opponent's scheme.

But there was no church constituted on the former or first covenant with Abraham: nor indeed on the second. Israel were never constituted into a church state until the covenant at Sinai, nor were the people ever called a church until that covenant was given. Now if Mr. M. calls the covenant recorded Gen. xii. an ecclesiastical covenant, when Paul called it the covenant of God in reference to Christ, he disparages the wisdom of the Spirit of God; and if he build the Jewish church upon it, he destroys the grand peculiarity of it, which exhibits it as bearing an equal aspect to all families of the earth, Gentiles as well as Jews. If he build his Jewish church upon the covenant recorded Gen. xvii. then he cannot agree that the Christian church and Jewish are the same; for the promises contained in that covenant belong not to the Christian church. But if he should still adhere to that covenant, we shall shew that it shared the same fate with the Sinaitic. In the meantime, that we may come to close and definite terms, let

( 176 )

him tell us definitely, where his ecclesiastic covenant may be found.

Of Mr. M's. address this is the sum: -- That the covenant made with Abraham is one and undivided, though consisting of different promises will appear obvious from many testimonies of holy scripture. Deut, v. 31, "The Lord thy God will not forget the covenant of the fathers." Here all the promises made to Abraham are comprised in one covenant. Indeed the same singular form of expression is not peculiar to the Old Testament, we find it in the New, (Luke i. 72.) -- To remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to Abraham, (Acts, iii. 25.) "Ye are the children of the covenant which God made with our fathers." In these and many other passages the coveant is represented under the idea of unity. For although God often appeared to Abraham and frequently renewed and enlarged the promises made to him, he ultimately, when he offered up his son Isaac, consolidated them into one covenant and confirmed the whole by an oath. Circumcision was attached to this covenant as a seal and token; and this was a confirmation of it to every one who became a subject of circumcision. For in the affixing of circumcision to this covenant there was a renewal of all the promises to Abraham, and the specifications were so definite and so comprehensive as to preclude mistake.

If we should suppose that because God appeared at sundry times to Abraham, and spake to him at every interview of these promises, he always made a distinct covenant with him, the number of covenants would he agumented to seven or eight, for he appeared to him so often. -- The promise of a numerous posterity was made to him seven different times; the land of Canaan four times, the promise that all nations should be blessed in him was three times explicitly declared. But reason and scripture concur in viewing these as parts of one grand covenant, and this was the covenant on which the Jewish church was built.

( 177 )

For, let me ask what was necessary to the happiness of this people as a church that was not contained in this covenant? What greater or more comprehensive promise could there be than this "I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee?" This pomise necessarily associated them under the wings of the Almighty, and guaranteed to them every blessing in time and to eternity. To be a God unto a people, is to be every thing desirable; protection, safety, comfort and salvation are comprehended in it. Again, the promise of Canaan was to them literally a promise of all earthly good, and, typically, to the faithful among them, it was a promise of heaven. For to them who believed in the promises of that covenant heavenly things were manifested through the types; but to the carnal and unbelieving nothing that was spiritual either appeared or was desired. We argue, then, that from the very items specified in this covenant and particularly from this, "In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed" that it was an ecclesiastical covenant, embracing the covenant of grace. That it was the covenant on which Israel were constituted a visible church appears from the facts already adduced, that Abraham's seed were thenceforth called God's people and he their God, and that long before the covenant at Sinai. This covenant was also renewed with Isaac and Jacob, and exhibits in its renewal the same grand promises, Gen. xxvi. 3, 4. Things temporal, and spiritual are here comprised in a few words. -- "Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee and will bless thee," said God to Isaac, "for unto thee, and unto thy seed I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father. And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Here the promise of blessing all nations in the seed of Isaac, the promise of multiplying that seed, and the promise of Canaan as their inheritance, are joined together in a few words, as

( 178 )

parts of one transaction. Here the promise of making Abraham the father of many nations, and the promise of blessing many nations in his seed, are shewn to be of equal import.

But to Show that it is not only plain from the nature of the covenant that it was ecclesiastical, but also from concurrent testimonies of scripture we shall refer to a few, Dan. ix. 27. "Messiah shall confirm the covenant with many for one week." This prophetic week or seven years had respect to the introduction of the Christian church, and therefore the confirmation of his covenant with many, must have respect to those multitudes that then, and for sometime after, the day of pentecost believed and were added to the church. Now observe, with these the covenant with Abraham was confirmed, not disannuled, but established; consequently both churches were established upon the same covenant.

The same truth is established in Acts iii. 25, where Peter addresses the Jews, affirming, "Ye are the children of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Now, if this covenant, like the Sinaitic, had waxed old, and had vanished away, why should the Apostle here refer to it as yet standing, and exhort the Jews on this ground to turn unto the Lord? This quotation of the covenant with Abraham shows, that it continued without decay, and that both Jews and Christians stood upon it as a church.

A still more striking proof that the covenant with Abraham was the covenant on which the Jews stood as a church, we have in Ex. xxxii. 12, 13, "Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, for mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your

( 179 )

seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it forever." Here Moses pleads that God would turn from his fierce wrath, not on the ground of the covenant just then made in the mount, but on the ground of the covenant made with Abraham, and renewed with Isaac and Jacob. Doubtless, then, on the Abrahamic covenant did Israel stand, and had it not been on account of this, Israel would at that time have been consumed as a nation.

To the same effect we read 2 Kings xiii. 22, 23, "But Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet." Here we see the same gracious covenant is plead as the reason why the Lord did not cast off Israel from his presence as yet. Not the covenant at Sinai, but the covenant with Abraham, is adduced as the reason of their continuance to exist as a church.

The covenant of grace was made between the Father and the Son. The covenant of works between God and Adam. The ecclesiastic covenant which embraces the covenant of grace was made with Abraham in relation to his natural seed, and also in relation to the Gentiles. On it the Jews were formed into a church, and on the same covenant were the Gentiles, when called, associated together with the Jews as a church.

Various prophetic declarations intimate the continuance of this covenant for ever, and show its inseparable connection with the church of God in every age: as "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. Behold, thou shall call a nation that thou knowest not,

( 180 )

and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee." Is. lv. 3-5. "For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters I will give them un everlasting name, that shall not be cut off." Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their Larrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The Lord God which gathered the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him." -- chap. lvi. 4-8. "For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed." -- chap. lxvi. 8, 9. These prophetic annunciations ail proclaim the etwrnity of this covenant. On this subject we shall just add a few sentences from Dr. Mason's Essays, p. 52-54. "If the Abrahamic covenant is no longer in force, the church of God, as a visible public society, is not, in any sense, connected with him by covenant relation. This may weigh light with those who discard the doctrine of a visible Catholic church; but it draws much deeper than they suspect. The whole administration of the covenant of grace proceeds upon the principle that there is such a church. All the ordinances are given to it; all the promises are made to it. To the elect, as such, they are not,

( 181 )

cannot be given. The application of them would be impossible without a special revelation: and the whole administration of the covenant of grace, by visible means, would be at an end. Nor is a single instance to be found, excepting in virtue of immediate revelation, in which the Lord ever gave an ordinance or a promise to particular churches. They always receive their privileges in virtue of their being parts of the church universal. Now this church universal which is the body of Christ, -- the temple of his Spirit, the depository of his grace, stands in no covenant relation to God, in her public character, if the covenant with Abraham is annulled. For if she does, then another covenant has been made with her. But no such covenant has been made. The new covenant which the Lord promised to make with her at the introduction of the evangelical dispensation, was to supersede, not the Abrahamic, but the Sinai covenant. It is so far from setting aside, that it implies, and establishes the former; for it is promised to her as that church which was organized and perpetuated under Abraham's covenant. If, therefore, that covenant is removed, and no other has replaced it, the church, in her social capacity, is further off from God than she was under the law; and all the mercies to which, in that capacity, the once had a claim, are swept away. But this is impossible. In fact, the scriptures uniformly suppose the existence of such public federal relations: and abound with promises growing out of them. Thus speaks the prophet -- "The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: my Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever." -- Is. lix. 21, 22. Thus, my friends, in introducing the Christian dispensation the Lord has "performed the mercy promised to

( 182 )

the fathers, and has remembered his holy covenant."

I replied: -- Mr. M. has sat down without telling us where this ecclesiastical covenant may be found. He appears studiously to avoid definite and precise terms on this subject; being, I presume, aware how easy it would be to entrammel him if he should distinctly refer to any one passage as containing this ecclesiastic covenant. It has always been the custom of those who have a good cause, and wish to be understood distinctively; to be very definite and minute in their references. If my opponent is determined to gratify me in no instance, by being definite, his respect to your edification, my friends, requires him to mention where this covenant may be found.

He has, as far as possible, prevented me from exposing his sophistry, by the indistinct and confused references to scripture which you have now heard I will, however, endeavor to bring order out of the confused mass and heterogeneous association of discordant matter thrown before you. He sometimes speaks as though there was but one covenant made with Abraham. For the sake of argument, then, let us suppose there was but one. How many promises were there in it? First, I will make of thee a great nation. Second, I will bless thee. Third, I will bless all the families of the earth in thy seed. Fourth, Unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates. Fifth, I will make thee the father of many nations. Sixth, I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee. Seventh, I will make kings come out of thee. Eighth, Thy seed shall possess the gate of its enemies. Ninth, My covenant shall be IN YOUR FLESH, for an everlasting covenant. These are blessings or promises given to Abraham, in Gen. xii. xv. xvii and xxii. chapters. This is the Abrahamic covenant, the ecclesiastic covenant of Mr. M. Yes, this is the covenant of the Christian church! Then the Christian church is warranted to expect all these blessings!! In fact, they must be made to every member of it on this principle. This "covenant" was made with Abraham respecting

( 183 )

his seed. Every member of the Christian church "stands" upon this covenant, if the whole "stands" upon it! Shall I reduce my opponent's argument to a greater absurdity. No, here let it rest.

But we have shown that there were different covenants made with Abraham, distinct in their nature, time, place, and circumstances. One was made with him, Gen. xii. when 75 years old, in Haran. * this was 450 years before the covenant at Sinai. This is called by the Apostle, Gal. iii. 17. The covenant confirmed concerning Christ, as Macknight renders it. This covenant was afterwards confirmed by an oath, Gen. xxii. when Abraham offered up his son upon the altar. Eight years after this covenant, Gen. xv. God "MADE A COVENANT" with Abraham in the most formal manner, concerning Canaan. Sixteen years after this time (Gen. xviii) he makes another covenant, called by Stephen the "covenant of circumcision." Yet you were gravely told that there was but one covenant made with Abraham; and this an ecclesiastic covenant. Yet there is no church, no ekklesia mentioned in it, nor for hundreds of years afterwards. What a daring spirit does infant sprinkling inspire! Covenants made in different countries, and at the intervals of eight, sixteen, and twenty-four years, it calls one. Yea, though the Apostle Paul, Eph. ii. 12, calls them the "covenants of promise," and Rom. ix. 4. calls them the "covenants" contradistinguished from the Sinaitic covenant; this daring genius of infant baptism boldly says, "Paul THERE IS BUT ONE COVENANT, YOU ARE MISTAKEN." Paul, you and Stephen both erred not knowing the scriptures, you called Gen. xii. 3, the covenant "confirmed of God concerning Christ." Stephen you erred, though full of the Holy Spirit, in calling the covenant, Gen. xvii. "the covenant of circumcision," you ought to have identified every thing, religion,

__________
* The 430 years are thus computed. -- "To the birth of Isaac 25 years, Gen. xxi. 5. To the birth of Jacob 60 years, for Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born, Gen, xxv. 26. Jacob went down to Egypt when 130, and according to the Septuagint, the Israelites sojourned in Egypt 215 years. For thus they translate Exod. xii. 40. Now the sojourning'of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan was 430 years. -- Macknight.

( 184 )

church, covenant, name, and called this the ABRAHAMIC COVENANT, of rather an "ecclesiastic covenant of grace!!"

But, my friends, let Mr. M. meet me on any one of these covenants, or on any one of these passages, telling me on which passage he rests his theory, and then you will see how those scriptures you have heard him cite have been perverted from their proper scope and design. There is, however, as respects this controversy, nothing gained, should it be clearly proven that there is but one covenant, (which indeed you must see is impossible) so long as it is confessed there were different promises made to Abraham. And this every Paido-baptist does confess. Some of the most profound Paido-baptist commentators say that there were at least six different promises made to Abraham. At all events there were two. One respecting his natural seed, descended from his own body, and one respecting a people that were in another sense to be called his seed. This is admitted on all sides. Now that which concerned his natural seed is found in Genesis xv. and xvii. chapters. And on these covenants respecting his natural seed was the Sinaitic covenant predicated. The covenant of circumcision, and the covenant made with all Israel at Sinai, are so closely related that circumcision is attached to the law or Sinaitic covenant, and shared the same fate with it. If Mr. M. calls the covenant of circumcision an ecclesiastic covenant, and at the same time says, that the Sinaitic covenant was not an ecclesiastic covenant, but was done away; he should remember that he destroys the foundation which he himself has laid, inasmuch as circumcision and the law, or Sinaitic covenant were united by the Jews, and viewed as liable to the same fate. We told him, in our last address, that we would show that the Sinaitic covenant and circumcision were viewed as alike temporary and carnal, and that they ultimately shared the same fate. Perhaps the authority of Christ will be admitted by my opponent on this topic, John vii. 22. 23. "Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not because it is of Moses but of the fathers) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man. on the sabbath day receive circumcision

( 185 )

that the law of Moses should not be broken, are ye angry with me," &c. Here, then, circumcision is incorporated with the law of Moses, and the neglecting of it, or the postponing of it, is called a breach of the law of Moses. Now, as already proved, that the law of Moses is called the covenant at Sinai we see that Mr. M's ecclesiastic covenant and the Sinaitic were incorporated together, and together were disannulled, even upon his own principles.

We have observed that if there be but two promises made to Abraham, one respecting his natural seed, and one concerning his spiritual seed, it is all that is necessary to overthrow the Paido-baptist hypothesis. Now this is admitted without controversy. His spiritual seed are all those who have obtained the same blessing of being justified by faith as Abraham was. He is therefore the father of all them that believe, though they be not of his natural seed. Now he was constituted their father by a gracious appointment on account of his faith; and ONE PERSON called his seed, to be descended from him, is promised to be the One Seed in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed. "If ye be Christ's (brethren or people) then," says the Apostle, "ye are Abraham's seed." -- Believers in Christ are the ONLY SONS of Abraham in this sense. His natural descendants are his sons in the common sense of all mankind. This is plain matter of fact argument; and it is all that is necessary to demolish the visionary fabric of my opponent. None but the sons of Abraham were ever interested in any covenant made with him or promise given to him. He has but two sorts of sons or children, his natural or literal descendants, of whom we are not. -- Now as we are not his natural descendants, we are not concerned personally in any promise belonging unto them, as such: and as we cannot be ranked among his faithful children until we are Christ's brethren, we are not interested in any promise made to his spiritual seed, until we are manifested to be such, by an avowal of that same kind of faith which he had. This settles the point Mr. M. and we know you cannot refute one item of it. This brings the question out of the clouds and thick darkness in which your mysterious fancy hath enveloped it, and presents it in a tangible form, to persons of the weakest faculties.

( 186 )

Here we shall leave it until Mr. M. tells us where his ecclesiastic covenant may be found.

Mr. M. (for we must now look back a little) yesterday entertained you for a long time, by telling you of the different names applied to the Jewish society, and also to the Christian, as expressive of their identity; as their being equally called the house, bride, people, vineyard, kingdom &c. of God. To all this argument we would in the mass reply. That, suppose I might be so fortunate as to have a house in Washington and one in Lexington, each of them might with the greatest propriety be called my house; the same might be said concerning barn, vineyard, floor, kingdom, &c. but who would argue thence that because they were both called my house, vineyard, barn, &c. they were one and the same house, vineyard, barn, &c.? This would shock common sense. But it may be objected that the Lord metaphorically speaking, had but one bride, that he could not be said to have had two. To such an objection I would reply by saying that he always had but one bride, one house, one vineyard, one kingdom, &c. at one time; but that Israel having broken the marriage covenant was divorced and ceased to be his married wife, in the metaphorical style; and that in their stead another bride was chosen, another house was built, another vineyard was planted, another kingdom was constituted, to which the same figurative names were applied. And after all that Mr. M. has said on this subject it amounts to precisely the game thing, for he will not say with all his fortitude and zeal he cannot say, that the Jewish and Christian societies are identically the very same -- no, he will say, he has said, they are under different dispensations, and this is saying a great deal, if he is aware of the import of it, for, in fact, a different dispensation is tantamount to a different covenant. At all events he makes the two societies different in some respects, and thus establishes my views and saps the very basis of his own system.

The nature and design of the Jews' religion rightly understood, would preclude the formation of such a system as that of the presbyterian. When God made Adam, he not only made him rational, but taught him to speak. Speech, we conceive to have been a Divine revelation

( 187 )

to the first man and woman, as much so as Christianity is to us now. We could have never known the heavenly state had it not been revealed to us, no more could Adam and Eve have conversed together had not God taught them viva voce. When Adam had progressed to a certain degree of perfection in this art, God summoned all the animals and presented them to Adam, he named them correctly. He was then dismissed from this school. These who think that speech is natural to man are very superficial observers of what they see passing before them, in the education of children.

The instituted signs of all the ideas requisite to man in a state of innocence, were entirely inadequate, when he became a transgressor, to afford him one idea, or to communicate any satisfactory information to his mind of spiritual and heavenly things. If it was necessary to teach him to affix signs to the objects around him, and to form significant signs of his own ideas in a state of innocence, it became infinitely more necessary to put him in possession of a new vocabulary, relative to his new and awfully reversed circumstances.

Assuming these principles, not entering into their proof at present, we proceed to observe that both the patriarchal and Jewish forms of religion were, among other things, designed to furnish the world with a vocabulary adequate to all the sublime and salutary ends, to be accomplished in the clear revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in reference to life and immortality, the first writings ever given to the world furnished just such a vocabulary. They resembled, in this respect, the elementary books put into the hands of children; full of pictures and representations calculated to engage the attention, and to inform the judgment. Thus the picture of a bleeding animal, of an altar, of a priest, of a sacred edifice, and of a thousand things connected with it, open, in the first pages of the first writing to our view, and thus imperceptibly introduce us into an acquaintance with significant signs, types, or words, adapted to give us correct ideas of the great salvation. So that the supernatural signs, types, or names, exhibited in the Jews' religion, were, owing to their fixed meaning

( 188 )

the best terms, in most instances, to adopt in the communication of the doctrine of life, immortality and the Christian church. Ignorance of this, and a stupid attachment to the bare emblems, has led into false notions both of the Jews' and Christian religion. This hint carried out, and kept within the due limits assigned to it in the Bible, serves to explain one grand design of the typical church, and to set aside the major part of the remarks of Mr. M. on the identity of the Jewish and Christian religion. I reserve my remarks on Gal. iv. and Heb. viii. until another place.

Mr. M. proceeds: -- What Mr. C. has advanced concerning the same inspired names being applied equally to the Jewish and Christian societies is nothing to the purpose. His remarks do not prove that they are not one and the same. I did not merely say that they were both called a bride, a vineyard, a kingdom, a house; but I proved that they were called the same bride, the same vineyard, the same kingdom, and the same house, the same olive tree, and the same brethren.

When I sat down I was about to proceed to obviate a difficulty that appeared to present itself, in calling the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant, on which the Christian church is founded; viz, how it can with propriety be called a new covenant, if as old as Abraham. For as I have shewn that the covenant at Sinai was the old covenant, and as the Abrahamic covenant was prior to that, so it would appear that the new covenant was older than the old one. * I do not view the term new when applied to this covenant as referring to the time of its promulgation, but as referring to the clearness of the light, and the fulness of the light which it exhibits. It is owing to the brighter effulgence of grace and glory that shines in the gospel, as unfolded by the preaching of the Lord and his Apostles, compared with the light that appeared in the annunciations of the holy seers of Israel under the legal

__________
* An objection to this effect had been made by me in a former address.

( 189 )

dispensation, that it stands eminently new. Of the great accession of light and enlargement of privilege which would succeed the sufferings of the Messiah, Is. in his lv. chapter beautifully and impressively exhibits. In the liii. he has minutely described the suffering of Christ. And in the lv. he describes the results, in those words; -- reads from the 1st to the end of the 11th verse. --

That the covenant made with Abraham is the covenant on which the New Testament church is constituted, will be still farther established, from what the writer of the epistle to Heb. saith (chap. vi. 13, 18.) "When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself; saying, surely, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee, and so after he had patiently endured he obtained the promise; wherein God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of salvation the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us." In this passage we have plainly cited one of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. These promses being now confirmed by an oath are the covenant in which Christians stand. Indeed we are informed that it was confirmed for this purpose, that we Christians might have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us in this covenant.

We have now, my friends, come to the close of our second position, which you remember was, "that the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, are one and the same church under different dispensations." This we have proved by showing, that they had,

I. The same theology,

II. The same inspired names,

III. The same everlasting and immutable covenant.

The two societies agreeing in the grand essentials

( 190 )

requisite to the constitution of an ecclesiastical association we may safely infer, that they constitute but one church, one visible body of Christ. This position being proved we now proceed to the third, viz. That Jewish circumcision before Christ, and Christian baptism after Christ are one and the same Seal, though in different forms.

In the illustration and proof of this position we shall first attend to the nature and use of seals.

A seal and a covenant have been associated from the remotest antiquity. The ancient Hebrews wore their seals or signets sometimes in rings upon their fingers, sometimes in bracelets upon their arms. We are informed that Jezebel wrote letters to the elders of Israel to condemn Naboth, and sealed them with king Ahab's seal (1 Kings xxi. 8.) Haman also sealed the decree of king Ahasuerus against the Jews with the king's seal. But seals are yet of much greater antiquity than the times to which we have referred. Judah the son of Jacob left his seal, his bracelets, and his staff, as a pledge with Tamar.

In civil contracts seals were used from time immemorial. Amongst the Jews they generally wrote two originals of every important contract, one was kept open by him especially interested in the contract. The other was sealed up and deposited in some public office. This was to prevent fraud. Jeremiah, the prophet, bought a field in his country of Anathoth from Hananeel, he wrote the contract, called witnesses and sealed it up, and then put it into the hands of Baruch and said to him, "Take these evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both which is sealed, and this evidence which is open, and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days. Jer. xxxii 10-14. There are considerable varieties in the instruments with which a seal is made and the devices, engraven on them. Before the time of William the conqueror, the makers of all deeds only subscribed their names, adding the sign of the cross, and a great number of witnesses; but that monarch

( 192 )

and the nobility adopted seals with their arms on them, and others soon followed their example. The color of the wax with which William's grants were sealed was usually green, to signify that the act continued fresh for ever, and of force. The seals of the Turks and Arabs have no figure nor image, but only an inscription. So the Persians, in their rings wear agates, which generally serve for a seal on which is frequently engraved their name, and some verse from the Koran. (Hanway's Travels, vol. i. p. 317.)

A seal is sometimes the mark of property, sometimes a confirmative mark in evidence of a contract, sometimes an emblem of secrecy, sometimes an emblem of security. It is a mark of property; thus (Rev. vii. 8.) the servants of God are represented as sealed in their foreheads, marked as the property of the Lord. It is a confirmative mark of a covenant, in evidence of its confirmation; thus Abraham received the seal of circumcision. It is an emblem of secrecy; thus the book of God's decrees concerning the church is sealed with seven seals. It is an emblem of security; thus when the Devil was cast into the bottomless pit, he was shut up and a seal set upon him. It is also used figuratively as denoting mere attestation, in whatever way it is given. Thus Jesus Christ is said to be sealed by God the Father, i. e. authorised with sufficient evidence. Again, he that believeth the record that God has given of his Son, sets to his seal that God is true, i. e. avoucheth and attesteth the truth or veracity of God. From this general view of a seal and its use, we select that particular meaning and use which accords with the connexion of ideas in which it is presented unto us, as affixed to the covenant. Paul called circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, which Abraham had whilst in uncircumcision. Indeed the Apostle calls circumcision both a sign and a seal: and we know that it was attached to a covenant which was never to be done away; to a covenant that embraced the covenant of circumcision was once a seal of this gracious

( 193 )

ecclesiastic covenant; and now that this seal is changed (not done away) into baptism, it is also a sign and seal of the same things which circumcision signified. But let us attend to the proof of this position, that baptism came in the room of circumcision; and that baptism is equivalent to circumcision; let us read Rom. iv. 11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also." Now observe that circumcision as a token of the covenant made with Abraham, was both a sign and seal. As a sign it imported the inward or spiritual circumcision of the heart, which is equivalent to what is elsewhere called regeneration. Hence the Apostle says, circumcision, in its true design, is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, or external observance. As a seal, it was a confirmative mark, an approbatory token of the righteousness of faith, which is equivalent to the covenant of grace, this righteousness being a part of the design of that Covenant. It signified to the world at large, it imported to all that considered it, that all who had cheerfully submitted to it were thereby entitled to every favor, guaranteed in the covenant of which it was a seal; and in a particular manner that faith was reckoned to them for righteousness. Now let me ask, is not baptism, precisely of the same import? It is both a sign and a seal. It is a sign of the washing of regeneration or the circumcision of the heart, or of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is also a seal to all who intelligibly submit to it that they are interested in the covenant of grace, and that theirs is the rightousness of faith. It is now demonstrated that when circumcision was done away, baptism was substituted in its stead, from the similarity of their import and design. It was attached to the same covenant, and is a sign and seal of the covenant with Abraham.

( 193 )

I then replied: -- This is the third time I ask my opponent to refer definitely to this ecclesiastical covenant, I hope be will not put me in the trouble to ask for it again. As it occupies so important a place in his theory, he ought to tell you the chapter, or chapters, and verses where it may be found.

He still tells you that the same inspired names, are, in scripture, applied to both societies, as one and the same church. That they are not only equally called the Lord's house, kingdom, vineyard, &c. but one and the same house, vineyard, and kingdom, &c. Now he has frequently declared that they are not in every respect the same, for they are under different dispensations, and why so pertinaciously insist upon the name when he has given up the thing? But I deny that they are called the same house, kingdom, &c. in any passage of scripture. This we shall prove immediately. The same names are applied to both in many respects: yet not all the same names For the Jewish society is nowhere called the body of Christ, the church of Christ, a new man, the temple of the Holy Ghost, the pillar and the support of the truth, the kingdom of heaven, &c. &c.

Mr. M. sometimes talks of the church militant, and the church triumphant; now many of the same names are applied to the "church triumphant," that are applied to the "church militant;" as, for instance, "kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of God," "Mount Zion," "My Father's house," or "the house of God," "Jerusalem," &c. &c. Now Mr. M. might as convincingly argue that the "church triumphant" and the "church militant" are one and the same church because they are called by the same inspired names, as that, for the same reason, the Jewish and the Christian societies are one and the same!

Here let it be observed, once for all, that the Jewish nation stood once in a highly privileged relation to God, that he reigned over them as his people above all other people. This dignified state, this privileged relationship, (typical it is true of another people) was called by many names, expressive of its advantages; such as "olive tree," "kingdom of God," "house of God," "holy nation," "peculiar people," "congregation of the Lord," &c. Now in consequence of their unbelief, rebellion,

( 194 )

and ingratitude, they were rejected, as a nation, from this dignified state, this privileged relationship; and thus, "the kingdom of God was taken from them" -- they were broken off from the good olive tree; they were excluded the kingdom of heaven, &c. and this dignified state, this privileged relationship, was given to another people, by ANOTHER COVENANT, that would bring forth the fruits corresponding with this state. This interpretation will be confirmed immediately in our disproving the second position of my opponent, and we know that it will bear the ordeal of the keenest critic.

Mr. M's new covenant or testament, is not new in consequence of the first being made old, but in consequence of its superior light! Marvellous light! It defies criticism! We shall leave Mr. M. in the quiet enjoyment of this impregnable refuge!

Mr. M. has now, at length, after so long a time, informed us that he has proved his second position. We shall have need of patience to hear nineteen more proved in a similar manner. You will no doubt, my friends, be expecting that I should now think about redeeming my pledge. I confess the time has come when it becomes my duty. What was I to do? I think this was my promise: That so soon as Mr. M. had finished the second position, I would show, that in proving it to be true, he was digging a pit for his own interment: that if he proved it to be true, he would thereby confute himself. He says he has proved the Jewish societies to be one and the same society or church. Well, to redeem our pledge, we shall say he has proved it. This being admitted, we have only to remark that the infant seed of Abraham were born members of this Jewish church, and were to be circumcised because THEY WERE MEMBERS, of that church, not for admission into it, for they were circumcised because they were born within in the covenant, as Dr. Mason, and my opponent say. Well then, the infant seed of believers under the same covenant are born members of the church -- consequently they are not to be baptized for admission into it, for as was said, they are members of it as soon as born. If so, then, they are not to be baptized at all, for one reason worth a thousand, viz. -- that baptism was never designed

( 195 )

for, nor commanded to be administered to, a member of the church. Except a man were born of water he could not constitutionally enter into it. But no one, recognized as a member of the Christian church, was baptized from the begining of the New Testament to the end of it -- We read of them being added to the church when baptized, but not once of any being baptized as members of the church. Mr. M. then has confuted himself, and in proving the "identity" of churches, covenants, and seals, he has destroyed forever the baptism of infants. If he does not extricate himself from this pit into which he has fallen, I will certainly consider myself as having redeemed my pledge.

The identity of churches, covenants, and seals is an absurd identity, and ruinous to infant baptism. I preferred to save Mr. M the labor of these two days by answering one question, but his clemency would not, could not, extend so very far.

You will, however, no doubt consider, my friends, that according to my promise something more is due. For I said if Mr. M. proved the identity of the two churches he was confuted, on the plainest principles; and I also said if he did not, he would be confuted on his own principles. Upon the supposition, then, of his having proved his first position, we have seen he is theologically dead and buried. But now I proceed to show, that he has not proved the identity of the two churches -- consequently, on his own principles, confuted. Here I request you to watch me closely, as this is a point of no little moment. Perhaps some of you think that I ought to pay some attention first to his remarks on seals. No, my friends, let him first shew that baptism is called a seal, and then we shall attend to that point also. Till this is done, his remarks on seals and circumcision are as inapplicable as the tales of other times.

My first argument, for affirming that the Christian religion and Christian church differ essentially From the Jewish, is drawn from Daniel ii. 44, 45, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, and it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. The great God has made known to the

( 196 )

king what shall come to pass hereafter." As I delivered you an address on the rising prospects of this kingdom, on the first day of this discussion, as preparative to our present design, I shall not now be diffuse in my remarks. On this prediction we shall simply observe, First, It was pronounced in the time of the Babylonish captivity, 500 years at least, before the consummation of the Jews' religion, while the holy nation and peculiar kingdom of God in Israel stood. Secondly, It referred to the times of the Roman empire, to the Christian era. I will just ask Mr. M., Did not this prophecy relate to the Christian era? Thirdly, It is declared in the prophecy, that, in the days of the kings or emperors of Rome, the God of heaven shall SET UP a kingdom. Now we know that in the days of Augustus Cesar, the Messiah was born, (Luke ii. 1.) and that he died, under the reign of Tiberius Cesar. At all events, it is expressly declared, that the God of heaven had shown what should come to pass hereafter. This kingdom of God which he would set up or constitute, under the reign of his Son, was not to commence until the last days of the Jewish kingdom. -- Now to constitute a kingdom, and to continue one already in existence, are as different as the building of a new house, is from the repairing or keeping up of a house already built. To set up a house or to set up a kingdom is essentially different from either reforming an old one, or continuing it under new regulations. The conclusion then is plain and inevitable. The kingdom of Jesus Christ is essentially different from the nation of Israel, once the kingdom of God, as typical of this new kingdom. Confirmative of this is another prophecy of Daniel, universally understood as referring to the consummation of the Jewish state, (ix. 26, 27.) "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cutoff, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a flood and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week and in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and with the abominable armies he shall make it desolate, even until the consumation

( 197 )

and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Here the desolation of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, the dispersion of the nation, and the consummation of their religion are as clearly spoken of, as the metaphors of prophecy will permit. The removal of the Jewish church, and the erection of the Christian were events plainly told.

Our second argument is deduced from a notorious fact, that the Four Gospels, or new covenant, opens with the annunciation of the approximation of this new reign and kingdom. John the Baptist, the Messiah, the twelve Apostles, the Seventy disciples, to all Judea announced its approach, saying, "reform for the reign of heaven or of the heavens approacheth." This is proof positive that, at this time, the new kingdom was not yet set up, and that the old Jewish was yet standing. Deceitful and false were the preachings and prayers of this era for this reign to come, if it had already come; if the Jewish kingdom were all that was intended. All the Jews that expected the new kingdom to be a continuation of the old one, rejected the ccunse) of God against themselves, and perished in, and through, their mistake.

Our third reason, for asserting the essential difference betwixt the two kingdoms, is drawn from a plain and decisive declaration of the Saviour, (Luke xvi. 16.) "The law and the prophets preached until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it." Observe, the law and the prophets contained all the old religion, and continued to teach the Jews until John preached repentance and reformation. But since John came, the new religion or kingdom of God is preached; something, this, assuredly, different from the law and the prophets; else this saying was deceptions and pernicious. And, take notice, that into this kingdom all that feared God were pressing with ardor. They continued not in their former church state, under the law and the prophets; but were pressing into the new, or received the doctrine of it.

A fourth reason, for asserting this, radical difference between the two religious and the two churches, is found, in the terms of admission into this new kingdom. John the Dipper, intimated this difference to some that applied

( 198 )

for the baptism of reformation, who were calculating something on their relation to the old covenant, and Abraham with whom it was made. Think not, said he, to say within your hearts, we have Abraham to our father -- No, no, this will not do, repent, reform; the reign of God is approaching. The day of discrimination is come; the axe, and the winnowing fan are coming. The dry trees and the chaff must be consumed. Abraham's name, relationship, and covenant will protect you no longer, will entitle you to no privilege under the coming reign God is about, from the unlikliest materials in the world, to raise up sons and daughters unto Abraham. The days of federal holiness and birth-right membership are about being numbered with the years before the flood. Repent, I say, for if you can't stand upon another basis than federal holiness, and birth-right membership, the axe is a coming. You will be cut down and cast into the fire. The Saviour also taught a dignitary of the Jewish church that, although a member and doctor of divinity in that church, unless he was born of water and of the Spirit, into the new church or kingdom of Messiah he could not enter. His membership in the Jewish church, and his fellowship in the high ecclesiastical court of Israel, would not avail any thing. -- No, no; Nicodemus ye must be born again, though sprung from Abraham, ye must be born again, yes, and of water too, or into Messiah's realm you'll never enter. Mr. M. would tell you, you are in this kingdom already a member of it, having the seal of the covenant of Abraham; born of circumcision, which is just as good as born of water. -- Mind him not Nicodemus, a greater than he saith "ye must be born of water and of the Spirit or into the new kingdom ye cannot come."

Mr. M. rejoins: -- I think there is something like reasoning in my opponent's last address, but it is misapplied. I had, I think, very clearly proved that the Jews are represented in Math. (viii. 11, 12.) as being members of the kingdom of heaven or evangelical dispensation. The words are "I say unto you that many shall come from the east and from the west, and

( 199 )

shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." In this passage you, observe it is the earthly state of the church that is spoken of, for one plain reason that none will be cast out of the kingdom of glory. The gentiles are here represented as incorporated with the Jews, as sitting down to table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven or gospel church. This one fact, then, certainly, exhibits the Jewish and Christian religion and churches as not essentially different, but as essentially the same. We often say that the presbyterian church in Britain, and the presbyterian, church in America are one and the same church, though they are under different governments, and living in different states, yet this does not destroy the identity of the presbyterian church. The application is easy and striking.

But to return to circumcision, the seal of the ecclesiastic covenant. I suppose if, in answer to the numerous demands of my opponent respecting the place where this covenant may be found, I should tell him that it is found in Genesis, it would suffice to prevent the frequent repetition- of such a question.

In his debate with Mr. Walker p. 17, he says that "circumcision was to Abraham what it never was, nor could be to any of his posterity." And in page 18th, he says "that it was only provisionally a seal to any of the seed of Abraham when they received it." Yet in his appendix p. 168, he represents a seal as a confirmative mark, sign, or token, which may be seen and adduced as an evidence in perpetuam rei memortam, by which the validity of the deed, record, or transaction may be ascertained or evinced in all time coming, for the security and satisfaction of all concerned, during the stipulated continuance of said deed or charter." Now you see at one time circumcision is with him, a fixed and confirmative mark or seal of some stipulated blessing, and at another time

( 200 )

it is only "a provisional seal." What are we to expect from a writer, that with so little ceremony contradicts himself; or from a reasoner so contradictory in his conclusions. But do not both reassn and Revelation, authorize us to receive circumcision as a permanent and determinate mark or token; as much so, as the marks we fix upon our cattle as marks of property, which are significant and certain evidences of the relation we bear to them, and they to us.

But as I was proving when I last addressed you that baptism came in the room of circumcision, and as I was demonstrating the similarity of import and use in these seals of one and the same covenant, I will, as further explanatory and confirmatory of my remarks, read you an extract from Dr. John Mason's work already referred to in this discussion, pp. 85, 86. "But," says the doctor, "as this conclusion may be thought too strong for the general argument preceding it, let us submit it to a more direct proof, by inquiring into the scriptural account of both circumcision and baptism. And, First, let us see how this account stands with regard to them separately. It will be seen in the following contrast.

CIRCUMCISION.

1. Was an initiatory rite, by which the circumcised were owned as of the covenanted seed, and of the people of God.

2. Was a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. iv. 11: i. e. of the Justification of a sinner through the righteousness of the surety embraced by faith.

3. Was an emblem and a means of internal sanctity. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. Deut. xxx. 6. See also ch. x. id.

BAPTISM.

1. Is an initiatory rite, by which, the baptized are numbered among the disciples of Christ, and the members of the church of God

2. The person is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, (Act. ii. 38.) which is through faith in his blood; so that God is just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.

3. Is a sign and means of our sanctification in virtue, of our communion with Christ. -- Buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life, Rom. vi. 4. See also 1 Pet. iii. 21.

( 201 )

The parallel is certainly striking: Circumcision and baptism do both put a mark upon their subjects, as belonging to that society which God hath set apart for himself. They both signify and seal that wondrous change in the state of a sinner, whereby, being justified by faith he passes from condemnation into acceptance with God; which doctrines of pardon and acceptance are exhibited in that society alone, which, under the name of his church, God hath consecrated to himself, and of which he hath appointed the circumcised and baptized to be esteemed members. Both represent, and are means of obtaining, that real purity which is effected by the spirit of Christ; and is the characteristic of all those members of his church who are justified by faith in his blood. Such a coincidence cannot be casual. It bespeaks design. And seeing that circumcision and baptism do thus substantially answer the same ends, and that the former has ceased, the only sound conclusion is, that it has been succeeded by the latter. Change of dispensation was a sufficient reason why the form of sealing the covenant dispensed should also be changed; and the points of difference between baptism and circumcision, as covenant seals, are only such as were demanded by the nature of the change: the former being much better adapted to a more extensive and spiritual dispensation than the latter. And this is an additional consideration to show that the one has been substituted in the room of the other."

This extract which fully expresses our views on the similarity existing between circumcision and baptism points out three notable coincidents between these two seals.

I. They are both initiatory rites, by which the subjects are owned and acknowledged as belonging to the church.

II. They are both seals of the righteousness of faith.

III. They are both emblematical of sanctification, See Rom. vi. 4. 1 Pet. iii, 21.

Now, that an analogy so striking should exist between

( 202 )

two seals, one of which, is done away, and the one not substituted in lieu of the other, would appear very strange indeed. It is agreed by both Baptists and Paido-baptists that circumcision is done away; on this point there is no dispute. Now as circumcision, is done away, baptism has succeeded in its place, or something else has succeded, or nothing has succeded it. One of these conclusions is inevitable. If nothing has succeded to circumcision, then the covenant although in force, to which circumcision was a seal, is left with us without a seal, there are no means of applying the benefits of this covenant by a seal, to those interested in it. If nothing has succeeded to circumcision, then a privilege has been taken away from the church, for which she has received no compensation. So that instead of an enlargement of privilege under the evangelical dispensation, there is a diminution of privilege. If any ordinance has succeded to circumcision, let us hear what it is. Baptists have never told us of any. Then it is not succeeded by any ordinance other than baptism. The only conclusion then tenable, and obvious, is, that baptism has succeeded to circumcision, and this in fact is conceded by some Baptists. See Booth's Apology p. 143. as quoted by Pond, p. 103. "It is always urged by those Baptists who advocate close communion, that unbaptized persons should be prohibited the Lord's table, because uncircumcised persons were prohibited the passover." If this argument has any force, it implies the substitution of baptism in the place of circumcision. The Baptists, then, in their reasonings upon other subjects, are constrained to admit the principle for which we contend. We are very sure that the influence of system often prevents many from saying, as well as seeing the truth. This may be unintentional. But when the favorite points are out of view, then we may expect a fairer exhibition of truth. Thus, in the present instance, though Booth was a violent Baptist, he not having his darling topic in view, gives us a fair opportunity of seeing how inconsistent

( 203 )

his views were, at one time making baptism a substitute for circumcision, and at another denying it.

In reply to which I spoke: -- Mr. M. appears as reluctant to defend his favorite position of the identity of the two churches as he was to reply to me. When I have become his respondent, and attacked those bulwarks he was fortifying in his rear, reason suggests that he ought to defend them, if defensible from demolition. But all the defence last made of the capital position, is, a reference to the Gentiles coming from the east and west, and sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; while the sons of the kingdom are cast out. By the "kingdom of heaven" he would understand the Christian churnh, and by "the kingdom," he understands the same. Now let us test the principle, by reading the substitute for the principal. Many shall come from the east and from the west and shall sit down in the Christian church with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the sons of the Christian church shall be cast out into outer darkness!! &c. The absurdity, I presume, is apparent to all. The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom do not refer to the same state. They do express the full sense of the explanation I have already given. The favorite hypothesis of Mr. M. then, evidently fails in one important respect, viz. in having no scripture proof. But recollect, my friends, he has not made one struggle to get out of the pit into which he has fallen. He is buried under the ruins of one of his bulwarks. Better try to got out of the present catastrophe than to add to the mass of materials already too heavy to bear.

But the seal of the covenant is now his darling topic. He argues the covenant (which we are now politely and minutely informed is somewhere in Genesis!) is unchangeable, but the seal has been changed. This is assuredly a "rara avis in terris." A perpetual covenant with a temporary seal! An unchangeable covenant with a changeable seal! This is a Phoenix covenant without a mate in all the creation. It renews its existence by death! The bloody seal is now changed

( 204 )

into water. Can there be produced a parallel in things temporal, spiritual or eternal, for such a covenant! A covenant oral or written, perpetual and unchangeable, having its seal at one time in the circumcision of the flesh of a human being, at another time having its seal in a few drops of water on the nose or eyebrows. Transubtantiation is plainer than this!

Must I review an argument, and by serious argumentation too, unlike to any thing in the universe. -- Let us have one archetype: we ask for only one of a covenant remaining when the seal was taken away! Was not circumcision significant of something; could it not be seen and examined by every body; and what did it say? It said, "I am a Jew of the seed of Abraham, entitled to every thing promised my father, when God told him to make this mark upon me." Deface this mark in the flesh, and sprinkle a few drops of water upon the face, and then say, it is the same seal significant of the same thing -- that is, this watery stal can be seen on the flesh, examined by every body, and says, what? -- just what circumcision said, -- "I am a Jew, of the seed of Abraham, entitled to every thing promised my father, when God told him to make this mark upon me!!" It surely lies, if it tell such a tale.

A seal, Mr. M. says, is a confirmative mark. Now who ever thought that water left a confirmative mark on the forehead of a child. But remember, my friends, I called upon my opponent to tell us where baptism is called a seal. No where, I say, in the Bible. To presume that baptism is a seal, and to presume that it is substituted in the place of circumcision, and that the seal is changed, is taking too much liberty in an argument. One presumption might, in some instances, be tolerated, but it is too presumptuous to demand three, nay to adopt them without any ceremony, and place them as the basis of an argument

I deny that circumcision was ever changed into anything -- that baptism is a seal of any covenant in the legitimate use of language: -- and, consequently, that baptism came in the room of circumcision. And, I positively say, that Mr. M. cannot produce one text in the Bible in proof of the contrary. -- I say again, it is quite too presumptuous, to presume so far, as to take three suppositions

( 205 )

as facts acknowledged, and place them as the foundation of an important part of the system.

But there is an analogy betwixt circumcision and baptism. This is plead by the Paido-baptists. Suppose we should grant them this analogy -- what then? There is an analogy between Adam and Christ in many points; between Adam and Noah, between Hagar and the old covenant; between Ishmael and the Jews; between Jonah in the whale's belly and Christ in the grave; and a thousand other things in scripture, and shall we say that the one came in room of the other, and is a substitute in its stead!!

And after all that has been said of circumcision as a seal, it is only called a seal once, and in relation to one circumstance, in the life of one individual. It never was a seal to one of Adam's race, in the same sense, and for the same purpose, as it was to Abraham. Mark the Apostle's style -- He received the SIGN of circumcision, this was its common import to all the Jews -- he received the sign, its common name; to him in particular a seal; of what: -- of his interest in the covenant. -- No, this he had guaranteed by the veracity of God. -- A seal of what? -- Of the righteousness of that faith -- what faith? of the faith which he should afterwards have? -- No, no: but of the faith he had. -- When? SIXTEEN years before this time: when his faith was counted unto him for righteousness: and TWENTY-FOUR years before this time he believed the promise of God, and left his own country and his father's house, in the obedience of faith. The whole mystery dissolves at the touch of cunmon sense when it is simply known, that Abraham received the usual sign of circumcision, which to him was a pledge or mark of the Divine acceptance of his faith. We challenge Mr. M. to the fourth of the Romans -- if he can prove any thing else from it, by the most rigid criticism, we will give up to him the whole argument. -- Do, Mr. M. meet me on this topic, if you please. The terms are easy.

But he found a contradiction in the Debate at Mount Pleasant. -- Eagle eyed and far-sighted critic. In this instance, however, he has not looked through a proper medium. He has been often alluding to that Debate,

( 206 )

and yet he has not found a flaw in it. He found the phrase "provisional seal," and this he could not reconcile with its being a confirmative mark. We shall help him to understand this term provisional. If he had read the next sentence, p. 18, the whole difficulty would have vanished. It reads thus, "Circumcision did not positively secure to all the circumcised even this; (that they should inherit Canaan,) but only provisionally, for many of them might die the day after they were circumcised, and never inherit any of its temporal blessings; besides many of them might live and break that covenant, and therefore forfeit the enjoyment of its blessings: and many of them did so. So that it was only provisionally a seal to any of the children of Abraham when they received it." This read, and like the ghosts of Ossian, Mr. M's discovered contradiction vanishes.

He gave you a quotation from Dr. John Mason. We shall treat you to another. This unfolds the golden reason for advocating infant baptism. O how conclusive his reasons -- hear him plead the cause of a mixed church. To which infant sprinkling mightily conduces, his words are, p. 156-159, "The mixed character of the church contributes directly to her prosperity. It does so,
By extending her resources:
By increasing her numbers:
By affording protection. First, The resources of the church, we mean her outward resources, are extended by her present constitution. These, in general, are pecuniary aid and the aid of talents.

It is evident, that all those means by which the gospel is supported and propagated, are not furnished by real Christians; and equally evident that the whole supply is very scanty. If you should deduct the part which comes from the pockets of unconverted men, the balance would not preserve Christianity from being starved out of the world. Indeed from the wretched provision which is commonly made for her maintenance, one might conclude, with little offence against charity, that the great majority of professed Christians, are not unwilling to try how far this experiment of starving may prove successful. That is their sin, and it shall be their punishment. Let them think of it in those moments

( 207 )

when they recollect that they are as accountable for the use of their property, as for the use of their liberty: and that there is to be a day of reckoning, in which no robbers shall appear to less advantage, or be treated with less indulgence, than those, who, in this life, have "robbed God."

But small as the encouragement is for any, who by following another honest calling, can precure a tolerable livlihood, and lay up even a little for their families, to devote themselves to the religious welfare of society, it would be much smaller were none to be accounted Christians here, who shall not be accounted such hereafter. Go, with the power of detecting hypocrisy; cast out of the church, all whose fellowship is not "with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ." And your next step must be to nail up the doors of our places of worship. We are in the habit of praying that the Lord, who has declared that "the silver is his, and the gold is his," would influence the hearts of the opulent to bring their offerings into his courts: We thank him, when, in a manner somewhat uncommon, he hears our prayers, and sends the bounty; and yet we overlook the daily occurrence of this very thing which is the object of our petitions and of our gratitude; He has incorporated the principle in the frame of his visible church, and it operates with regular, though silent, efficacy. But if all who appear to be Christians, and are not, were excluded, the effect must be to diminish, in a most distressing degree, the actual pecuniary resources of the church. For men who are marked as enemies, will never lend her the same aid as men who are supposed to be friends. And thus the absolute purification of the church upon earth, would overthrow the plan which the wisdom of God has devised, to cause his very foes to assess their own purses in carrying on that dispensation of grace which, at heart, they do not love; and which, if left to themselves, they would resist with all their might."

Observe first: The baptism of infants affords much more revenue to the church than the baptism of believers. What comes from "the pockets of those baptized infidels is what keeps Christianity from being starved out of the world!" What hireling priest would not contend

( 208 )

for infant baptism as for his "heart's blood!" Indeed, all who do not contribute liberally of their money to the infant sprinklers are "robbers of God!!" Poor as the revenues of these doctors are, it is affirmed by this doctor, it would be much poorer were it not for infant baptism. Honest confession! Few priests would be so honest as the doctor, to make so explicit an avowal of the grand motives for urging infant baptism. The Lord, he says, hears the prayers of the church for giving her silver and gold, and he sends it to the church by the silent efficacy of infant baptism. And indeed, "the absolute purification of the church." says he, (the rejection of infant baptism, one great and principal means of,) "would overthrow the plan which the wisdom of God has devised, (a grand part of which is to have infants sprinkled) to cause his very foes (baptized infidels) to assess their own purses, in carrying on that dispensation of grace (to the clergy) which at heart they do not love, and which if left to themselves, (without being honored with a place in the church,) they would resist with all their might!!" So, so, then, this modern scribe joins with the Jewish scribes, in telling the Messiah, "Thou castest out devils by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." Thou bringest under tribute those possessed of an evil spirit, that by means of their agency, thou mayest cast the evil spirit out of others!!! Infant sprinkling what a powerful engine thou art! Thou enrichest the priest, preventest Christianity from being starved out of the world, and convertest the sons of Belial into true sons of the church! Mute be the tongue, and palsied the arm, that would not unite exertion in support of thee!!

But Mr. Booth conceded that baptism came in room of circumcision: Mr. Pond says so, and Mr. M. agrees with him. Sagacious critics -- Mr. Booth tells Paido-baptists, that, on their principles, unbaptized persons cannot be admitted to the supper; for on their hypothesis, uncircumcised persons did not eat the passover. Thus I understand Mr. Booth; and sorely pressed for argument must that genius be, who, can extract from his words any thing else. But I came not hither to defend Mr. Booth, I came to defend the truth.

Having now circumstantially noticed every item, of

( 209 )

Mr. M's last address, I proceed to offer another evidence subversive of Mr. M's doctrine of identity. -- It is found in the Saviour's address to Simon Peter, Matt. 16-18. Upon this Rock, said the Saviour, this truth concerning me, which you Simon, have confessed, I WILL BUILD my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. This church, then, was not the Jewish, for that was built long ago -- the building of Christ's church -- MY church, said he, is yet future -- I will build it, the foundation will be laid in this truth concerning me. -- This truth was fully established in his death and resurrection; and then the building commenced. To build a church and to repair one, are actions so different, that babes and sucklings can distinguish them. Mr. M's theory is subverted upon this evidence alone if there were no other proof of its falsity. -- Remember, my friends, that the Messiah came to build a new church, and not to repair an old one.

Mr. M. then arose: -- I know not whether it will be expected, or necessary for me to reply to Mr. C's remarks upon the quotation from Dr. Mason. You would think from the remarks that have been made that the Dr's sole object in defending infant baptism was the love of money. What a contemptible figure does the Dr. exhibit viewed through the light of the preceding drubbing that my opponent has given him. Who would appear in the defence of such a man. Or who would vindicate his sentiments on any topic; a man; so much under the influence of the love of mammon as to model the church into what form would contribute most, to the enriching, of himself. Yet, notwithstanding this terrible lampooning, has the Doctor, in the smallest degree, overstepped the bounds of truth. Has he said anything, more than what is promised, or foretold in the New Testament? Is it not there said that the earth helped the woman. Now what does this mean but that the children of this world do help the church of God. By the earth is commonly understood the men of this world who are unregenerated. By the woman, the church is meant.

( 210 )

Now the former helped the latter, how? but by contributing to her resources, just as the doctor has said. Shall I foul my hands, by replying to such arguments, no; enough of such trash.

I resume the argument in which I was engaged in my last address -- viz. that circumcision and baptism are seals of the same covenant, and that the latter is substituted instead of the former.

Mr. C reviles the idea of a change of seals, but may not the form of any thing undergo a change while the substance continues the same? Upon his principles the formal of dispensation through which the covenant of grace has passed, must have changed the substance of it; for it is evident it has passed through different forms. But as that, same Dr. Mason, whom you have heard so reviled, has very ably removed this objection, we shall read you an extract from the work already referred to, p. 78-81. "The substance of the ordinance, that which properly constituted the seal, was the certification to the person sealed, of his interest in God's covenant. The rite of circumcision was no more than the form in which the seal was applied. These two things must not be confounded. For, on the one hand, the rite may be, and was, and is yet, performed without any sealing whatever. The sons of Ishmael where circumcised, but they belonged not to the covenanted seed, and therefore circumcision sealed nothing to them. The Jews are circumcised still, but being cut off from the olive-tree, being cast out ot the church of God, and suspended from the privileges of the covenanted seeds, their circumcision is nothing. On the other hand, the seal had been the same, although administered by a different rite. The amputation of a toe, the perforation of an ear, the sprinkling of blood, or the anointing with oil, would have answered the purpose as well as circumcision. The essence of the seal lying not in the rite, but in the divine sanction which is given by that rite to claims on God's covenant. Now as it is self-evident, that this sanction may be conveyed

( 211 )

under any form which he shall please to prescribe, it is a gross error in reasoning to conclude, that because the ancient form is laid aside, therefore the seal and all things certified by it are laid aside too. It would be quite as accurate to infer, that because the form ot church polity is altered, therefore the church no longer exists. If it be objected, that "however distinguishable the seal and the sealing rite be from each other in theory, they are inseperable in fact; as the former cannot be applied to us but through the medium of the latter; and therefore if this be abolished, the other is to us as if it did not exist;" I reply, that the objection concludes equally against the existence of a church upon earth; for it must appear in some visible form, or else, to us, it is no church: and the argument is still good, that if the abolition of a particular form of sealing God's covenant, involves the abolition of the seal itself, then the abolition of a particular form of his church, involves the abolition of the church itself. The objection assumes the very point in debate, viz.; that the seal of the covenant and a particular form of the sealing rite are co-existent, and perish together. Whereas, it is contended, that the cessation of the latter does by no means imply the cessation of the former; but that the seal may remain the same although the rite be changed; and may pass, in its full virtue and efficacy, through successive forms of application. In truth, it is a fundamental principle, that forms of dispensation do not affect the substance of the things dispensed. Otherwise, the covenant of grace has been changed often. But if five forms of dispensation have not touched the substance of the covenant of grace; nor three forms of dispensation, the substance of the covenant with Abraham; why should the disuse of a particular mode of sealing this latter, draw after it the destruction of the seal itself? and of all the relations and benefits sealed? The issue is, that circumcision may be laid aside without infringing upon the covenant to which it was appended. It has been

( 212 )

laid aside, and the question is, What has been substituted in its place? As none of the parties to this controversy pretend that it has been succeeded by any other ordinance than baptism, the only alternative is, either that nothing at all has been substituted for it, or else that the substitute is baptism." This clearly establishes the point we have in view. viz. "that the rite of circumcision was no more than the form in which the seal was applied;" consequently, the rite may be changed, the form of sealing altered, but the substance is the same.

I come now to shew that baptism is actually called the Christian circumcision, Col. ii. 12. -- "Ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism. Now the phrase, the circumcision of Christ, is an hebraism, similar to the Christian circumcision, which is in the next words, defined to be baptism. The scope and import of the whole passage is, Ye Colossians are all circumcised being baptized, for baptism is the Christian circumcision. This important evidence of the similarity of the import and design of circumcision and baptism is weil argued by Dr. Mason, page 89-92. "This is a very extensive proposition, made up of a number of subordinate ones which it is necessary distinctly to weigh.

1st. Both circumcision and baptism are to be viewed as signs of spiritual mercies. It is for this reason alone, that they are or can be employed as terms to convey the idea of such mercies,

2d. Circumcision was a sign of regeneration, and of communion with Christ, as the fountain of spiritual life. The Apostle is treating of a believer's completeness in Christ -- of circumcision in Christ. That his meaning might not be mistaken, he explains himself of the inward grace, calling it, "the circumcision made without hands" and to cut off all misconception he explains his explanation, declaring this "circumcision without hands," to be, the putting off the body

( 213 )

of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.

3d. Baptism, too, is a sign of regeneration, and of communion with Christ, as the fountain of spiritual life.

In baptism, saith Paul, ye are "buried with Christ" -- ye are risen with him," through a divine faith, "the faith of the operation of God" -- Whereas ye were "dead in sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh," (uncircumcision put for the state irregeneracy,) God hath quickened you together with Christ.

Collect now the result. A believer's sanctification, in virtue of union with Christ, Paul declares to be represented by both circumcision and baptism: for he expresses his doctrine by these terms indifferently; and annexes to them both, the same spiritual signification. He has, therefore, identified the two ordinances: and thus, by demonstrating that they have one and the same use and meaning, he has exhibited to our view the very same seal of God's covenant under the forms of circumcision and baptism respectively. But as the same thing cannot subsist in different forms at the same time: and as the first form, viz. circumcision, is laid aside; it follows, that the seal of God's covenant is perpetuated under the second form, viz. baptism: and that it signifies and seals in a manner suited to the evangelical dispensation, whatever was previously signified and sealed by the rite of circumcision.

If we again inspect the Apostle's proposition, we shall find, that he directs us to this conclusion, as well by the structure of his phraseology, as by the force of his argument. For, on the one hand, by the indiscriminate use of the terms circumcision and baptism, he appears to assume, as an indisputable fact, the substitution of the latter in place of the former; nor is it easy to conceive why he should discourse in this allusive manner, if the exchange were not perfectly understood among Christians: and, on the other hand, his language is so framed, as to assert that exchange. "Circumcised -- in putting off the body

( 214 )

of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism." What can the Apostle intend, by the "circumcision of Christ?" Doubtless, not the literal rite, for this would destroy at once the whole of his reasoning on the article of sanctification, in the same way as it is destroyed by those who interpret the phrase, "buried with him in baptism," of submersion of the body in the act of Baptizing. The Apostle cannot so trifle. By the "circumcision of Christ," he means that righteousness of faith, that mortification of sin, that quickening influence, which flow from Christ, and were signified by circumcision. But that same righteousness of faith, and mortification of sin, and quickening influence, are also signified by baptism. But circumcision and baptism are external signs, which the Apostle recognizes by specifying the things signified. In his transition from the one to the other, that is, from circumcision to baptism, as signifying, in their respective places, the very same blessings, he points to the transition which the church of God has made in fact, from the use of the former to the use of the latter. "With regard to the things signified," saith he, "there is no difference. The circumcision of Christ, and burial with him in baptism, are expressions of similar import; both declaring a believer's communion with him in his covenant-mercies. With regard to the outward sign, fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, is represented in baptism, as putting off the body of "the sins of the flesh," was formerly represented in ["]circumcision." If this be just, the inference is plain. Baptism is the Christian circumcision; the sign of baptism is the Christian form of sealing God's covenant, and as such, has taken place of circumcision."

There are a number of objections to this doctrine we own, but what doctrine is there to which there are not some objections? It has been objected to this doctrine, that if baptism came in the room of circumcision, that, doubtless it would have been mentioned

( 215 )

in the xv. chapter of the Acts of Apostles; as the Apostles were on that occasion speaking on the subject of circumcision, and not particularly on the point necessarily requiring them to be explicit in informing the people of the change of circumcision into baptism, had this been the fact. But to argue from the silence of scripture on any subject is not a correct way of reasoning. There might have been many reasons for passing the matter by in silence on that occasion. Besides the members of the synod at Jerusalem, if not in the synod, they did elsewhere express their views of this point. And as some of them have called baptism, the Christian circumcision, and have explained its import as equivalent to that of circumcision, the point is satisfactorily settled; although the synod of Jerusalem have passed it over in silence. And suppose we could assign no reason for the silence of the synod of Jerusalem, it affords no evidence of these two ordinances being different in their import and use.

There are in the volume of redemption, as well as in the volume of nature, many inexplicable things. I suppose my opponent will admit that there are even many words in the Bible, the precise ideas attached to which, he could not ascertain. At least, we are assured that some as wise as he, have confessed their inability. Can he explain to us satisfactorily what is meant by Selah -- Urim and Thummim -- Leviathian -- the Unicorn. -- I know some conjecture may be given, but can he determine with certainty their import? I think not. I think it would be as difficult for him to do this, as to explain why large pumpkins grow on slender vines, and small acorns on mighty oaks, -- and a thousand other things as inexplicable.

I would therefore conclude that there maybe many things connected with any lawful practice which things we may not be able to explain satisfactorily, yet such things should form no real, nor formidable objection to a practice otherwise plain and commendable. Though there are many things in the dark connected

( 216 )

with the changing of ordinances, such as the substitution of the sacrament of the supper in room of the passover, the substitution of the sacrament of baptism in room of circumcision, the substitution of the fist day of the week in room of the seventh day sabbath, yet we are assured of the fact that such has been the change, and that by Divine authority too.

I then arose: -- Mr. M. justifies Dr. Mason's grand reason for advocating a mixed church on the hypothesis that it is a fulfilment of ancient prophecy, which saith, "That the earth helped the woman." This will not justify any attempt to make the earth help the woman. As correctly might Christianity be established by civil law, and every citizen compelled to support the church on this principle, that the earth was to help the woman, as to recommend the baptism of infants for this purpose. But it is all a forced interpretation of a plain prophetic oracle, for a pretext to justify an unwarrantable practice. It is generally understood by the ablest interpreters of prophecy, to refer to the establishment of such forms of civil government as that of the United States, or to such an improvement in monarchical governments as in that of England; as would preclude persecution for conscience sake. In this way, indeed, the men of this world, philosophers and statesmen, civilians and legislators, have shielded the true professors of the Christian religion from the flood of persecution which tyrannical governors, infuriated by blinded, biggotted, blood thirsty priests, have issued forth against the disciples of the primitive faith.

To what was it owing, my fellow citizens, that we have a constitution so favorable to the utmost liberty of conscience, so congenial to that spirit of enquiry which is essential to our knowing and enjoying the true substantial bliss; a constitution the wonder and the admiration of the virtuous -- the fear and the dread of the tyrant, and the oppressor in all nations; a constitution, the brightest ornament, the most illustrious feature, of which, is, that benign aspect which it bears -- that humane spirit which it breathes, generous philanthropy which it expres