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

William L. McCalla
Discussion of Christian Baptism

(Philadelphia, George M'Laughlin, 1831)

    Part 1: (pp. 1-214)  |  Part 2: (pp. 215-397)
  • Title Page   Preface
  • McCalla's Defence   Topic 1
  • Argument 1   Proposition I
  • Point 1   Point 2   Point 3
  • Point 4   Point 5   Point 6
  • Campbell's Bible   Proposition II

  • "Rigdon Revealed, 1821-23"  |  Greatrake's 1824 pamphlets  |  Campbell's recollections of 1823
    1824 Walter Scott pamphlet  |  1824 Alex. Campbell reply  |  1825 Alex. Campbell pamphlet
    1827 Harp of Zion  |  c. 1828 Dialogue First  |  1830 Parallel & Pioneer  |  1836 Lights & Shades




    AS TO












    BY W. L. M'CALLA,

    Pastor of the Eighth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, and
    author of "A Discussion of Universalism."


    - - - - -

    ( iii )


    In consequence of a general challenge, long published by Mr. Alexander Campbell, and at last accepted by the Author, a debate was held in Washington, Kentucky, in October, 1823, on Christian Baptism. With the expectation that it would last three hours, or a day at most, Mr. Campbell came prepared with a printed prospectus, promising that "All the arguments on both sides shall be faithfully and impartially detailed." As there was no stenographer, a detailed report was literally impossible; and, as the debate occupied seven days, instead of one, a detailed report would have been a losing, instead of a lucrative enterprise. He therefore published 6000 copies of the promised volume, in which all the speeches were composed by one man, in such a way as to answer the purpose of one party. Providence enabled me afterward to expose this forgery, in an Octavo volume of 150 pages, entitled "The Unitarian Baptist of the Robinson School exposed." To this he replied in a Duodecimo of 24 pages. An exposure of this pamphlet, and of the book which it is intended to support, is prefixed to the argument in this volume.

    The public are already informed that want of time compelled me to omit, in the debate, much matter which had been prepared for it. This need not be suppressed in a printed publication. As Mr. Campbell's report has taken the liberty of making new speeches, in part, for himself, as well as entirely new ones for me, I shall, when necessary, answer such interpolations, or, at any time, strengthen the cause of truth, by introducing new matter on my part, and by very freely condensing the matter delivered on the stage.

    ( iv )

    As the audience who attended the debate was chiefly composed of plain men, so it is my wish to adapt this publication to the plainer class of readers. This may account for some things which would otherwise appear very incorrect. One of these things is, that all my references to the Bible are made to suit that division of chapters and verses which is found in our English Translation, although hundreds of those references are professedly made to the Hebrew and Septuagint Scriptures. Without this method, ordinary readers would be utterly perplexed, in searching authorities, whereas, those of better opportunities need be at no great loss by the adoption of this plan. In quoting uninspired works, whether ancient or modern, second-hand authorities are often more accessible than originals. To the use of them, both parties were compelled, in a great measure, by necessity, during the debate; and where the credit of the reporters is untouched and almost intangible, the plan may be sometimes continued in this publication. Detections of errors will be thankfully received.

    If my friends and the friends of truth knew the difficulty with which 1 write, they would no longer censure me for unavoidable delays, but help me to give thanks to that God, whose mercy has enabled me to progress thus far in the work. To him it is sincerely and solemnly dedicated. May he be pleased to accept the humble offering; to pardon its faults and imperfections, through the atoning blood of the divine Redeemer; and to grant the influence of his divine Spirit, to bless that portion of truth which it contains, to the good of all denominations.

    ( v )


    It is amusing to observe the time and labour which Mr. Campbell and his testifying satellites have spent, in assigning to him and his Antagonist, their respective grades in the scale of talents; without being able to come to any certain estimate, at last. If I were in his place, it seems to me, that I could settle this darling question, upon a firm basis in a few words. I would sit down and write a certificate declaring that Alexander Campbell was a Solomon, and that his Antagonist was a Simpleton. This certificate should be signed by Alexander Campbell himself, and by a competent number of NEUTRAL Unitarians and Baptists, and Non-professing sons and brothers of Baptists and Baptist preachers. If it were then published without another word about the matter, it would save the party and his witnesses, from the unhappy appearance of inconsistency and self-complacency which they now assume. At present they certify that he could change sides and beat me; whereas he says that he did once advocate my side, and was overcome by an old woman. During the debate, he often represented me as incompetent and inadequate to the task which I had undertaken; in his book written afterward, he represented me as competent and adequate: in his late pamphlet his witnesses certify that I am incompetent and inadequate; yet in the same pamphlet he extols my defence so far as to say that "nothing better has ever been said, and nothing better can be said," on my side of the question. After thus exalting me to a level with any Pedobaptist who ever wrote, he gets three of his witnesses to certify, that. "Mr. Campbell was successful in argument, and greatly the superior of Mr. M'Calla in point of talents." Therefore, of course, he is greatly superior to any Pedobaptist who ever wrote.

    ( vi )

    As an apology for this strange proceeding, in a man of common sense, he would have the community believe, that it is only a retaliation upon me, for claiming a superiority of talents over him. If I have ever done so, it has entirely escaped my memory. Nothing but inexcusable pride and ignorance could ever have led me into such folly. My innocence of the charge is plain, from the fact that my accuser has not been able to give one instance, in which this offence has been committed. It is true, I have claimed the victory in the debate; and I believe that a judicious community will admit my claims, when they read my own argument, instead of one forged for me by an unprincipled adversary. Yet, be it remembered, that I claimed the victory, not on account of superior talents, but because I advocated God's truth, and because the God of truth condescended to enable a feeble advocate to defend his cause against a powerful assailant. With regard to Mr. Campbell's talents, we are all, in a great measure, agreed. He considers them great, and so do I. Their superiority to mine he has established by several certificates. I do not deny it. Why, then, so much about a matter, on which there is no issue?

    We are not so well agreed on every thing said by him and his witnesses. Mr. Vaughan has made a very dashing general accusation, about the affair of Captain Buckner It is time enough to make a particular answer, when he shall make a particular allegation. Until then, I must be satisfied with pleading not guilty to his general charge. (a) In the mean time, let it be remembered that Captain Buckner was a member of my church, and so uniformly and perseveringly attached to me, as a Christian Pastor, that, before my leaving them, he declared that if he were possessed of his former means, he would pay my salary out

    (a) This reminds me, that Mr. Campbell mentions certain things, which he says were published against me in Lexington, subsequent to my departure from that place. Their truth he takes for granted, because they have never been contradicted. To this I answer, that I have never got a sight of them. I publicly solicited the writer and his phalanx to come out, like men, while I was on the spot. But they chose, like Mr. Vaughan, to shew their bravery, after the mountains lay between us.

    ( vii )

    of his own pocket, rather than part with me. Mr. Vaughan admits that this warm friend is "a man of incorruptible integrity." If so, it seems to me, that Mr. Vaughan himself must be somewhat deficient.

    In another charge of his, he has not left us to mere presumptive proof. Unhappily for this witness, he does not always deal in vague generalities, but, by venturing a specification, has shewn himself indisputably guilty of the very crime, with which he charges an innocent man. The following are the facts. In my exposure of Mr. Campbell's report, I had written to Mr. Edgar the following words, viz. "You were very well satisfied that I had encountered Mr. Campbell, until your mind was changed a few months afterward, by information received from his neighbourhood. You then told we, that, from unanswerable evidence, his character was too low to justify so formal a notice by any respectable man; and that, in defence of my own character, an apology should be made to the public." Compare this with Mr. Vaughan's certificate, and a note which Mr. Campbell has published as Mr. Vaughan's, and which I will here add in brackets, to that part of the text, from which he refers to it by an asterisk. It is as follows, viz. "Edgar did not inform Mr. M'Calla by letter, that you were a man of too low a character for him to have any thing to do with. [This Mr. M'Calla said in his pamphlet.]" According to this pamphlet of mine, Mr. Edgar's communication to me, was a verbal one. made a few months after the debate, and, of course, before I had removed from Kentucky to Philadelphia. The words are, You then told me." Mr. Vaughan certifies that my pamphlet said that this communication was "BY LETTER." Now it appears, from Mr. Vaughan's own shewing, that Mr. Edgar has never denied that he "told" me this, as my pamphlet declares, -- he only denies that he communicated it by letter, a thing which my book does not declare, but which Mr. Vaughan has forged for it. Now where does the real falsehood lie?

    Another of Mr. Campbell's witnesses subjects himself to a very easy refutation. "Mr. Moses Ryan, once a zealous Pedobaptist, --

    ( viii )

    as Mr. Campbell states, testifies as follows, viz. "I had to experience the mortification of seeing Mr. M'Calla exposed for misquoting the Scriptures to suit his own purposes: and in reading extracts from Robinson, with the book in his hand and before his eyes, he would put language in Robinson's mouth that was no where to be found in it." "I can unhesitatingly say, that Mr. Campbell has given a fair representation of all of Mr. M'Calla's arguments, during the four days that I attended, excepting the leaving out of Mr. M'Calla's vulgar, abusive, and ungentlemanly language, together with his base misquotations of the Scriptures and Robinson's History of Baptism."

    From this certificate, it appears that I have been guilty of vulgar, abusive, and ungentlemanly language; but Mr. Campbell charitably dropped this from his report, while he faithfully recorded every thing that was decent. It seems that I was guilty of base misquotations of the scriptures, to suit my own purposes 5 and of basely interpolating and misquoting Robinson's History of Baptism, while the book was in my hand, and before my eyes: but Mr. Campbell tenderly concealed these errors from the public, while he faithfully reported all my correct quotations from the Scriptures, and other books. If there is any meaning in language, this is the meaning of the above testimony.

    Let it be remembered that this witness attended only four days, and that two of these four were the sixth and seventh. Then his testimony goes to show that Mr. Campbell, in his report of the sixth and seventh days, omits nothing that I said, except my vulgarities, and my misquotations of the Bible and Robinson. On examining his report, it will be found, that, for each of my half hours on these two days, he has allowed me, upon an average, between one and two pages; which, according to my way of speaking, would be delivered in less than three minutes. The result then is, that, during the two last days of our debate, I occupied twenty-seven or eight minutes out of every thirty, in gross vulgarities, or base misquotations of the

    ( ix )

    Bible and Robinson! This must be true, if Mr. Ryan's testimony be true.

    It is a general principle of all law, civil or military, ecclesiastical or social, that particular facts are necessary to support general charges. Notwithstanding Mr. Ryan's testimony, it can be proved, that, during the debate, Mr. Campbell ridiculed my inaccurate quotations of scripture* and in his subsequent report, accused me of making "material alterations" of the sacred text. It can also be proved that I called upon him for specifications. He has never, to my knowledge, condescended to produce one instance, in which I interpolated or misquoted Mr. Robinson, whether before my eyes or not; he has never produced one instance of my misquoting the scriptures, when before my eyes [[5 nor one inaccurate quotation of them from memory, which would favour my own cause. If my charges against him, had depended upon the general certificates of such men as Mr. Ryan, he would have justly laughed me to scorn. But when I accused him of misquoting the scriptures, or Dr. Owen, or Mr. Walker, or other writers, (and they were not a few,) I submitted to the drudgery of producing Mr. Campbell's words, and comparing them with the original. How gladly would he have done the same, if I had ever given him an opportunity. May God accept my sincere and humble thanks for preserving me from such crimes, and for giving me a cause which needs not such artifices to support it.

    The most important object of Mr. Campbell's pamphlet was to shew that his book, which is such a lucrative speculation to him, is really a correct account of our debate. On this subject I would observe, that he has a very unsatisfactory way of proving the correctness of his reports, by the objections of those who impeach them. Mr. Walker published several pages of exceptions to Mr. Campbell's account of their debate; to which he added a dozen pages of exceptions, by one of the Moderators. Mr. Campbell would persuade the public that these u altogether would not make one page;" and then pretends that if all these exceptions were well substantiated, his Report. "would appear from Mr.

    ( x )

    Walker's own treatise to be a correct representation of the controversy." My exposure of his Report in our case gave a very great number of particulars. Of these he speaks as follows, viz. "Even when all the particulars he gives are excepted, still the debate as published by me is worthy of the title and credit which it has received." Now let us examine the title and credit which it has received, and compare these with my exceptions.

    The title as published in the printed Prospectus, is "A Debate on Baptism, between Mr. W. L. M'Calla, of Kentucky and A. Campbell, of Virginia, held in Washington, Mason County, Kentucky, on the 15th of October, 1823, in the presence of many witnesses." The very next words of the Prospectus promise that All the arguments on both sides shall be "faithfully and impartially DETAILED." Nothing less than this detail would make it the debate which was held between the parties mentioned, at the time and place specified, and in the presence of many witnesses. In the title page of his book, he is still more particular, informing us of the debate which he reports, "commencing on the 15th and terminating on the 21st [22nd] Octob. 1823." The TITLE of the book, then, authorizes us to expect a faithful and impartial detail of all the arguments which I delivered in Washington, Kentucky, in a number of speeches, which commenced on the 15th and closed on the 22nd of Octob. 1823, lasting seven days; for the sabbath was left out. This is a fair account of the title of his book.

    Now for the "credit which it has received." Mr. Campbell's own explanation of this expression is to be found in the certificates of his witnesses, who profess to have heard the debate, as it actually took place, and then to have read and compared his printed report. They testify that so far as they "heard and read," Mr. Campbell has given in his publication of the debate, both in substance and FORM, fairly and substantially, ALL the arguments offered on both sides of the question." One calls it "a FULL, fair and faithful exhibition of all the principal arguments and topics." Another says that "all the matter and

    ( xi )

    argument advanced by both disputants." Another adds, "very generally the phraseology itself" Thus much for the credit of the book. Now add this to the title; and we are authorized by [[< the title and credit which it has received," to expect that Mr. Campbell's book will furnish a detailed report, full, faithful, and impartial, in respect of matter, form, and phraseology, of all my topics and arguments, in the seven days debate in Kentucky, October, 1823.

    Mr. Campbell has assured us that this is the real character of the report, even after admitting all the exceptions which I have made. The judgment of candour will consider him as virtually admitting the correctness of my exceptions, in fact, since, serious, numerous, and tangible as they are, he has not overthrown a single one of them; but reposes himself upon their supposed harmlessness. Taking my objections, therefore, for granted, let us compare them with some of the alledged features of his book, and in the undisturbed possession of which he thinks that my exceptions leave it. This must, of course, be done with great brevity.

    1. He promises a DETAILED report. My objections, which he has virtually admitted, prove from the book itself, that a great part of it is professedly an ABRIDGED report.

    2. He and his witnesses call it a FULL report. My objections shew from his own book, that a great part of it confessedly records short sums, specimens and abstracts* instead of full speeches, while there is not even a specimen recorded of very much that I said.

    3. He and his certificates call it a FAITHFUL report My objections, which he has virtually admitted, shew very numerous misstatements, as to matters of fact, they shew that he has written for me in his dialect, which is, in some instances, foreign to my own, and foreign to correct English; they shew that while using his own language, he has so transposed and altered my sentiments, as to make them error, confusion, and nonsense; they shew that the body of my quotations he has suppressed, while he has partly supplied their place, by greatly and stupidly

    ( xii)

    enlarging others, and quoting for me, from books which I had never named, nor even seen.

    4. It is called an IMPARTIAL report. My objections shew that he, though one of the parties, constitutes himself a judge of the weight of argument; and when Mr. Campbell the Judge, has decided against the relevancy of arguments opposed to Mr. Campbell the Party, he then forbids Mr. Campbell the Reporter to record them. This is a very cheap sort of impartiality.

    5. He and his witnesses allege that his report has the above qualities in respect of MATTER. My objections prove from his printed book and my manuscript notes, that the matter of my speeches is not in his report. His very preface expressly professes to abbreviate whole days of my matter as my publication shewed at large.

    6. They attach the above qualities to his report, with regard to FORM and PHRASEOLOGY. Surely these men must know that there is a difference in the form of a SPEECH and a SPECIMEN. They must know that there is a difference in the form of an oration occupying thirty minutes, and an abstract occupying three minutes. Besides, the very face of the book shews that these miniatures ar given in his own phraseology, and my admitted objections prove that where he pretends to use my language, he actually substitutes his own phraseology, even to his idiomatic violations of grammar.

    7. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses insist upon the fulness and excellency of his report, in relation to my TOPICS. My manuscript notes and my actual speeches contained seven topics: but where will you find these in Mr. Campbell's book? Where, for instance, will you find the history of the mode of baptism? My printed objections, which he has virtually admitted, shew, that he, as well as other Baptists, claimed the most respectable Pedobaptists, as advocating their views of the mode of baptism; my objections shew, moreover, that these claims were most triumphantly refuted, in my discussion of this topic. Perhaps there was not another part of the debate, in which the gross dishonesty of my Opponent, and Danvers, and other Baptist writers, appeared

    ( xiii )

    in a more disgraceful light. To bury the remembrance of such an exposure, he has suppressed the whole topic, and then persuaded his impartial, disinterested and neutral followers, such as Walker Reid, to certify that his report is "a faithful representation of the TOPICS!" I would not be the writer of such a declaration, for ten thousand times all the votes, and all the fees, which this neutral certificate will procure its author, from the dense Baptist population around him. But let it not be thought that the above is the only instance of dishonesty on this subject. His report allows one page to my fifth topic; he allows another page to my sixth and seventh topics, which are directly called for by his challenge, and without which, I am deprived of a defence. To the sixth topic, which was the most important, he has allowed six lines of that one page. Thus he has entirely suppressed one of my seven topics, and half of the remaining six, he has reported in two pages, and that in his own language.

    8. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses, allege, moreover, the excellency and fulness of his report, in relation to my ARGUMENTS. This leads us to evidence from Mr. Campbell's own pen, that he has laid violent hands upon another topic, which has not yet been mentioned. His preface informs us that he has indulged in "abbreviating" "the argument from ecclesiastic history." This argument occupied the third and fourth topics, which related to the history of the subject of baptism, and the history of the mode. One of these, I have shewn, he has entirely suppressed; and he expressly confesses that he has abbreviated the other.

    9. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses consider his book as a report of the Debate which took place between him and myself, in Washington, Kentucky, on the 15th to 22nd days of October, 1823. If it be so, it must give my speeches, whether vulgar or polished, relevant or irrelevant, during all the seven days, on all my seven topics, relating to the nature or effects of baptism, and embracing the arguments from scripture and from ecclesiastical histery. Instead of this, we find one topic entirely suppressed,

    ( xiv )

    three others occupying two pages, and a fifth abbreviated, by the impartial guillotine of the opposite party. Two out of the seven still remain. These I have exposed in a printed volume of objections, not one of which he has refuted, and the validity of which he has virtually admitted, by declining to make any particular exception, and by asserting that when my objections are admitted, his report '* is worthy of the title and credit which [[t has received.'' I have shewn that if these objections be valid, they will prove, that, in reporting me, his work is a mass of misstatements, Campbellisms, transpositions, supplements, interpolations, suppressions, and alterations. The evidence of this is found not only in my notes, but abundantly in his own book, which, of itself, is ground enough for contradicting all his certificates. Even when he and his witness agree in matter of fact, it is amusing to see how they will differ as to the reason of the fact. After all that has been said about the fulness of the report, Mr. Campbell, and his witness Mr. Ryan, cannot help conceding that much is omitted; that is, that it is not full, unless it can be full, while nine-tenths are wanting. Each of them has his own reason for this great omission. Mr. Campbell attributes it to the irrelevancy of such arguments as that which is drawn from ecclesiastical history. Mr. Ryan will not agree that this argument was suppressed at all, but insists that every thing was reported, [[u except the leaving out of Mr. M'Calla's vulgar, abusive, and ungentlemanly language, together with his base misquotations of the scriptures and Robinson's History of Baptism," of which vulgarity and dishonesty, neither he nor any other person can give a single instance!! These cannot be reconciled.

    When commencing this review, it was my design to examine Mr. Campbell's neutral witnesses, a little more particularly. This may possibly be done at some future period. At present it seems unnecessary. So perfect an imposture cannot long abide the test. The forgery of a Unitarian Baptist cannot always be supported by the mere general ex parte certificates

    ( xv )

    of Unitarians, and the sons and brothers of Baptist preachers, who choose to call themselves NEUTRALS, because they belong to no church; especially while these certificates contradict themselves and one another, and are obviously opposed to the very face of the record about which they testify. God will take care of his own truth and his own people, and on him do I rely, in Jesus' name.

    ( 16 )

    P E D O B A P T I S M.

    Friends, Fellow-citizens, and Fellow-Christians,

    The possession of a rational, responsible and immortal nature, should ever make us view religion as of paramount importance. Among innumerable dangers of fatal error, the enjoyment of a full revelation, an infallible rule of faith and practice, is a blessing for which we can never be sufficiently thankful. This blessed volume contains the instruction of the Divine Father, sealed by the blood of the Divine Son, and applied to the heart by the Divine Spirit. Depending upon the grace of the only true God, we should endeavour to give to all his doctrines, precepts, and ordinances, that inherent and relative weight which they claim in the inspired volume. Our views of the Christian sacraments, as to their nature, relations, and consequences, are thought defective and erroneous, by some who are Eminent for piety and intelligence. Yet while they condemn us, they accuse each other also. Mr. Booth, an advocate for strict communion, says concerning his Baptist brethren "who plead for free communion," that they "treat the ordinance [of baptism] as if it were a mere circumstance in divine worship; an indifferent thing; and dispense with it just as occasion requires." "The Lord's

    ( 18 )

    supper, however, is considered and treated by them in a different manner; for they speak of it as a delightful, an edifying, an important institution. But what authority have they for thus distinguishing between two appointments of the same Lord, intended for the same persons, of equal continuance in the Christian church, and alike required of proper subjects? They have indeed the example of some Socinians, and the venerable sanction of the whole Council of Trent: for the title of one chapter in the records of that council, is, 'Concerning the excellence of the most holy Eucharist, above the rest of the sacraments.'" (a) Concerning this preference of one sacrament to another, Mr. Booth asks, "Can such a conduct be pious, humble, or rational?" Yet impious, proud, and irrational as this conduct may be, it is feared that my Opponent has been guilty of it. It is true that he does not, like the free-communion Baptists, prefer the eucharist to baptism, but he does what is equally condemnable in Mr. Booth's esteem, he gives baptism a decided preeminence over the eucharist, if not over faith and obedience. "Baptism," says he "is an ordinance of the greatest importance and of momentous significance. Never was there an ordinance of so great import or design." "He [Christ] 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 placeth baptism on the right hand of faith." "To every believer therefore, baptism is a formal and personal remission, or purgation

    (a) Booth's Apology, pp. 177, 178. London Edition o

    ( 19 )

    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." (b) He said that baptism is inseparably connected with a formal pardon of sin: and spoke very boastingly of having never, for an hour, felt guilt of conscience, "since his baptism," (c) Those who hold such a religion as this, will always harbour animosity against pious Pedobaptists, as naturally as the Western Indians opposed the venerable Zeisberger, the Moravian Missionary, "in consequence chiefly of the insinuations of some Pagan teachers, who had strenuously recommended the use of emetics, as a speedy and infallible method of cleansing from sin? '(^J No doubt, there was many a deluded mortal among them, who "spoke very boastingly of having never, for an hour, felt guilt of conscience, since his [[" vomiting. How different is this Pagan stuff from the scriptural account of Baptism! Paul says "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel," (c) If he had viewed it as my Opponent does, he would have considered the work of baptizing to be the most important object of his mission. But he here uses a negative as the strongest contrast, to show its great inferiority to the essentials of Christianity.

    When I speak of the relative diminutiveness of the tangible sacraments, I would not be understood as insinuating

    (b) Campbell's Spurious Debate in Kentucky, pp. 117. 135.

    (c) Lowry's Notes, given to me.

    (d) Brodlk History of Missions, Vol. l. p. 435. Philadelphia Edition of 1816.

    (e) l Cor, i, 17,

    ( 20 )

    that they are unimportant. Far be it from me to despise such valuable privileges! May my soul ever rejoice in that heavenly condescension which has bestowed them! Our Fathers did well in reproving the Man of sin for robbing the laity .of the eucharistic cup; and they did as well in reproving certain Pseudo-reformers for robbing infants of the baptismal seal. Since the Pedobaptist world is arraigned before the public, under the heaviest charges, and since I am providentially called to confront our bold Accuser, the task is undertaken, with a trembling cheerfulness, and in humble reliance upon the Spirit of Christ, without whose help I can do nothing.

    The contested proposition, for the discussion of which we have met on this occasion, is contained in a general printed challenge, first uttered by my Opponent, several years ago, at the close of a debate which he had with a Pedobaptist Minister in another state, and afterward printed for general circulation, in his professed report of that debate, which I have in my hand. In that challenge he undertakes to prove that "Infant-sprinkling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religious and political." As I plead, not guilty, we join issue upon the very words of the accusation which you have just heard.

    To the language of the proposition I at first objected, in part, because the term in font-sprinkling was in tended as a sneer. If we were to call them Dippers, and call their baptism Ditching, they would probably think that a sneer was intended: yet they could not have more reason for such a suspicion, than we have

    ( 21 )

    in the present case. They call themselves Baptists, and not Divers, Plungers, or Dippers. As convenience requires that they should have a name, we allow them the one which they assume; but we do it from courtesy, and not because we believe that they are Baptizers more than ourselves. If the peculiarities of their system were necesary to make a man a Baptizer, (which is the original meaning of the word Baptist,) then the precursor of our Lord should not be called John the Baptist, or John the Baptizer [[^ since there is satisfactory evidence that he baptized infants, and that by sprinkling or pouring. But as the Author of the accusation now under discussion was not willing to remove or change the offensive expression, infant-sprinkling, all that we wish is, to have its meaning clearly settled. This is done effectually by the context, in which he says, "It is my time to give an invitation or challenge to any Pedo-baptist minister;" and again, "I feel disposed to meet any Pedo-baptist minister, of any denomination," &c. As the challenge, therefore, is directed to Pedo-baptists, it is evident that Pedo-baptism is to be the subject of discussion, and that this is what is meant by infant-sprinkling. The position, then, which he has engaged to maintain is, that infant-baptism, as practised by us, in the mode of sprinkling, pouring, or washing, is a factitious and pernicious institution. In his publications he has endeavoured to establish this general charge, by many particulars of a very odious character. If they be correct, we must be the enemies of God and man: if they be incorrect, he must [[ll false Accuser and a bitter Adversary of

    ( 22 )

    Christ and his Church. If he has published more than he then meant, or more than he is willing now to prosecute, he is present to declare it. If no such declaration is made, you will, of course, demand good evidence in support of such formidable charges.

    Against such allegations, by whomsoever brought, I willingly stand on the defensive: against such affirmations, by whomsoever made, I willingly espouse the negative. In so doing, I would endeavour, conscientiously and scripturally, to defend a command of God, and not those adventitious errors which Papists or Protestants have engrafted on it. If will worship, self-righteousness and superstition, schism and heresy, anarchy, oppression, and persecution are ever found connected with our system, I can only reply that this is an unnatural connexion, since these evils are from hell, and infant-baptism is from heaven. If my Opponent mean to prove that the use of the cross, and of oil and wine, and milk and honey in baptism, is a human tradition, I have no objection: but while this is made out undeniably, it will also appear that infant -baptism belongs to what he calls "the traditions of the Apostles," and that this Apostolical tradition or injunction is no more answerable for its illegitimate connexions, than the scriptures are answerable for destroying souls, when, through human depravity, they become a savour of death unto death; or than adult-baptism is answerable for the innumerable evi!s with which it is accompanied. And let it be remembered that this is practised by all Pedobaptists; for our system is to baptize believers and their seed. Christian baptism, thus administered, has sometimes

    ( 23 )

    been accompanied with much evil, as is the bible in which it is commanded; and infidels charge all this evil upon God's word and ordinances; whether righteously or not, judge ye.

    Whether infant-baptism he right or wrong, useful or hurtful, may be decided without any other evidence than the simple word of God. This proof is the best, because it is certain and infallible. That evidence which is derived from uninspired writings, whether doctrinal or historical, though strong, is nevertheless inferior. It would save much time and strength to omit it altogether. I mention this because my Opponent has already asserted, more than once, that the true church, from the Apostles' days to the present time, were Baptists. Although the challenge will certainly allow him this latitude, he would do me a favour by confining himself to the scriptures, at least in relation to the subject and mode of baptism. Its injurious effects he may prove in any way that he pleases: Let him produce scripture only, to show that infant-baptism is forbidden, and that immersion only is baptism, and then he shall have proved that "infant-sprinkling is a human tradition." But reasonable as this wish is, he intimates that it cannot be gratified. In addition, then, to infallible scriptural evidence in favour of our subject and mode of baptism, I shall be required to produce what might be called uninspired presumptive or probable evidence to the same points. I shall have to show that the Christian Church has always baptized infants, and that it has never considered submersion essential to this ordinance. This will have to be followed by evidence that the Baptists

    ( 24 )

    of England and America, instead of being born in the first century (as my Opponent has repeatedly asserted,) had their origin in the sixteenth. The topics of discussion, then, which my Opponent has cut out for me, are the following; viz.

    1. The scriptural subject of baptism.

    2. The scriptural mode.

    3. The history of the subject.

    4. The history of the mode.

    5. The, history of Anabaptism.

    6. The effects of the subject.

    7. The effects of the mode.

    In discussing these topics, while I would avoid shrinking from the duty of defending the truth, I would respect the feelings of pious Baptists, and avoid unnecessary recriminations against those mistaken Christians of that denomination, who, uncharitably, unrighteously, and untruly, make common cause with our Accuser, in slandering their brethren for obeying a divine command. To the true church, God has said, "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord." This we believe. In the exercise of a conscience void of offence towards God and man, we are willing to take shelter under this promise, for protection against the accusations of our present Adversary, and of all those who support him.

    When a man brings such serious charges as those

    ( 25 )

    which are now under consideration, he should have some plan of attack. In opening the cause, which my Accuser has professed to do, he should, as far as time allowed, give us some general view of the law and the testimony; something to which a reply may be made. But, in what he calls the opening of the debate, he has not laid before you as much as can be felt between the thumb and finger. His whole speech was occupied in a laboured effort to make his audience benevolent, attentive, and docile, according to Cicero's instructions. As I did not come here to set myself off by rhetorical arts, but to recommend religion, by defending its sacred institutions, and its pious professors, I have been compelled, though in the negative, virtually to open the cause myself. I shall therefore proceed immediately to the discussion of those topics which my Opponent's challenge and present determination force upon our attention, and which have been already enumerated in my division.

    TOPIC I.


    On this subject, my opinion is accurately expressed in the following words:

    The Scriptures consider infants as suitable, though not exclusive
    subjects of Christian Baptism.

    The challenge asserts that "Infant-sprinkling is a human tradition." My reply is, that the Scriptures consider

    ( 26 )

    infants as suitable, though not exclusive subjects of Christian baptism. Instead of this proposition, some would state that Pedobaptism is a divine institution. To avoid repeated and unnecessary distinctions and circumlocutions, I often use this declaration myself. But as a proposition for discussion, it is thought to be deficient in accuracy. We believe that adult baptism is a divine institution, and that female baptism is a divine institution, as well as male baptism: and so we might appear to multiply institutions according to the ages, sexes, colours, and conditions of mankind. Each of these has the appearance of excluding the rest. Of this appearance, Baptist controversialists take an unfair advantage. When we advocate infant-baptism as a divine institution, they try to make the world believe that we thereby reject adult baptism, whereas we hold and practice both: when the Bible teaches adult baptism, they conclude that it rejects infant baptism, whereas the Bible teaches, and the Apostles practised both. To shut the door against such quibbles, my proposition formally admits that infants are not the exclusive subjects of Christian baptism, while it asserts that they are suitable subjects of this divine institution, according to the testimony of God's word.

    But now that we are approaching the lively oracles, my Opponent begins to dread an appeal to this irrefragable testimony. He insists upon my passing this over, and engaging in a priori reasonings, which he knows would be much more inefficient in our defence than inspired authority. For me to quote scripture, he insinuates, would be only a fatiguing loss of breath and

    ( 27 )

    waste of time. His words are these, viz: "Before we spend our breath, waste our time, or fatigue our bodies in this discussion, let us know, cui bono, for what good, or what benefit to infants we contend." "We know of no benefit," says he, "that could be conferred on them by sprinkling a few drops of water upon their faces." (/) Perhaps my Opponent knows that these questions are often asked concerning his baptism as well as ours, and with as much force. And Booth complains that some eminent Baptists themselves seem to doubt the utility of adult immersion, and thereby to approach that sect which denies the utility and obligation of either baptism or the Lord's supper, (g) It is true fhat my Opponent professes to have discovered great utility in adult immersion; it purges from sin. In this he excels the Hemerobaptists, who cleanse themselves from all sin by a daily immersion. But Bishop Hobart is up with him even here; for he believes that infant baptism is regeneration; and both are about as wise as those Western Indians who believed that their sins were purged by emetics.

    In demanding evidence of utility in the threshold of this discussion, my Accuser opposes Jews and Christians, inspired and uninspired, heretical and orthodox, Baptist and Pedobaptist. Matt. v. 19. shews that the least of God's commandments is binding, whether we think it useful or not. In admirable consistency with this, Booth quotes from Stapfer the following sentiments of Orobius, a learned Jew, viz. "The ritual law depends

    (/) Debate, p. 4.

    (, ) Booth's Apology, p. 18 J,

    ( 28 )

    upon the will of the Legislator only; sometimes, or generally, no foundation for it being discovered in natural reason. But it does not obtain on that account an inferior degree of perfection, (supposing the wisdom and goodness of the Legislator to be infinite,) but ought rather to be esteemed of a higher and sublimer order: it being indeed supposed that an infinitely good and wise God can never prescribe to man laws which are vain and unsuitable. In proportion as the reason of them is more hidden to us, so should we the more believe that it belongs to the secret of divine wisdom: so that we should not either curiously or philosophically scrutinize, but be in obedient subjection to his command, by which we may shew our love, and a becoming reverence to the Supreme Creator: believing, with the whole heart, all things which his wisdom, infinitely worthy, exceedingly good, and most perfect, proposes to be observed by us, whether [or not] that wisdom can or will dispense or intermit for some occasion. And it belongs to a more signal obedience to observe those things, than such commandments of God as we discover to be founded in our reason: for such as these, even if God had not enjoined, men may know and observe, as many of the Gentiles have done, without any view to the "authority of God." But merely from their opinion of their cui bono.

    ( 29 )

    On this subject, even Dr. Priestly is more correct than my Opponent. As quoted by Booth, he declares that "Every divine command ought certainly to be "implicitly complied with [* even though we should not be able to discern the reason of it." That is, the cui bono of it. "In things of external appointment," (says Dr. Samuel Clarke, quoted by Booth,) "and mere positive institution, where we cannot, as in matters of natural and moral duty, argue concerning the natural reason and ground of the obligation, and the original necessity of the thing itself; we have nothing to do but to obey the positive command. God is infinitely better able than we to judge of the propriety and usefulness [the cui boni] of the things, he institutes; and it becomes us to obey with humility and reverence." The same author quotes Bishop Hall as saying, "It hath been ever God's wont, by small precepts to prove men's dispositions. Obedience is as well tried in a trifle as in the most important charge: yea, so much more, as the thing required is less: for oftentimes those who would be careful in main affairs, think they may neglect the smallest. What command so ever we receive from God, or our superiors, we must not scan the weight, [the cui bond] of the thing, but the authority of the commander.'' The same Baptist writer quotes Witsius as saying that, One who resolves to obey God in some things only, but excepts others, which he does [or not] according to his own judgment [of their cui bono,~] he does not serve God, but pleases himself. The true ground of "obedience is the authority of him who commands: which, as it is the same in all precepts, all then, it is concluded, must be of equal obligation."

    These are all Baptist authorites, because adopted

    ( 30 )

    by Booth (h) in support of his sentiments, which he expresses in his own words as follows, viz. "As in the great concerns of religious worship, nothing should be done that is not required by Jehovah; and as the lawfulness of all positive rites depends entirely on their divine Author and his institution; so he who complies with some, and neglects others that are equally commanded and equally known, may please himself, but he does not obey the Lord." "For it is not the manifest excellence, or the great utility [the cui bond] of any divine appointment, that is the true reason of our submission to it; but the authority of him that commands."

    You have already perhaps observed that my Opponent himself advocates this same doctrine at some times, though he contradicts it at other times. He has quoted a passage from Bishop Hoadly, in which he says, "All positive duties depend [not upon the question of [[f( cui bono f but] 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." To the same purpose he has quoted largely from Bishop Taylor, who says that "The will of the law-giver, [and not the question of cui bono~] is all the reason for obedience." (i) But in the debate with Mr. Walker we have my Opponent's own words to this effect as follows; viz. "Having now distinguished

    (h) They may be found in the following pages of his Apology. 71. 100. 179. 180.

    (i) Debate pp. 69. 70.

    ( 31 )

    positive and moral institutions, I proceed to shew that on no account whatsoever in positive requirements, are we to attempt to reason upon the expediency [the cui bono'] of the things enjoined, but implicitly to obey on all occasions. When Eve, the mother of us all, began to reason on the expediency fthe cui bono"] of eating the forbidden fruit, she began to sin. [[6 ' She reasoned that as the fruit of that tree was pleasant to the sight, and to be desired to make one wise, there could be no harm in eating of it; consequently she concluded to taste it. Of the incorrectness of her [[\_cui bono~\ reasoning, and of her incapacity, even when in Eden, to draw a correct inference, when reasoning on a positive institution, [[w T e have, alas! a melancholy proof" as we have in her [[cui bono descendant in this debate. (k)

    Often as my Opponent contradicts himself, he hardly ever does it without what he considers good policy. He published a challenge, to shew his courage; and afterward denied it, to throw the odium upon his Opponent. Why did he say so much in his letters, about his holding the negative of our question? Because it afforded what he thought a plausible pretext for demanding the closing speech. Why does he now urge as strongly that he holds the affirmative of the very same question? The Moderators, to whom he has appealed can answer, that this is made a pretext for demanding, that, as he has professedly opened the debate, I should not be permitted to choose my own plan of defence, but

    (j) Debate with Mr. W. p. 46. On the same page in his 2nd debate we find his cui bono contradiction,

    ( 32 )

    be compelled to leave the solid evidence upon which my cause rests, and follow the ignis fatuus of his declamation. Again; why is it that he insists so strongly upon the good old doctrine, that we must unreservedly obey every command of God, without waiting to discuss its expediency, or its cui bono? Because he hopes to pervert this truth to the sophistical conclusion that nothing short of [what he means by] an express divine command can authorize" infant baptism: as if an implicit command were not binding at all! But when I approach the subject too closely, and seem in danger of producing a divine command, he complains that by such a course we should only "spend our breath, waste our time, and fatigue our bodies." Why does he then insist, in opposition to his former principles, concerning positive institutions, that we must first examine the question of expediency," cui BONO, for tvhat goody or [,/br] what benefit to infants" is this institution intended? These questions you can answer.

    I wish you to keep in mind the proposition with which I have set out, on the scriptural subject of baptism. It is, that "the scriptures consider infants as suitable, though not exclusive subjects of Christian baptism." Baptist polemics generally take it for granted that this is impossible in the nature of things; and think that infant baptism necessarily rejects adult baptism, and that adult baptism necessarily excludes the other, as if these were two distinct and irreconcileable baptisms. Booth says, "If infant sprinkling be a human invention, disown it but if it be from heaven, embrace it and lay the other absolutely aside, as destitute

    ( 33 )

    'of a divine warrant; for as there is but one God and one faith, so there is but one baptism." (1) This writer is much in the habit of illustrating the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist by a reference to circumcision and the Passover. (m) We all know that there was only one circumcision as well as one baptism. How then would it look to reason on the former, as he has done on the latter? If infant circumcision be a human tradition, disown it but if it be from heaven, embrace it and lay adult circumcision absolutely aside for as there is but one God and one faith, so there is but one circumcision!!! Yes, there was but one circumcision; yet it was administered to adults and infants: so there is but one baptism, which, like circumcision, is the seal of the righteousness of one faith; yet this also is scripturally administered to believers and their seed.

    Scriptural statements of the qualifications of adult subjects are always quoted on this point, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned." "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (n) We are both agreed that these passages exclude from baptism, those adults who are destitute of knowledge, because they must first be taught of faith, because they

    (/) Close of his Apology. (m) See his Apology, pp. 145.149.

    (72) Mark xvi, 16. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.

    ( 34 )

    are required to believe and of obedience, because they are required to observe all things. We are both agreed on another point also, which is as plainly taught by these texts as the one just now stated. That is, that those intelligent adults who are destitute of knowledge, faith and obedience, are deprived of Christ's gracious presence, by his Spirit, unto the end of the ivorld, and of his salvation in eternity. We agree, in a third position, that the privilege of baptism, the enjoyment of Christ's Spirit, and eternal salvation are here secured to believing adults. There is a fourth point in which we can possibly meet. The Apostle Peter shews that the promise of the Spirit of sanctification and salvation is to believers and their children; "The promise is unto you and to your children." The fifth point is the one on which we differ. Do these passages exclude infants from baptism? They affirm; we deny. They say that Christ's command to teach and baptize all nations, excludes infants as incapable of instruction: then are they not excluded from his promise, "lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world?" They say that our Saviour's declaration, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," excludes infants as incapable of faith: but the next clause says, "he that believeth not shall be damned/' If, then the former clause deprives them of baptism, because incapable of faith, this latter one excludes from salvation all infants who cannot believe. Mr. Robinson's "good Baptist," Michael Servetus, of the sixteenth century, saw the necessity of this conclusion, and admitted its correctness. He rejected infants from baptism and from salvation

    ( 35 )

    together, because they could not believe; and supported his doctrine by that text which says, "He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." (0) This mode of interpretation, if consistently maintained, would exclude infants from daily bread, as well as from baptismal water Paul says, "This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (/>) Our Opponents should say, infants cannot work, therefore infants should not eat. Why do they not reason and act thus? Because they know that this command related to adults who ought to work, and will not; and not to infants who cannot work. Just so Pedobaptists interpret the above texts concerning baptism. They are intended to exclude adults who ought to believe, but will not: and not infants which are neither believers nor unbelievers. And to reason otherwise, is as absurd as to say that the sheep on the right hand of Christ, at the day of judgment, are intended to exclude not only the goats, but the lambs also. Such sentiments as the above texts contain, are found in Pedobaptist writers, and Pedobaptist creeds, in every age and country: and, what is remarkable? Baptist writers quote them, as they do the scriptures, in opposition to that system which their authors maintain. They cannot help confessing that after Cyprian's day, Pedobaptism prevailed in the church; and yet when Cyprian and other Fathers talk of the necessity of believing and repenting before baptism, they quote these expressions against infant baptism, although they know

    (o^ (ji

    Calvin's Institutes. Book 4. ch. xvi. sect. 31, ) 2 Thess. iii. 10. in Calv, Inst. B, 4. oh, xvi. s. 29,

    ( 36 )

    that their authors were Pedobaptists, and never meant them to apply to infants. Speaking of baptism, Cyprian declares that all u will perish," "unless they do ff come with repentance to that only salutary sacrament of the church." On the same subject Gregory Nyssen says, i( Prayer to God, and the imploring of the heavenly grace, and the water, and faith, are the things that "make up the sacrament of regeneration." To the same amount, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Augustine. Basil says, "One must believe first, and then be "sealed with baptism." Jerome says of the Apostles, ' that they first taught the nations, and then baptized 6 them; "for it cannot be that the body do receive (f the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have before received the true faith." (q) If the scriptures forbid infant baptism, so do these Fathers: but both sides know that these Fathers held infant baptism and required faith as a qualification in adults only; and so we believe the scriptures do.

    But the inconsistency of our Opponents does not stop with the scriptures and the Fathers. They have claimed the Pedobaptist Reformers and reformed churches and their successors to the present day. They even quote against Infant baptism, the standards of the Pedo-baptist churches with which we are conversant and connected; and most certainly, they are as much against it as the scriptures are. Both alike require faith in the subject. The Catechism of the Church of England says, "There is required of persons to be baptized, faith

    (7) Wall's Defence, pp. 346. 347.

    ( 37 )

    and repentance." Our Catechism says that in a sacrament, "Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed and applied to believers." The same work says that their efficacy depends upon the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them." (r) In the close of my Opponent's book against Mr. Walker, these and similar passages of our Creed are explained just as the scriptures are, in opposition to infant baptism. On the first of them the writer says, "Mark, only to believers. Are infants capable of believing?" On the second passage he says, "Here mark again, if the blessing of Christ and the working of his Spirit is wholly restricted to them that by faith receive them. Is it possible to suppose that infants can so receive? Then surely it would be wrong not to admit them also to the Lord's table. But the thing being insupposable, they are therefore equally debarred from both." On the whole, he observes, "Are not all the blessings and benefits specified in them exclusively confined to believers? Obviously so, as the words unequivocally declare, in express concurrence with the scriptures cited for proof, at the bottom of the page, under the respective answers. According to the manifest scope and tenor of all those documents taken together, what comes of infant-sprinkling? It stands excluded to all intents and purposes. No room is left for it, if the forecited documents contain words of truth." (0)

    (r) Larger Cat. Questions, 92. 91. (*) 2nd Edition, p. 290, 291.

    ( 38 )

    Thus does this writer profess to prove that, by our Catechism, infants are "equally debarred from" baptism and the Lord's supper; and that from our own creed, Pedobaptism "stands excluded to all intents and purposes." It is no wonder, then, that he says this of the scriptures. But on this subject I can tell him what probably never before entered his mind. It is this; that, according to his rules of interpretation, it can be shewn that our Catechism, as well as the scriptures, exclude infants from salvation as well as from baptism, by requiring faith for the one as well as the other. It speaks as follows; viz. "To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption. v (0 On this article my Opponent might speak as follows; Mark!!! Only to believers, to penitents, to diligent seekers. Can children believe? can children repent? can children diligently use the means of grace? Is not salvation here exclusively confined to believers? Obviously so, as the words unequivocally declare, in express concurrence with the scriptures cited for proof, at the bottom of the page." "According to the manifest scope and tenor" of the article, "what comes of infant salvation?" It stands excluded to all intents and purposes." To all such reasoning, whether on the scriptures or the catechism, whether on infant salvation or infant

    (0 Shorter Cat. Quest. 85. See Larger Cat. Qu. 153.

    ( 39 )

    baptism, I can make no better answer than Goldsmith has furnished me with: and that is, Fudge.

    But the work from which I have quoted, professes to admit that our standards advocate Pedobaptism, and therefore accuses them of the inconsistency of approving it in one place, and condemning it in another. The same, however, might as correctly be said of their declarations on infant salvation. According to Baptist rules of interpretation the above passage excludes them all from heaven, for the want of faith: but another passage says, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." (w) They must believe these to be contradictions. Before our ecclesiastical constitution is condemned for inconsistency among the many alledged faults of that transcendant production, let us try it by such sober rules as practical wisdom has established for the interpretation of our civil laws. Blackstone says, "One part of a statute must be so construed by another, that the whole may, (if possible) stand: [[ut res magis vahat, i( quam pertat]]" According to this rule we can admit that the church is sincere in professing to believe that elect infants dying in infancy, are saved without faith: and, in perfect consistency with this, they believe that faith, repentance, and the diligent use of the means of grace; are necessary to the salvation of adults. In this way we reconcile the declarations of our Saviour and one of his Apostles. Peter says, concerning the

    (M) Conf. of Faith, ch. x. sect. 3.

    ( 40 )

    promise of salvation by the blood and Spirit of Christ, The promise is unto you and to your children." Doubtless many of these children who died in infancy, were saved without faith. Yet our Savour says, "he that believeth not shall be damned." This, then, must be understood of adults: ut res magis valeat quam pereat. So when our church or other churches, or when Christian Fathers and Reformers, and ministers approve of baptizing infants without faith, they are sincere: and they are no less so, when they affirm that faith is necessary to baptism; because they mean this of adults; so that it is quite possible "that the whole may stand," Thus we explain the scriptures. When they speak of the ecclesiastical or ceremonial holiness of children, and of circumcising and baptizing whole households on the faith of the parent, when the infants cannot believe, we receive it as true: and it is no less true that they often require personal piety as a qualification for baptism; because they often speak of adult subjects. This interpretation is of such a character, that the whole may stand without contradiction; that the thing may have some meaning, rather than perish, by inconsistency.

    But my Opponent may tell me, ' this is the point 6 to be tried. Prove that the scriptures do consider ' infants as suitable subjects of Christian baptism, and [[* we can easily prove that adults, are proper subjects; 6 and we may possibly admit that the two may go together without inconsistency.' To prove that the scriptures do admit infants to this ordinance, is the very thing which I hope soon to do: but before coming to this

    ( 41 )

    point, it is necessary to declare what is meant by the scriptures, and what weight is to be given to them in this controversy. With the Westminster Assembly, I can truly say that "Under the name of holy scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament," "all [[i( which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." (#) With them, I can conscientiously quote from the Old and New Testaments to prove that "the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." Yet would you believe that these very words, for the proof of which they have referred to Genesis and Galatians, are in that same Chapter on Baptism, which my Opponent quotes as denying the authority of the Old Testament in this controversy; merely because it is there stated that Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ." ^) This my Opponent takes as his text, and professes to build upon it as follows, viz: "I. We shall go to the New Testament, and not to the Old, to ascertain the nature, design, and subject of this ordinance. 2. 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 he may be in others. No doubt our Opponent will feel his creed honored, and will acquiesce in our method as correct." "In establishing the first point, that a believer is the only subject of baptism."

    (i>) Chap. i. sect. 2,

    (w) Ch, xxviii, sect. 1. 4.

    ( 42 )

    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?" (x}.

    Whether this ordinance belongs exclusively to the New Testament, is a point which we are about to try. We are about to see whether the words immediately preceding those which my Opponent has quoted are not also true. They are as follows, viz. "The sacraments 66 of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things 66 thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance the same with those of the New." I agree with the authors of my Opponents text, that this initiatory rite, is, in its present form, an ordinance of the New Testament; but I agree with them in believing moreover, that in its substance, it is found in the Old Testament: and because it is there undeniably administered to infants, therefore the opposers of infant baptism are too apt to reject the authority of the Old Testament. Consider well the following words of my Opponent, in the prospectus of one of his publications. "The Editor acknowledging no standard of religious faitli or works, other than the Old and New Testaments, and the latter as the only standard of the religion of Jesus Christ, will, intentionally at least, oppose nothing which it contains, and recommend nothing which it does not enjoin/' As it is the new Testament only, which he will not intentionally oppose, we are left to infer that he will

    (-r) See Campbell's Spurious Debate, pp. 57,58.

    ( 43 )

    intentionally oppose the Old Testament, as he most assuredly does. But this he thinks justifiable, since it is not the standard, in whole nor in part, of the Christian religion, but of some other religion; what this other religion is, he may yet tell us.

    In rejecting the authority of the Old Testament, my Opponent only follows ,his instructor, the celebrated disciple of Dr. Priestley. Robinson quotes with approbation, the error of the Massalians, who "thought the Old Testament a true history, but not a rule of Christian action." The same thing he observes concerning the Manicheans; and then asks, "Who doth not see the justness of this sentiment?'' He then observes that 6< the Fathers, particularly the Africans derived all the errors that founded and supported their hierarchy [that is, they derived Pedobaptism] from the Old Testament." These observations belong to nine quarto pages, which the American Editor has left out in one place; because, in them, Robinson comes out as the advocate of Manicheism, Socinianism, and every filthy thing which he can lay his hands on. (y) If he be really sincere, in saying that the African Fathers derived all their errors, as he calls them, from the Old Testament, then he must consider the Old Testament the worst book that was ever written, not even the Westminster Confession excepted: for he evidently considers the African Fathers the worst men, and their system the worst religion, that can be found on earth, or (I might say) in hell; but this great Baptist champion did not believe that there was a hell.

    (y~) London Kdition, pp 204 213.

    ( 44 )

    After rejecting one half of God's word, Robinson and his Soeinians came very naturally to despise th other half, and to throw contempt upon the external means of grace in general. Pious Baptists of the present day are not, perhaps, aware that this has been very much the character of their sect from the beginning. This arose in some measure, from their opposition to original sin, and having too good an opinion of themselves. Stapfer says, concerning them, "Because they who had attained the highest grade of perfection and sanctity, no longer needed the external means of grace; hence they set no great value upon the use of the sacred scriptures, and they deny that the reading of the Old Testament especially is useful to men of their society, either that the doctrine of truth may be known, or the study of piety promoted." (2)

    Such sentiments as these, whether in Baptists or Pedo-baptists, are essentially wrong. An inspired Apostle of the New Testament says concerning the scriptures of the Old Testament, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness." (?) If we were discussing the question of infidelity instead of Christian baptism, I would, of course, endeavour to prove the divine authority of the Scriptures. At present we shall have to take this for granted. Whatever can be proved from the inspired volume, I shall consider as well proved; and none but an infidel will say otherwise. Indeed the latitude which

    (z) Institutions of Polemic Theology, ch. xviii. sect. 10. (c)2 Tim. iii. if.

    ( 45 )

    I take is embraced in that very rule which my Opponent has quoted with so much applause, concerning the interpretation of one part of scripture by another. It is also contemplated in another passage quoted from the same excellent work, which declares the scriptures, in regard to all essentials, sufficiently plain even to the unlearned, "in a due use of the ordinary means." (6) It is to the unlearned, chiefly, that the argument of an unlearned man is now addressed. To their satisfaction I hope to shew, that the scriptures consider infants as suitable, though not exclusive subjects of Christian baptism. This proposition is based upon divine command and Apostolical practice.



    On the authority of God, in relation to baptism, Booth quotes a very precious sentiment of the great Cartwright, the Father of the Puritans. "As the salvation of men ought to be dear unto us; so the glory of God, which consisteth in that his orders be kept, ought to be much more dear." A holy zeal for observing and enforcing all God's commandments, out of regard to their Author, is a lovely Christian grace: but as my Opponent has just now observed that "all things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all," (c) our zeal must be accompanied with knowledge, or it

    (d) See our Confession of Faith, ch. i. sect. 7. 9. quoted in the Spurious Report, pp. 56. 57. (c) Spurious Report, p. 56,

    ( 46 )

    will degenerate into bigotry, or be converted into rebellion. My Opponent seems to think that nothing but what he calls an express command can authorize the baptism of infants; as if God had no right to claim obedience to any law which was not framed according to my Opponent's directions. Even if the scriptures were to use the very words, baptize infants, or baptize children, it would not answer the purpose; because, according to the criticisms with which his Master, Robinson, has furnished him, infants and children, and all such words, signify men and not babes. As such an express command would be unavailing, we do not think it disparaging to the solid evidence which the scriptures contain, to say, that this evidence does not satisfy his demands. In my opinion, that person shews a divine command for our system, who proves that God once gave to the church a command, yet unrepealed, to administer to infants that initiatory seal of which baptism is the New Testament form; who proves that this is included in the command to disciple all nations, baptizing them; and in the declaration that children are holy; and should be suffered to come to Christ the Head of the Church, because they are of the kingdom of heaven, which is the church. He who shall prove these, shews a. divine command, although it is not what my Opponent calls an express command.

    Neither is this necessary. in matters of doctrine or practice, government or worship. It is well known that Socinians deny that there is an express revelation of the doctrine of a Trinity in Un ty, because these words are not in the bible in this connexion: yet if it

    ( 47 )

    can be proved from the bible that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, and that these are not three Gods but one God, the doctrine is more firmly established than it would be by the express words, Trinity in Unity. They also deny the vicarious satisfaction of Christ for the same reason: yet if it can be shewn that he was cut off for sins not his own, and this to magnify God's law and make it honorable, the doctrine is as fully proved as if the atonement had been expressly defined by the words vicarious satisfaction. There is not in the scriptures, an express prohibition of duelling nor of lotteries, nor of gaming of any sort; nor is there an express license for eating swine's flesh; neither is there any need of such express statutes, for the scriptures are plain enough without them. Where do the Baptists get an express command for their independent form of Church government? When they will shew us a text saying, Ye shall be Independents, and not Presbyterians, then 1 will shew one which says expressly, Ye shall be Pedobaptists, and not Anabaptists. Where do pious Baptists find an express command for the observance of family prayer and the Christian sabbath, which they love, and my Opponent despises? They would as soon look for an express command for drawing their breath: and rather than relinquish their domestic and sabbatical privileges, they would, like Daniel, give up their breath.

    On this subject my Opponent was completely posed by Mr. Walker, his former Antagonist. My Opponent asked him, "Was there ever a positive ordinance or institution founded solely upon inference or reason?"

    ( 48 )

    In reply, Mr. Walker, on his part asked, "Have we a positive command for all the acknowledged institutions of the church?"' This was a true Socratic refutation. It was so puzzling to my Opponent, that he chose not to record it in his report of the Debate; but, in its place, he recorded (according to a custom of his another question which he manufactured for Mr. Walker, and which he thought he could more easily answer. The question which he made, is this; "I ask him for a positive command for the institution of a church.'' One would suppose that, as he had the forming of the question and the answer too, he would make the latter come up, at least, to the level of his own demands. But this he was very far from doing. You know that he will not allow any passage of scripture to be a divine command for infant baptism unless it has the word infant in it. It is also a sine qua non with him that it should have the word baptism in it. When Mr. Walker quoted authorities which were destitute of these words, my Antagonist indignantly answered as follows, viz. "Is it possible that my Opponent has no better support for his system? Is he obliged to prove a New Testament positive institution from the 17th Chapter of Genesis? from portions of scripture in which baptism is never mentioned? In all the scriptures he has yet adduced, baptism is not so much as once mentioned." (d)

    Now let us see whether he has come up to his own demands in answering his own question, which he intended to make very easy. If a divine command for the

    (d) Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 23.

    ( 49 )

    baptism of infants require the express mention of baptism and infants [[^ then an express command for the institution of a church must at least mention the words institution and church. He sets about his answer with the bravery of Napoleon, when entering Moscow. He refers us to the passage where our Saviour commands his disciples to teach or disciple all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things, (e) This is, like Mr. Walker's authority for infant baptism, very good proof, but, like that, it is utterly destitute of those words which his Opponent considered necessary to constitute it an express command. Mr. Walker might, therefore, have answered, "Is it possible that my Opponent has no better support for his system? Is he obliged to prove the institution of a church from the 28th chapter of Matthew? from portions of scripture in which neither institution nor church is ever mentioned?"

    But he quotes another passage which has the word church, though it does not speak of its original institution, nor propound a command, but states a historical fact, that "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (f) This he triumphantly closes with declaring, "Here there is a positive institution of a church, with the authority for it." We are not so much disposed to quarrel with this declaration as he is himself. Let us now compare his question with his answer, and with the rules which he has dictated in relation to such subjects. His question requires "a positive

    (e) Matt xxviii. 19, 20. in the Spurious Debate with Mr. W. p. 51 ,

    (f) Acts ii. 47. in the Spurious Debate with Mr. W. p. 51,

    ( 50 )

    command for the institution of a church." His answer states a historical fact, in which members were added to a church, without any express mention either of its charter or of its original institution. It seems peculiarly inconsistent for him to call this historical fact, (without a precept,) "a positive institution of a church/' in the close of a paragraph, which commences by defining a positive institution to be a particular precept. His own words are these, viz. "In positive institutions, all that we have to inquire after, is the meaning of the words of one particular precept, which, to an iota, we 66 are bound to perform, in the manner in which it is commanded." Now, I would ask, has Mr. Walker's Opponent ever yet given us his "one particular precept, which, to an iota," expressly gives "a positive command for the institution of a church," in so many words, according to his own requisitions, and according to his own promise? If, then, he has not answered his own question, which he intended to make as easy as possible, it is no wonder that he has never answered Mr. Walker's question, "Have we a positive command for all the acknowledged institutions of the church?"

    Let it be remembered that this question of Mr. Walker's was connected with one or two of his Opponent's, which asked, "Was there ever a positive ordinance or institution founded solely upon inference or reason? Or can there be a positive institution, with out a positive precept or precedent authorizing it." (g) These questions are framed with an unfairness, which

    (g) Spurious Debate with Mr. W. p, 68.

    ( 51 )

    says little in favour of their author's candour or of his cause. Have we ever professed that infant-baptism was ' founded solely upon inference or reason?" Have we not always appealed to positive precepts and precedents of revelation for our authority? Neither do I see the danger of admitting, in the established meaning of the words, his favourite principle that u a limited commission implies a prohibition of such things as are not contained in it." (h) We say that infant-baptism is contained in the commission, and therefore not prohibited by it: and we prove this in the same reasonable and scriptural way in which our Opponents prove the duty of female-communion. They do not find a passage of scripture which says expressly, "Females must commune;" yet they find evidence that Christ's believing disciples should commune? they therefore admit to that privilege such females as answer that description. This is a legitimate inference from authority which contains no express mention of females. Suppose a person inquiring whether the scriptures forbid him to demand from his brother a hundred per centum, per annum, interest on lent money. He is referred to Nehemiah v. 11, which forbids him to receive the centesima, which is one per cent, a month, or twelve per cent, a year. This does not expressly mention the ratio in question: yet it as really forbids that exorbitant usury, as it could do by mentioning the identical words. This is according to my Opponent's declaration, "that a man is not to reason whether he is to be just or honest; but he may reason

    (h) Spurious Debate with Walker, p. 209. with M'Calla, p. 1H.

    ( 52 )

    to know in what justice and honesty consist." Thus he does not consider himself at liberty to reason whether believing disciples should commune or not, for this is settled by revelation; but he may reason to know in what faith and discipleship consist. This course my Opponent pursues, but he knows the consequences of it, as is evident from the declamatory vituperation with which his argument is bloated. In his spurious debate with Mr. Walker, (i) he uses the following words, viz. As to his second query concerning female communion, I have to observe that although sundry Pedobaptists have made a salvo to soothe their minds, of this apparent difficulty, it is a poor and a pitiful come off; it is the most puerile and childish retort that I ever heard used by adults that had any knowledge of words and et things. Was the Lord's supper instituted to men or women as such? Was it not appointed to the disciples of Christ? * He gave it to his disciples, saying, partake ye all of it.' Here then is an express warrant for all disciples to participate of the Lord's supper. Now it puts Mr. Walker, and all Pedobaptists that humble themselves to such means to support their cause, to prove or to show, that a woman is not a disciple of Christ. But should they attempt this, I have express authority to shew that they oppose the oracles of heaven, for a woman is expressly called a disciple, Acts ix. 36. ' For there was a certain disciple there named Tabitha;' so that these obstacles thrown in my [[^ way, are but means to afford a clearer and fuller illustration

    (i) Spurious Debate with Mr, Walker, p. 50, (y) p, 69,

    ( 53 )

    and confirmation of the truth of my reasoning on positive institutions."

    My reasoning on positive institutions"!!! So it seems that Pedobaptists are not the only ones who reason on positive institutions. You have just now heard a specimen of my Opponent's reasoning on these subjects. It would be well if all his reasonings were as correct as that which supports female communion, for which he is not able to find what he calls an express command. His pretending that Mr. Walker is opposed to this argument is pretence only. He knows that we admit his inference as legitimate; but he knows also, that the same argument about discipleship will establish infantbaptism. In our Saviour's commission, "teach all nations, baptizing them," critics generally interpret the word rendered teach, as meaning disciple, or make disciples of. My Opponent says, "This is unquestionably the proper rendering of the term." (j) Pedobaptists have often proved, and, in due time, I hope to prove, in this debate, that the scriptures recognize the discipleship not only of Tabitha, or of Lydia, but of their households, and of the infants of all believers. And here it will not do to object that if infants are disciples, they must partake of the supper also, on account of a supposed universality in our Saviour's command to his disciples, "Partake ye all of it." So far is this command from requiring us to administer the supper to disciples of all ages, that it does not bind us to administer it to adult believing disciples universally, since the discipline of Christ's

    (l) Spurious Debate with me, p 113.

    ( 54 )

    own appointment sometimes cuts them off from this privilege.

    But while my Opponent may be marshalling objections, I would remind him that his own argument, which is admitted to be good, is liable to as serious objections as any which he urges against ours. When we give divine authority for the administration of the seal of the righteousness of faith to infant disciples as well as adult believers, he objects that circumcision never was the seal of the righteousness of faith in any case except that of Abraham only, because the only instance in which this expression is used is in connexion with his name. If this mode of expounding the scriptures be admitted, how will my Opponent's argument for female communion fare in the hands of a bold objector? Recollect that it rests upon female discipleship, and female discipleship, according to my Opponent, rests upon the discipleship ofTabitha. The objector, therefore, would take my Opponent on his own ground, and say> As circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only, and to no other male, so discipleship was attached to Tabitha only, and to no other female!!

    Again; when we say, T/* disciples should be baptized, and?/ the infants of believers are disciples, then these infants should be baptized, my logical Opponent laughs at our ifs, and would make you believe that sound logic does not recognize hypothetical syllogisms at all! Yet, strange to tell! his boasted argument for female communion is virtually a hypothetical syllogism. It is as follows:

    ( 55 )

    If disciples should commune; and

    if females be disciples, then

    Females should commune: but

    Disciples should commune; and

    Females are disciples; therefore

    Females should commune.

    Now in all this, where is my Opponent's express command for female communion? His vapouring argument does not even assert it: but only says that he has an express warrant for all disciples to participate of the Lord's supper;" after which he has to shew that females are disciples. So we have an express warrant for baptizing disciples; and we prove from scripture that believers and their infants are subjects of this discipleing and baptizing. When my Opponent pursues this method of reasoning to establish the duty and privilege of fetfiale communion, he would think it a breach of the ninth commandment, for any one to tell him that he held "a positive ordinance or institution, founded solely upon inference or reason," "without a positive precept." His argument proves that there is a divine precept, though not what he calls an express command. He proves that the duty in question is not founded solely upon reason, but upon revelation. That there is the same authority for infant-baptism, must be fairly concluded from the establishment of the following propositions.

    1. Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God.

    2. The Christian Church is a branch of the Abrahamic Church: or, in other words, the Jewish Society before

    ( 56 )

    Christ, and the Christian Society after Christ, are one and the same Church, in different dispensations.

    3. Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and Christian Baptism, after Christ, are one and the same seal in substance, though in different forms.

    4. The administration of this seal to infants was once enjoined by divine authority; that is, God once commanded it.

    5. The administration of this seal to infants has never since been prohibited by divine authority; that is, this command of God, originally given in the Old Testament, is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather confirmed.

    Therefore, this command is still in force. And as it is a command to administer to infants the initiatory seal of the church, which, under the Christian dispensation, is baptism, there is now a divine command for baptizing the infants of believers. Admit the premises, and the conclusion is inevitable. Whether these propositions be loved or feared, hated or revered, derided or respected, they necessarily involve the conclusion. Logic may exhibit its sophistry, rhetoric its rage, satire its wit, and vulgarity its scurrility, but if these premises be true, infant-baptism is a duty. My Opponent knows that if he were to admit the truth of these propositions, he would lose his cause at once. He therefore disputes them; and I therefore, with a good conscience, and depending on divine help, proceed to prove them.

    ( 57 )




    Many Baptists, such as Booth, Butterworth, and Judson, appear as if they could adopt this proposition just as it stands. The second of these writers, in his Concordance, gives, as the fourth meaning of the word Church [[^ "The people of the JEWS, who was the CHURCH and people of God." In proof of this he refers to Acts vii. 38, which says, "This is he that was in the church in the wilderness." A person who is unacquainted with the ways of my Opponent, might suppose, from some of his declarations, that he also believed this doctrine. He has even accused Dr. Rallston of misrepresentation for denying it. In his Strictures at the end of his spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, (l) he speaks as follows, viz. Mr. R. affirms that I *' deny that there was a visible church in the world until the day of Pentecost.' He refers to no page in the Debate, nor could he, for there is not such a declaration in the whole book. Nay, so far is the above from fact, that I again and again speak of a visible church in the world from Moses' time to the day of Pentecost. Page 26, I called the Jews God's people, and spoke of their visible church state: so also in pages 40, 41, 43, 44, 53, 98, I spoke of the Jewish church, and of their visible church state; and

    (l) p. 223.

    ( 58 )

    repeatedly contrasted the Jewish Church with the Christian Church Yet Mr R. affirms that I denied there was a visible church on earth till the day of Pentecost!!" From this, one would suppose that it was a settled opinion with my Opponent that the Jewish people were long the visible church of God, and that he was much in the habit of insisting upon this point; and that he had especially urged this doctrine in the many pages to which he refers. The last of these references must be a mistake, as it does not contain a word upon the subject. If the first of them prove the ecclesiastical state of the Jews, it goes far to shew their identity with the Christian church. But this could not have been his meaning, since it is in direct opposition to the two succeding references. His second and third are occupied about Stephen's "church in the wilderness," which Butterworth, an eminent Baptist preacher, agrees with Mr. Walker, in considering "the people of the Jews, who was the church and people of God." This my Opponent disputes in the places referred to, by trying to prove that the word translated church may mean a mob, like that of Demetrius, at Ephesus, instead of a church of God! This is a curious way to prove the visible church state of the Jews. The only remaining reference in the whole list is of a piece with these. Instead of saying, as he pretends, that the Jews were the visible church of God, he tries to prove that they were not the Church of Christ, by an argument which, if true, must, go equally to prove that they could not be the church of God, unless he could shew that the latter was a different and inferior being to the former. It is evident

    ( 59 )

    from his whole book, that he is far from being friendly to the doctrine in question, so that instead of Dr. Rallston's misrepresenting him, he has really misrepresented himself.

    It is true that he has, in this debate, offered to concede the point, provided that I will pass on without taking up time in proving it. This, however, has turned out nothing more than a ruse de guerre, to induce me to leave an enemy's garrison in the rear. For when he was called upon to fulfil a stipulation which was of his own asking, he refused, and offered to substitute something of a very different character, viz. "That the Jews, when called out of Egypt, became a church, or a religious assembly in some sense." (m) "a church, or a "religious assembly in some sense." In what sense, pray? His debate with Mr. Walker tells us. It is in that sense in which the very religious assembly at Ephesus was a church; that assembly which was convened and opened with a Hymn by the zealous Demetrius, and, after much noise and bodily exercise, addressed and dismissed by his Reverence the town-clerk.

    But this pretended concession denies that the Jews were a church or a religious assembly in any sense, till called out of Egypt. In accordance with this, he asserts that "they were never called a church until in the wilderness. This, says he, "may be denied, but there lives not the man that can produce an instance to the contrary." He farther assures us, that "the occurrences at Sinai are ever afterwards referred to by

    (m) Spurious Debate with me p. S8C.

    ( 60 )

    Jewish and Christian Prophets as the commencement of their ecclesiastic existence. The covenant at Sinai, therefore, is the only national or ecclesiastic covenant from Adam to the Messiah, recorded in the Bible." (n) That the Sinaitic covenant is the constitution of the Jewish Church, (if church he will permit it to be called,) my Opponent endeavours to prove by two positions. One is that "the occurrences at Sinai are ever afterwards referred to by Jewish and Christian ( ' Prophets as the commencement of their ecclesiastic existence." As this language plainly intimates that the Old and New Testaments are full of evidence to this effect, you might reasonably expect the author of so bold an assertion to specify a few instances: but he has not here given one; and (to use his own language) I can safely say, "there lives not the man that can produce an instance." His other argument or assertion that they were never called a church until in the wilderness," "at Sinai," is as irrelevant as it is incorrect. It goes upon the assumption that churches are made by names and not by acts. It is only a few years since the name of Baptists was given to any body of men on earth; for even the followers of John were not called Baptists. Is my Opponent willing to admit that they are no older than their name? Again; "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Were there no Christians at all, until this name was given to them? This shews the utter irrelevancy of the argument that the Jews *' were never called a church until" the Sinaitic covenant,

    (/^ Spurious Debate, p. 39p.

    ( 61 )

    even if this statement were true, which it assuredly is not, although he has affirmed it so roundly. I will not say that our translation of the Old Testament calls them a church before their arrival at Sinai; but neither does it call them a church subsequent to that period. It is remarkable that our translators generally make congregation in the Old Testament correspond with church in the New. This is very much condemned by Dr. George Campbell, my Opponent's favourite critic, who says that "they ought constantly to have rendered the original expression either church in the Old Testament or congregation in the New." "What I blame, therefore," says he, "in our translators, is the want of uniformity." In the same connexion, the Dr. repeatedly declares that "the Hebrew word Sip [rendered congregation in the Old Testament] exactly corresponds to the Greek [[S**J^
    (o) See his Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. Lecture 10, page 163. 164. Philadelphia Edition of 1807. (//) Dr. Mason on the Church,

    ( 62 )

    bible, rendered congregation, and both alike are used to signify the church.

    Now it is very easy for my Opponent to prove that they were called and considered a visible church after their arrival at Sinai, by such passages as Lev. iv. 14, 21, where it is said that "[[ ^npil the church shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of "[[iyi the church," as "a sin-offering for [[7ftpn the church." It is certainly the true church of God that is here intended, and not a mob like that of Ephesus. But before this church had come to Sinai, or even left Egypt, it is said in Ex. xii. 6, concerning the sacrifice of the Passover, that "the whole [[fiiy 71p assembly of the church, or church of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening." Concerning this also it may be said that the true church of God is here intended, and not a mob like that at Ephesus. An examination of Lev. viii. 3. xvi. 5, with the context, will shew plainly that, after their arrival at Sinai, the Israelites were called my the church in the ecclesiastical sense of the word; for they are represented as engaged in ecclesiastical business. But in Ex. xii. 3, 47, the same people are twice called by the same name, and represented as engaged in the same business, before they had set out on their journey to Mount Sinai. After that period, their discipline ordained that "the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among THpft the church." (q) But before they left Egypt, it was similarly ordained concerning

    (a} Num. xix. 20.

    ( 63 )

    the Passover, that "whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off SN*I" rnyO from the church of Israel." (r)

    It will be recollected that my Opponent referred to an instance in which he "called the Jews God's people" as a proof that he believed in "their visible church state." (s) According to this, "God's people" must mean the church of God. What is here plainly implied by my Opponent, is expressly declared by Dr. George Campbell, in a Lecture which is intended to build Congregationalism (the Baptist form of Government) on the ruins of Presbyterianism. After pointing out several expressions as "confessedly equivalent" to each other, he adds, "The same may be said of the phrases [[7Jlp <( CDTl/N and CD*n 7K Oy> n exxiqeu* esov and o?.ao$ 8tov the church of God and the people of God." (t) This was evidently the understanding of Butterworth, the Baptist writer, when he called the Jews "the church and people of God." This is in conformity with Lev. xvi. 33, which says "He shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the [[SflpH CDJN people of the church." Moses uses the word people alone, in a sense which cannot easily be misunderstood. "Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people." (a) The word people here evidently means the same church contemplated in Lev. xix. 20, and Ex. xii. 9, from which church it is ordained that a soul shall be cut off for eating leavened bread, and

    (r) Exodus xii. 19.

    (s) Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 223, quoted above. f See his tenth Lecture on Ecclesiastical History, quoted above, (a) Lev, vii. 2f,

    ( 64 )

    for neglecting to purify himself. And from premises which we have already shewn are admitted by Baptists and Pedobaptists, we fairly conclude that this visible church of God is meant by the people from whom the uncircumcised man-child is said to be cut off in Gen. xvii. 14. "And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; [that is, from his church;] ( he hath broken my covenant;" [that is my ecclesiastical covenant,] made four hundred and thirty years before my Opponent's ecclesiastical covenant, at Sinai.

    If I be not egregiously mistaken, my Opponent's own argument operates with irresistible force against himself, He reasons that the Jews were not a church until they came to Sinai, because they were not called a church until that period. Then if they had been called a church before, this would prove that they were really a church before the Sinaitic covenant. But we have shewn several proofs that they were called a church, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, before they left Egypt, and we have shewn that they were called by a name "confessedly equivalent" in the covenant with Abraham, where the violation of that covenant is given as a reason for excommunication from that church. This subject we hope, with divine permission, to pursue farther before we are done with the proposition that "Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God."

    When we speak of Abraham's SEED, take notice that this is the language which the scriptures use on this very subject. God says to Abraham, "This is my covenant

    ( 65 )

    which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy SEED after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised." (u) This term is not used to embrace the children of Hagar and Keturah. "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with HIS SEED after him." (0) "And God said unto Abraham, let it not be grievous in thy sight, because of the lad, and because of thy bond-woman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice: for in Isaac shall thy SEED be called." (w) "Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy SEED bewailed. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (a?)

    This ecclesiastical SEED does not embrace the descendants of Isaac universally. Reprobate Esau, and, to a great degree, his progeny, were excluded, with every uncircumcised male of Jacob's posterity, according to Gen. xvii. 14. Moreover, the excommunication of even circumcised persons must have sometimes occurred. Instances are mentioned in the New Testament. (y) At an earlier period, Ezra proclaimed a general meeting, from which, if any man were absent, "all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the [[Sip church of those that had been carried away/']] On this passage, Dr. Gill, the greatest Baptist Commentator,

    ii\ Gen. xvii. 10. JT) Rom. ix, 7, 8.

    (v) Gen. xvii. 19. (w) Gen. xxi. 12. (t/) John ix. 22, com p. Li)ke vi. 22,

    ( 66 )

    says that the absentee from this meeting "should be excommunicated from them as a church, and be no more reckoned of the body politic, or a freeman of Israel, and so deprived of all privileges, both in church and state." (z) That very excommunication which the Doctor says was here threatened, was afterward inflicted upon the great body of the Jewish people, the old branches of the ecclesiastical olive tree. Paul says, because of unbelief they were broken off." (a) If, therefore, there had been no engrafting of foreign cions, the church would have been nearly or altogether extinct.

    We observe, therefore, that the ecclesiastical SEED did not embrac.e the descendants of Isaac exclusively. According to Moses, Edomites were permitted to enter into the [[^Jlp church of the Lord in their third generation," (b) In Isaiah, (c) God has promised great additions from Egypt and Assyria. And we are informed of the actual accession of Ebed-Melech, the Ethiopian., Rahab of Jericho, and Ruth the Moabitess. W) Besides this, there is an innumerable multitude whom Paul represents as saying "The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted on." (e) Concerning these he says, "They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham;" (/) upon the ground, that "to Abraham and his SEED were the promises made." (#)

    These materials afford the following definition, viz. The SEED of Abraham are his descendants in the line of

    z) Gill's Commentary on Ezra x. 8. (a) Rom. xi. 20.

    6) Deut. xxiii. 7, 8. (r) xix. 23, 24.

    d) Jer. xxxviii. 7 12. Matt. i. 5. (e) Rom. xi. 19.

    /) Gal, in. 9. ( /r) Gal. iii. 16.

    ( 67 )

    Isaac, in good standing as professors of the true religion, with others added to them. Substituting this periphrasis for the word SEED, in the proposition now under discussion, it will read as follows, viz. Abraham and his descendants, in the line of Isaac, in good standing as professors of the true religion, with others added to them, were divinely constituted a visible church of God.

    It will, of course, be understood that the phrase visible church means a society, distinct from the body of the elect, and distinct from that portion of the elect who are already in glory. These are called the invisible church, and the church triumphant; from which the visible church, whether under the old or the new dispensation, is quite distinct. It is a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion. With the substitution of this explanation, for the phrase which it is intended to define, the proposition under consideration will read as follows, viz. Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion.

    In oppugnation of this position, it will not avail to prove that the Jews were a body politic; for this is quite consistent with their being an ecclesiastical body also: and the fact of their being both a church and a state, is admitted in the extract just now given from the great Baptist commentator, Dr. Gill. It is equally futile to produce instances of a simultaneous tenure of civil and ecclesiastical offices; for this is quite common amongst us, where church and state are certainly

    ( 68 )

    distinct. Neither will it do to alledge the moral turpitude of individual members against the existence of the Jewish, any more than the Christian church; for spotless purity belongs to the church triumphant only, and even universal sincerity to the invisible church only. I would also wish you to remember that the question is not now concerning the sameness of the Jewish and Christian churches, but whether the Jews were a church at all. That they were, I shall endeavour to prove, by shewing that they had the qualifications and constituents of a church, in the following order:

    1. The oracles of a church.

    2. The ordinances.

    3. The members.

    4. The officers.

    5. The constitution.

    6. The inspired name of a church.

    If all these points can be proved from the word of God, we shall have good reason for believing that Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God; and we shall have advanced one step to the conclusion that a command given to him, for administering to infants the initiatory seal of the church, is still binding.

    POINT I.

    The Jews had the ORACLES of a visible Church of God.

    Paul says, "unto them were committed the Oracles of God." (A) The character and design of these oracles

    (A) Rom. iii, 2.

    ( 69 )

    were evidently not those of a mere political code; but to convey religious instruction, to testify of Christ, to give us hope, life, wisdom and salvation. Concerning them, Peter says, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy, where unto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts." () Paul says, "From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures [of the Old Testament] which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, (t and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (,/) John says, "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." U) In addressing the Jews, our Saviour said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me," "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me." (I) When the rich man in hell besought the patriarch in heaven, to send an extraordinary messenger to his five brethren, "Abraham saith unto him, they have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." When the rich man repeated his request that one might arise front the dead, Abraham replied, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded [[^ though one rose from the dead. (m) By the mouth of

    (z) 2 Pet, i. 19. compare verses 20. 21. (y) 2 Tim. Hi. 1517, (fc) Rev. xix. 10. (/) John v. 39. 46,

    (m) Luke xvi. 2731.

    ( 70 )

    Ezekiel, one of those prophets, God says, "I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which, if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover, [[(f also, I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between (( me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." (n) The Psalmist says, "For he 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 u their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments." (0) On the declaration of the Psalmist, that "he established a testimony in Jacob," the great Baptist commentator speaks as follows, viz. "This is established in the house of Jacob, (as the Targum;) in the churchy which is the pillar *' and ground of truth, among the saints and people of God, to whom it is delivered, and by whom it will be * kept, and with whom it will remain throughout all ' ages, for it is the everlasting gospel. "It is pleasing to find such high Baptist authority as Dr. Gill, admitting that the Old Testament oracles contained the gospel, and that this testimony was committed to Jacob as a church 9 as the saints and people of God.

    (w) Ez. xx, 11, 12. (0) Psalm Ixxviii. 58

    ( 71 )


    The Jews had the ORDINANCES of a visible Church of God.

    Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, [among which that with Abraham is prominent,] and the giving of ff the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, [among whom Abraham holds a conspicuous place,] and of whom, as concerning the ""flesh, Christ [the substance of all the ordinances] came, who is over all, God blessed forever. [[v (j&) Long before the transactions at Sinai, the covenant with Abraham recognized the ordinance of circumcision. "And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant, (i therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised." (gO In the wilderness God gave them the manna which was a daily spiritual feast. "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (r) On the words "evermore give us this bread," Dr. Gill observes, "but to such who are true believers in Christ, who have tasted that the Lord is

    om. be. 4, 5. (y) Gen. xvii. 9, 10. (r) John vi, 3335.

    ( 72 )

    gracious, Christ, the true manna and bread of God, is all things to them; nor do they desire any other: they taste every thing that is delightful, and find every thing that is nourishing in him." Paul connects this with the stream which quenched their thirst. 6( And did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (s) On this passage, Dr. Gill remarks that Christ may be compared to the rock," "in the support of his church," "as he is the foundation of his church and every believer," "as the foundation of his church, abiding forever." Now compare the text and the Baptist commentary. The Apostle informs us that the Jews, long before the Christian dispensation, were supported by the spiritual Rock: the Commentator declares that those who were thus supported, stand in relation to Christ, as HIS CHURCH; and the expression HIS CHURCH is thrice repeated in a few lines. If there be meaning in language, this points out the Jews before the New Testament day, as the church of Christ.

    But my Opponent professes to produce New Testament authority, to shew that the ordinances of the Jews were not such as should belong to the spiritual and heavenly religion of the true God, but that they were worldly and carnal ordinances. Paul says, "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." "Which stood" only in meats and divers washings, and carnal ordinances

    (*) 1 Cor, x. 3, 4.

    ( 73 )

    imposed on them, until the time of reformation." U) To support him here, he adduces the translation and commentary of the learned Dr. Macknight, a celebrated Pedobaptist. It would be well for him to examine his notes, and see whether this is not a mistaken reference. Although the Dr. had a tender regard for almost all descriptions of error, he does not support my Opponent, on the point for which he is cited. The Dr. tells us that this worldly sanctuary was called so, "not because it was a holy place on earth, and made of materials furnished from the earth, but because it was i{ a representation of the world or universe." It may surely be all this, and yet a proper sanctuary for the worship of the true God by his visible church. As for these carnal ordinances, he calls them "ordinances concerning the flesh "respecting the purifying of the body," "literally, righteousnesses of the flesh [[^ things which make the flesh, not the spirit righteous." These are his own words, in his translation, commentary, and notes. These words are correct, even where they oppose Dr. Magee's opinion that, in some cases, the Jewish sacrifices make a real satisfaction to divine justice. On these and the various ordinances connected with them, I believe, with Dr. Gill, "that they were all types and figures of Christ, and had their fulfilment in him." (w) He shews that Philo, the Jew, explained this worldly sanctuary as Macknight does; yet surely Philo believed the Jews to be a church. In opposition to them both, however, the Dr. says, "It was rather

    (0 Hebr. ix. 1. 10.

    (u) On Hebr. ix. 1,

    ( 74 )

    either a type of the church, or of heaven, or of Christ's human nature: the better reason of its being so called is, because it consisted of earthly matter and worldly things; it was in the world, and only had its use in the world, and so is opposed to the heavenly sanctuary." (u) None of these views have the least bearing against the doctrine that this worldly sanctuary is an ecclesiastical sanctuary, unless you will first prove that no church can exist in the world. But that we may not be at a loss concerning its ecclesiastical character, God said to Solomon, "I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself, for an house of sacrifice." "Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attend unto thy prayer, that is made in this place. For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there forever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually." (#) If a holy residence of God, consecrated to sacrifice and prayer, is not dignified enough to be called an ecclesiastical sanctuary, I should like to know where you would find a church in our day. This doctrine was held by the Jews, in opposition to the Samaritans, down to the time of our Saviour, to whom the Samaritan woman applied to decide the controversy. This gave him an opportunity of instructing her in the new dispensation, which has laid the dispute asleep almost ever since, until, in late days, it has been revived by some Baptists, who have a zeal not according to knowledge. Among those I am happy to find that the pious and learned Dr. Gill is

    (w) On Hebr. ix. 1. (v) 2 Chr. vii, 12, 15, 16.

    ( 75 )

    not numbered. He comments upon the words of the Samaritan woman, as follows, viz. "[[ Jlnd ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship; u that is, in the temple there; who urged, and very rightly, that God had chosen that place to put his name, and fix his worship there; and had ordered them to come thither, and bring their offerings arid sacrifices, arid to keep their Passover and other [[


    The Jewish society had the MEMBERS of a visible church.

    The ordinances of which we have been speaking, were emblematical of sanctification, and required evidence of sanctification in their adult communicants. It is true that this is a thing of which my Opponent has no very high opinion, as he scoffs at the very Baptists themselves, for requiring of candidates some accownt of their religious experience, preparatory to initiation. But with pious Baptists this is esteemed important. So do the scriptures esteem it important in the subjects of circumcision. "Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your hearts, and be no more stiff-necked." (x) 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." (#) "All these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the

    (w) Gill on John iv. 20. For proof he refers to Dent. xii. 5. 6. xvj. 2, . (.r) Dent, x. 16. (y) Deut. xxx, 6.

    ( 76 )

    heart." (c) "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye." (a) "And thou shalt say to the rebellious; even to the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God, ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant, because of all your abominations." (b)

    It is one glorious feature of the visible church, that it requires evidence of regeneration in those who are candidates for membership. The scriptures which have just now been read, plainly shew that the Jewish society had this feature of a church: for, according to these texts, they violated the constitution of the church, whenever they received proselytes without evidence of piety. This is so conspicuously the spirit of these passages, that I know no way of escaping their force, but by proving that they are not intended for the literal Israel, but that they are prophecies exclusively applicable to the Christian church. Dr. Gill says that the last authority which I have quoted (Ez. xliv. 6, 7.) well agrees with these declining churches in the latter day, and even in our times:" yet, unhappily for my opponent, the Dr. says at the same time, that the picture there given "is a character of literal Israel from the beginning." The Dr. tells us that they are condemned

    (z) Jer. ix. 26. (//) Actsvii. 51,

    (b) Ez. xliv. 6, 7, .

    ( 77 )

    for introducing strangers, because they are unregenerate men, who are in a state of alienation and estrangement to divine and spiritual things [[/' The uncircumcised in heart [[/' whom they were forbidden to receive as members, Dr. Gill understands to be those who never were pricked in the heart for sin, or felt any pain there on account of it; never had the hardness of their heart removed, or the impurity of it discovered to them; never were filled with shame and loathing because of it; or ever put off the body of sins in a course of conversation; or renounced their own righteousness." This last text censures the church for polluting the sanctuary by the introduction of persons who were even uncircumcised in flesh. These, the Dr. says, were (( carnal as they were born; men in the flesh, in a state of nature, mind and savour the things of the flesh, and do the works of it; having never been taught by the grace of God, to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to abstain from fleshly ones: or who put their trust in the flesh, in outward things, in carnal privileges, and external righteousness. These the Lord complains were brought to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house; either to be members here, and partake of all the ordinances and privileges of the Lord's house; or to officiate here as priests and ministers of the Lord." According to these words of Dr. Gill, he must have thought, that evidence of regeneration was as requisite to membership in the Lord's house, under the Old Testament dispensation, as under the New. No wonder then, that he thought the Jews a church. This opinion is confirmed

    ( 78 )

    in the New Testament, by the allusions which it makes to the Old; "and you being dead in your sins, and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." (c)

    On this subject I would wish you attentively to read, and devoutly to consider Psalm 1. 7 23. On the first of these verses, which begins, "Hear my people," Dr. Gill remarks, "This is an address to the people of the Jews, whom God had chosen to be his people above all others, and who professed themselves to be his people; but a lo-ammi was about to be written upon them, being a people uncircumcised in heart and ears, refusing to hear the great prophet of the church, him that spake from heaven." Here people and church are used synonymously, as they are by my Opponent; and the Jews are justly said to be, by their own profession, and the choice of God, his people; and Christ is said to be the prophet of their church, as well as of the New Testament church.

    I have the same request to make concerning your perusal of Is. i. 10 20. The ninth verse predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, which threatened an utter extinction of God's people, "except the Lord had left unto us a very small remnant." "And this," says Dr. Gill, "was done unto us, for the sake of his church, that that might continue, and he might have a seed to serve him." Here the Dr. considers the Christian dispensation a continuance of the us to whom Isaiah

    ' (r) Coll. ii. 13.

    ( 79 )

    belonged; and this us he calls a church. The context to which I have referred you, shews that its members were called to the same holiness which is required in Christians. Thus does Dr. Gill explain God's command by Moses, that the Jews should be "an holy nation." (


    The Jewish society had the OFFICERS of a visible church.

    The priesthood was an office consecrated to ecclesiastical purposes, and therefore was guarded from intrusion by severe penalties. After the earth had swallowed up Korah, Dathan and Abiram." There came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and

    (/) Ex. xix. 6.

    (0 ix. 2,

    ( 80 )

    fifty men that offered incense." (/) "And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and God smote him there for his error, and there he died by the ark of God." (#) "And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, it appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God." (A)

    There is a very great contrast between my Opponent arid the old fashioned Baptists, about the officers of the church, and the manner in which they shall be supported. My Opponent is for putting down the clergy at a blow, as not only unworthy of being maintained by the church, but unworthy of any distinction by ministerial ordination. He is as complete a leveller as any infidel. This arises not from any love for liberty and equality, but from a desire to monopolize in his own person, all that influence which is now divided among the clergy of his own denomination and others, and from a desire to pervert to the destruction of souls that influence which they should use for edification. His way to scatter the sheep is to smite the shepherd. Not so our good old Dr. Gill, who, in every thing except public disputation, is worth a thousand of him. In commenting upon one of Ezekiel's appropriations for the priests, he says, "This holy portion of land, excepting that which is for the sanctuary, is to be for the

    (/) Num. xvi. 35. (,) 2 Sam. vi. 7.

    (//) 2 Chr. xxvi. 18.

    ( 81 )

    use of the priests, to build houses to dwell in; signifying that the ministers of the gospel are to be taken care of, and sufficient provision made for their maintenance." U) In another place he speaks of "the ministers of the gospel, who shall have a sufficient maintenance from the churches of Christ, as the priests had under the law." This last is on a verse in which the prophet mentions a spot which "shall be a place for their houses," on which the Dr. observes, In this large spot shall be many congregated churches, houses of the living God, where his priests and people dwell, and will be serving and praising him." ^*) On a similar subject, a little before this, he says, These [chambers] were for holy persons to dwell in, and for holy things to be done in, as the churches of Christ are; they consist of holy persons, men called i with a holy calling, and in them the holy word of God is preached, and holy ordinances administered." (A) Thus does the existence of ecclesiastical officers in the Jewish society, prove them to be a visible church; and thus does the best Baptist authority admit that they were as real a church "as the churches of Christ are."

    POINT V.

    The Jewish Society had the CONSTITUTION of a visible church.

    Whatsoever may have been said to Abraham and his seed concerning temporal and political blessings, God's

    (i) Ez. xlviii. 10. Iiz. xlii. 13.

    (y) Ez. xlv. 4,

    ( 82 )

    covenant with them did, nevertheless, contemplate eternal, spiritual, and ecclesiastical favours. *' And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for 66 an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee: and I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." (/) "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me, above all people, for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." (m) "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels, the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place; thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, yea, even for the rebellious also, that the Lord might, dwell among them. [[<( Blessed be the Lord which daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah. He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto God the Lord belong the issues from death." (w) "He sent redemption unto his people, he hath commanded his covenant forever; Holy and reverend is his name." (o) "For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant, and he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness. "[[ (/>) *' Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited

    (/) Gen. xvii. 7. 8. (m) Kx. xix. 5. 6. (n} Ps. Ixviii. 1720 (o) Ps. cxi. 9. (/?) Ps, rv. 42, 43.

    ( 83 )

    and redeemed his people;" "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our Father Abraham." (gr)

    Among the authorities just now quoted, one of them mentions Sinai: but it will be observed that it does not refer to the transactions at Sinai, for the origin of the church. Yet that very ^passage proves that the Jews were a church. It is in this capacity "that the Lord God" promises to "dwell among them;" "that is," says Dr. Gill, "that they by the gifts and graces of the Spirit bestowed on them, might become a fit habitation for God; or that they, the rebellious, being now partakers of the grace of God and his gifts, might dwell with the Lord God IN HIS CHURCHES; enjoy his divine presence, and have communion with him in his word and ordinances." The salvation mentioned in the very next verse, Dr. Gill does not fritter down to a mere temporal deliverance, but calls it "temporal, spiritual, and eternal salvation." (r) It is true that Gill calls the redemption mentioned in one of the texts, (s) a "temporal redemption, as typical of the spiritual and eternal one;?? but in another of these texts, he believes the spiritual and eternal redemption to be meant, and the typical one only alluded to. The following are his words, viz. "For he hath visited and redeemed his people, as he did Israel of old, Ex. iii. 16, 17, when the Lord looked upon them, and delivered them out of the bondage of Egypt, and which

    (7) Luke i. 68. 72, 73. (r) Gill on Ts. Ixviii. 18. 19. (,?) Ps, cxi. 9.

    ( 84 )

    was a type and resemblance of redemption by Christ, and to which reference here seems to be had." But although the redemption here contemplated, refers to a temporal deliverance, the Dr. says that it "intends the spiritual and eternal redemption of them by the price of his blood, from the slavery of sin; the bondage of the law, and curse of it, and the captivity of Satan, and a deliverance out of the hands of every enemy; a redemption which reaches both to soul and body, u and secures from all condemnation and wrath to come; and includes every blessing in it, as justification, forgiveness of sins, adoption, sanctification, and eternal life, and is a plenteous, full, complete, and everlasting one." ()

    It is plain, then, that the redemption here mentioned is not merely a temporal or political one, but a spiritual and eternal redemption. It is also plain that it is conferred upon God's "people" a word which my Opponent considers equivalent to church. The text moreover informs us that this was done, "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers," not at Mount Sinai, but to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham;" many hundred years before the transactions at Sinai.

    It is in reference to this holy covenant, that Moses said to Israel, "thou art an holy people." "Not sanctified" says Dr. Gill, "in a spiritual sense, or having principles of grace and holiness in them, from whence holy actions sprang, at least, not all of them; but

    (0 Gill on Luke i. 53.

    ( 85 )

    they were separated from all other people in the world to the pure worship and service of God in an external manner, and therefore were to avoid all idolatry and every appearance of it." The remainder of the verse which speaks of their being chosen to be a special people, the Dr. understands to mean for special service and worship, and to enjoy special privileges and benefits, civil and religious." (u) Elsewhere, when Moses speaks of their being "an holy people unto the Lord," Gill explains it, "set apart by him from all other people, and devoted to his worship and service, and many of them were sanctified and made holy in a special and spiritual sense. "The remainder of the verse calls them a peculiar people. Gill explains this peculiarity as consisting "especially in things sacred." (v) My aim is to prove from scripture, that Abraham and his seed have the constitution of a visible church; that is, that they were a consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion. Dr. Gill has proved from scripture, that they were "set apart" as a holy people, a special people, a peculiar people, "especially in things sacred and religious:" all this, too, upon the constitution of "his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham." They were therefore a church.

    (M) Gill on Ex, vii. 6.

    Gill on Ex. xiv. 2,

    ( 86 )


    The Jewish society had the express, inspired, and unequivocal NAME of a church.

    These points are professedly intended to support the proposition that "Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God." Soon after that proposition was announced, some remarks were made, and more were promised, on the name of a church. My farther progress on this subject, my Opponent has endeavoured to obstruct by the authority of Dr. Mason, who has the appearance of being against me. He speaks as follows, viz. "The word church, derived from the Greek, [[xvgmxov, signifies the house of the Lord, and marks the property which he has in it. But the original words which it is employed to translate, signify a different thing. The Hebrew words [[7ft p and in the Old Testament, and the corresponding one in the New, all signify an assembly, especially one convened by invitation or appointment." That this is their generic sense, no scholar will deny; u 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 and 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

    ( 87 )

    the writer [[/ 9 (w) The Dr. then proceeds to give instances of the diversified application of these several words.

    When this eminent scholar observes that we must learn the meaning of the word "from the connexion of the term, and the subject of the writer/' he says what is true not only of the word church, but of those words which all will confess to have been reduced from their generic signification to an appropriate meaning. This remark may be elucidated by the title of the most distinguished officer in the church. It is the word apostle. Concerning this, we may say as Dr. Mason has of church, [[f( What an Apostle is, and whom it points out, whether [[i( an ordinary or extraordinary agent, whether Christ, one of the twelve, or any other person, you must learn from the connexion of the term, and the subject of the writer. "The Greek word signifies amessenger." (x) That this is its generic sense, no scholar will deny, nor that its particular applications are ultimately resolvable into it. Hence it is evident that from the term itself, nothing can be concluded as to the character of the messenger which it denotes. Whenever it occurs in the Old or New Testament, you are sure of a messenger, but of nothing more."

    After thus applying all Dr. Mason's remarks to the word apostle as well as church, suppose a question to arise concerning the apostleship of Paul, as one has arisen concerning the ecclesiastical standing of the Jews. Was

    (7t) Mason on the Church, pp. 8 10. Christian's Magazine, vol. l, pp. 5456.

    (x} See Phil. ii. 25. and 1 Kings xiv. 6, in the Greek.

    ( 88 )

    Paul an ordinary messenger of ordinary matters, from one ordinary man to another; or was he an extraordinary, spiritual, ecclesiastical Jlpostle of Jesus Christ? I say that he was the latter, and I very naturally try to prove it, by shewing that the scriptures apply to him the express, inspired, and unequivocal name of an Apostle. This conclusion is so far from being forbidden by Dr. Mason's remarks, that it is attained in the very way which he points out, "from the connexion of the term, and the subject of the writer." From these we plainly see that the term is applied to Paul, not in its generic sense, but in its appropriate meaning. It points him out, not as an ordinary, secular messenger from man, but as an inspired ecclesiastical messenger from our divine Redeemer. Shall we say then, that his being so called, in such a connexion, is no evidence of his apostleship, in the highest sense in which the term is applied to men? Shall we say that the mere fact that a word originally has a generic sense, shall forever disqualify it from pointing out a particular object? Shall we say, that because it has a variety of meanings, it can have no definite meaning at all? If so, then let us be consistent, and openly relinquish the common and well established proof of Christ's divinity, from the fact that the express, inspired, and unequivocal name of God is applied to him in the scriptures. But if we admit, as all real Christians do, that the application of this name to Christ, proves him to be the true God; and that the application of another name to Paul, proves him to be an apostle of God; then the application of a third name to the Jews will prove them to have been the rhiirrh of God.

    ( 89 )

    When speaking on this subject before, I quoted some texts which contained both in the Hebrew and in the Septuagint, two words? both of which signify church, as Dr. Mason has correctly informed you. Other passages in which the same thing occurs, I shall have to quote now. That these two synonimous nouns are connected by a simple conjunction, is accounted for, upon a principle, which is remarkable in the Hebrew, though not peculiar to that language. It is, that nouns are often attached to other nouns, to answer the purpose of adjectives and participles. (y) When, therefore, [[7HD the churchy and my the church, are put together, they appear to signify the meeting met, or the congregation congregated, or the church assembled. Thus does Dr. Gill understand it in Prov. v. 14, where the Septuagint translates these words by [[(xxir^ta, and [[avvayoyy. "I was almost in all evil in the midst of the church assembled." The Dr. understands this to mean, "in the house of God, attending public worship," "even in the presence and before the people of God." This great Baptist Commentator evidently considered this text a proof that the Old Testament worshippers were the visible church of God: for what else can he mean by calling them the people of God, attending public worship, in the house of God?

    In the Septuagint of Levit. iv. 13, both these words

    (t/) "When one substantive is joined to another by a copulative, the one" must be translated as governing the other." Macknight's fourth Preliminary Essay, Section 19. "As the Jews had but few adjectives in their language, they had recourse to substantives, in order to supply their place." Home's seventh rule on the Hebraisms of the New Testament. The same examples, in part, are adduced by both.

    ( 90 )

    are rendered *********. "And if the whole **** church of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of *** the church." On this text Dr. Gill quotes, with approbation, the following words of Ainsworth; "that the church may err, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, congregation, or church, so that they don't know that it is a sin which they have committed."

    In Prov. xxi. 16, where the LXX has the same rendering, "the connexion of the term" shews that the word **** does not mean the church of God, but "an assembly" of Unitarians or Papists, Polytheists or Atheists. The man that wandereth out of the way of under standing, shall remain in the congregation of the "dead."

    In Prov. xix. 20, where the same words occur for church, in the Hebrew and LXX, "the connexion of the term" shews that it means the church of God, excommunication from which, Gill thinks may be intended. (z)

    The following five texts have **** in the Hebrew, and ******* in the LXX. "Whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the church of Israel." (a) To be cut off "from u the Israelitish church-state, and have no communion in it, or partake of the ordinances of it," is one of several alternatives, which Gill thinks may be here intended. On this and the last text, the existence of the

    (z) Compare his note on verse 13, to which he refers.

    (a) Ex. xii. 19, Comp. 15, and Gill on the latter, to which he refers from the former.

    ( 91 )

    Israelitish church is taken for granted by this preeminent scholar of the Baptist Society.

    God directed Moses to have two silver trumpets made, for the calling of the church) and for the journeying of the camps." (b) On this Gill says, "Saints are pilgrims and travellers here; they are passing through a wilderness, their way is attended with many difficulties; Canaan is the place they are travelling to."

    When two and a half of the tribes of Israel built an altar before they crossed the Jordan, the rest of the church thought them apostates from the true religion, and sent a deputation to them on this subject. Gill copies our translation of the introduction of their messages, and comments upon it as follows, viz. "'Thus saith the whole congregation of the Lord,' -- By whom they were sent, and whom they represented; and they don't call them the congregation of Israel, but of the Lord, because it was not on a civil but religious account they were come, and not to plead their own cause, but the cause of God; and not so much to shew a concern for their own honour and interest, as for the glory of God." If they were a religious, and not a civil assembly; if they were a congregation of the Lord, and not of man; and if, (as the text proves, and Gill admits,) they acted in these respects, as a visible corporation, then they were just what you and I would call the visible church of God.

    In the same sense ought the following instance to be understood. "Praise ye the Lord, I will praise the

    (b) Num. x. 2.

    ( 92 )

    Lord with my whole heart, in the assembly of the upright, and in the church" (c)

    The following authority seems to unite civil and ecclesiastical privileges, and to refer them all, not to the Sinaitic covenant made with their fathers, whose carcases fell in the wilderness, but to the older covenant made with their father Abraham, and confirmed to Isaac and Jacob. "And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them." (c?) Gill confirms my interpretation as follows, viz. "'And because he loved thy fathers/ Not their immediate fathers, whose carcases fell in the wilderness, and entered not into the good land because of their unbelief, but their more remote fathers or ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had some singular testimonies of the love of God to them. Abraham is called the friend of God, and Isaac was the son of promise in whom the seed was called; and Jacob is particularly said to be loved by God, when Esau was hated: ' therefore he chose their seed after them;? not to eternal life and tf salvation, but to the enjoyment of external blessings and privileges, to be called by his name, and to set up his name and worship among them, and to be a special people to him above all people on the earth, as to outward favours, both civil and ecclesiastical." By denying that they were chosen, in a body, to eternal life, the Dr. shews that he distinguishes them from the invisible church; but by saying that God had chosen them to be a special people, to have his worship among them, and to enjoy great outward favours, both civil

    (f) Ps. cxi. 1. (rf) Dent. iv. 37.

    ( 93 )

    and ECCLESIASTICAL, he shews that they are the visible church.

    I proceed to give some instances in which the words 7Jlp an d exxivjota, are found in the Hebrew and the LXX, to point out the church. On the account which Joshua gives of his reading the law of Moses to the church, Dr. Gill comments as follows, viz. "There was not a word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, [who were on this occasion called together, and not before the men only, but] with the women and the little ones," [who all had a concern in the things that were read to them.] (e) A church of men, women, and little ones, sounds very much like Pedobaptism. In another instance, he speaks still stronger in a similar strain. (/)

    In David's address to Goliath, he says, "And all this assembly shall know that the Lord sayeth not with the sword and spear." Dr. Gill says that the word assembly means, "The congregation of Israel, and church of the living God, great part of which was now gathered
    David says, "(I will give thee thanks in the great church; I will praise thee among much people." Dr. Gill explains this to mean, "the church and people of God" "the people of God meeting together for solemn worship." (A)

    David again says, 6i let them exalt him also in the church of the people." Gill says, "Of the people of

    (0 Josh. viii. 35 (/) Gill on Joel ii. 16,

    (g} 1 Sam. xvii. 1. 7. (/;) Ps. xxxv. 18.

    ( 94 )

    God, who are gathered out of the world, into a church-state, and who gather themselves together to attend the worship and service of God in some one place." (i)

    It is not my intention to tax your patience so far as to quote one fourth of the instances in which the Hebrew and the Septuagint apply [[/Hp and txx^aia, to the Jews, as the visible church of God. Out of the comparatively small number of examples which were selected for this point, from the Old Testament, I shall, at present, pass over twenty-two which are now before me. (v)




    In the New Testament, ecclesia occurs one hundred and fourteen times; in more than one hundred of which it confessedly means the visible church. I do not know that my Opponent will confess this, but every other sort of Baptist will. My reason for excepting him is, that he has such an aversion to the word church, (a word inestimably precious to the Christian,) that he appears determined to banish it from his vocabulary. He has published an English translation of the New Testament, in which, (strange to tell!) neither the word church nor the word baptism is found once. By its title page, it professes to be The New Testament, translated from the original Greek, by GEORGE CAMPBELL, JAMES MACKNIGHT, and PHILIP DODDRIDGE, Doctors of the Church of Scotland." In the Preface and the list of errata, he speaks of a "London edition of this translation," which "departed in some instances from the original

    0) Ps. cvii. 32.

    0) 1 Kgs. viii. 14. 2 Chr. i. 3. 5. vi. 3. (comp. 2.) vi. 12. 13. xxix. 23. 28. 31. 32. xxx. 2. 13. 17. 25. 24. Ezr. x. 8.^ Nch. viii. 2. (comp. 38.) Ps, xxii, 22. xl. 9. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix, 1, Lam. i. 10.

    ( 95 )

    works," of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. Such of these alterations as affected ** the style," only, he professes to have 4i retained:" but "some of these alterations affected the sense;" these he professes to have brought back to the original works" of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. In this translation, then, we are to look for the meaning of a certain set of men, clothed in another man's style. When the Ettric Shepherd first saw Duncan Campbell, the little stranger, though only seven years old, wore a coat originally made for a man. If this new style should give George Campbell and his companions as grotesque an appearance, my Opponent can account for it, upon the ground that they are just escaped from prison, through his benevolent interposition. Here a writer in the Western Luminary speaks as follows; viz. "Mr. Campbell, on this part of his subject, says something about the works of Campbell, Doddridge, and Macknight having been ' imprisoned;' and seems to take credit to himself for having brought them out to public gazej and considers his own precious existence necessary to prevent them from being again locked up." (/r) How enviable is the lot of my Opponent! in being the honoured instrument of preserving these eminent scholars from rotting in a dungeon. His agency in this business proves the rapid advance of the Western Country in the march of mind. Let posterity know, that, but for the labours of a certain inhabitant of Buffaloe Creek, the works of three of the most celebrated Doctors of Europe would soon have sunk into oblivion.

    As his alterations of his originals are far more numerous than one would expect from the title page, he tells us, in the close of his Appendix, that these emendations "are preferred merely because of their being more intelligible to common readers, "whose edification we have supremely in view." For these alterations he has made ample amends to the admirers of his three worthies, by stuffing their jugulated words into an Appendix, with such novel and convenient references, that they are

    (*) Western Lum, for Jan. 3, 1827.

    ( 96 )

    almost as easily found as a needle in a hay-stack. Speaking of this in his preface, he says, "All that we can be praised or blamed for is this one circumstance, that \ve have given the most conspicuous place, to that version which appeared to deserve it." That is, when the words of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge appear to my Opponent the most deserving, he gives them in the text, and places others in the Appendix: but when the words of these three men appear to my Opponent less deserving, he packs them off to the Appendix, and substitutes others in the translation, whose names are not mentioned in the title page. Thus every word of this version may be considered as having passed through the crucible of my Opponent's judgment. And who so well calculated to judge among the jarring translations of jarring sects, as that man who possesses the greatest literary and theological attainments, and is, at the same time, perfectly divested of all sectarian feelings or prejudices, as is evident from the whole career of my Opponent, from Mount Pleasant to Washington. Hear the words of his Preface on this subject. "If the mere publication of a version of the inspired writings requires, as we believe it does, the publisher to have no sectarian object in view, we are happy in being able to appeal to our whole course of public addresses, and to all that we have written on religious subjects, to shew that we have no such object in view!!!" Perhaps so great a portion of charity, anti-sectarian liberality, and the milk of human kindness, can hardly be found in the island of Great Britain, as my Opponent knows to exist in one little privileged spot on the banks of Buffaloe. It is reasonable, therefore, that he should claim to his work superior praise, over the London copy, whose Editors probably spent much of their strength in sectarian debates against infant-sprinkling, and the thirty-nine articles, and the thirty-three Chapters, and male and female Missionaries, and Bible and Benevolent Societies, and the observance of family prayer, and the sabbath day. As my Opponent never was known to whisper sectarian charges against other denominations, for holding doctrines or ordinances "injurious to the well-being

    ( 97 )

    of society, religious or political," he must be indulged in a little commendable boasting, such as the following, viz. Taking every thing into view, we have no hesitation in saving, that, in the present improved state of the English language, *< the ideas communicated by the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, are INCOMPARABLY better expressed in this, than * in any volume ever presented in our mother tongue." (/) Whenever, therefore, my Opponent's Translation of the New Testament is mentioned in this discussion, remember, that, taking every thing into view," particularly his own rare qualifications for such a work, it is "INCOMPARABLY" the best in the language.

    To set forth his unparallelled qualifications still more fully, he says, in his Preface, "The whole scope, design, and drift of our labours is to see Christians intelligent, united and happy." With regard to uniting Christians, his labours, in one way or another, appear to succeed in a small degree. The Western Luminary, (m) informs us that my Opponent has made an ingenious effort to prove that his two bosom friends, a Unitarian, * and Dr. James Fishback, are united in sentiment, in relation to our Saviour's person, although the former openly rejects the doctrine of his supreme and eternal Deity, and the latter would be thought to receive this doctrine. Moreover, they are now very cordially united in their opposition to creeds and confessions, those stubborn things which have been so much in the way of Unitarians, from the Council of Nice to the present day. If Mr. Greatrake and the Orthodox Pastors and Editors, Associations and Conventions of the Baptist denomination have not followed the amiable example of unity which these brethren have set them, it is their own fault. Mr. Greatrake will not admit that my Opponent is for peace abroad or unity at home. Writing to the Western Baptist Churches concerning my Opponent, he says, "Having had you for two or three years spectators of his

    (l) Introduction to Appendix.

    (m) For Jan. 3, 1827.

    * The writer, through mistake, gave a wrong name to the Unitarian, as he afterwards informed me.

    ( 98 )

    own personal combats, or familiarized your minds to a view of his own fightings, you will find, perhaps too late, that the object contemplated by Mr. C. was to prepare you for dissentions and fightings among yourselves; to the end that he might share the spoils by making you a divided people." (n) As my Opponent refers to his life for his antisectarian character, so Mr. Greatrake says to the churches, "Yes, brethren, search, search his whole life, as far as possible." He then tells them that this scrutiny will irrefragably prove "that you [Baptists,] as a denomination, have been made the citadel of his safety, while throwing the shafts of his hostility at other denominations; particularly at that one with which you most assuredly stand in the greatest degree of fellowship. The question then is, whether Mr. C. represents your feelings towards the Presbyterian and other Pedobaptist churches, against whom he breathes out threatenings and slaughter?' If he does, let us know what cause they have given for this interminable rage. But I need not put this sort of question to you, being fully persuaded that your greatest partiality is towards that very church which Mr. C. appears to hate with the most deadly hatred." (o) This is a righteous sentence pronounced in the name of the Western Baptist Churches, by one of their most respectable and worthy ministers, in exculpation of the much injured, and grossly insulted Pedobaptists of this country. It correctly represents my would-be antisectarian Opponent, as breathing threatenings and slaughter, and throwing the shafts of his hostility with interminable rage, and the most deadly hatred, at other denominations, particularly our own; and as doing this, not to oppose error, (for he is rotten to the core,) but all this zeal against others is, that he may prepare the Baptists for dissentions and fightings among themselves, that he may share the spoils of their divisions. He must surely be rarely qualified for writing an incomparable translation of the New Testament! One prominent feature of this anomalous production is, that

    (n) Unitarian Baptist of the Robinson School Exposed, p. 88.

    (o) Do. p. 87.

    ( 99 )

    it professes to reject every adopted or anglicised word. Dr. George Campbell's labours in favour of immersion give him some aid in this particular. Complaining of our Translators, the Dr. says, "some words they have transferred from the original into their language, others they have translated." He wishes that they had not transcribed the word baptism, but given it a dipping translation. He considers baptism, even now, "a foreign name. For this reason," says he, "I should think the word immersion (which, though of Latin origin, is an English noun, regularly formed from the verb to immerse,] a better English name than baptism, were we now at liberty to make a choice." (p) When great men sicken into a prurient longing to carry some wrong point, what weak arguments they will sometimes use! Now I would inquire of the literary world, if it be not as true, that BAPTISM, though of Greek origin, is an English noun, regularly formed from the verb TO BAPTIZE, as that immersion, though of Latin origin, is an English noun, regularly formed from the verb to immerse?" Both these words were originally foreign, and both are now naturalized; and if there be any difference, it is in favour of baptism, because this, being more generally known and understood, is more completely domesticated. Besides, the connexion of the term, in the scriptures, shews that immersion would be a perversion, instead of a translation, of the Original. It was evidently this consideration which sometimes made Dr. Macknight follow our Bible in transcribing. He does not say "All were immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea," as my Opponent's incomparable has said for him; but he says "all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." When a man's zeal against the adoption of Greek words, leads him not only to publish Dr. Campbell's weak argument, but to invent a fact for Paul, and forge a translation for Macknight, I am ready to say in reference to a reproof once given to an incompetent imitator of Pindar, "Dr. Campbell was bold, but thou art impudent"

    (p) See Appendix to the incomparable. No, 4. ' .

    ( 100 )

    Scores of alterations, where this word is concerned, are confessed in the Appendix; and after he was taxed with the fault he shews that they were promised in the Prospectus, which, however, is not published with the work, and is in direct opposition to the promise contained in the title-page. His prospectus reads as follows, viz. "There is also one improvement of considerable importance which ought to be made in this work, and to which we shall attend. Sundry terms are not translated into English, but adopted into those translations from long usage. Those terms are occasionally translated into English by Campbell and Macknightj but not always. We shall uniformly give them the meaning which they have affixed to them, wherever they occur, and thus make this a pure English New Testament, not mingled with Greek words, either adopted or anglicised." ^) Here is a promise that he will make his translation such pure English, that it shall not contain any adopted words, such as Martyr, Archangel, Myriad, Mystery, Schism, Blasphemy, Denarius, Euroclydon, Tartarus, Abyss, Hades. Some of these words, such as myriad, denarius, tartarus, abyss, and hades, are translated and not adopted in our bible: but his translation is greatly to excel ours in this respect, and be much purer English. He promises to adopt none, but translate all. After this, would you expect to hear me say that he had actually adopted the whole of them, even those which our bible translates? Yet such is the fact!

    In one case, he copies Doddridge, concerning the martyrs of Jesus," (r) though in another he alters Doddridge's martyr into witnesses] Angel is a Greek word anglicised; he therefore rejects it utterly, and always uses the word Messenger for it. Archangel also is a Greek word transcribed, and might just as properly be rendered Prime-messenger: yet this word he uniformly adopts. (/) Myriad is a Greek word anglicised, and

    (y) See it quoted in West. Luminary for Jan. 3, 1827. (r) Rev. xvii. 6. () Rev. ii. 13,

    T (0 In 1 Thess. iv. 16. Jude ix. the only places in which it occurs in the N. "1*.

    ( 101 )

    when used in connexion with angels, is rendered by Macknight ten thousands of angels," (w) My Opponent's incomparable alters this into "myriads of messengers." How wonderfully this elucidates the subject! But in the Appendix he tells us that such improvements are made, that the scriptures may be *' more intelligible to common readers, whose edification," says he, "we have supremely in view." Some common readers, however, are so stupid that they would think this improvement worth very little more than a pair of leather spectacles. Besides copying Doddridge in transferring the word mystery, (v) and Macknight in transferring the word schism, (w] he holds fast to this adopted word twice, even where Macknight translates it [[$(#) in one of which instances he justifies himself by the authority of Dr. George Campbell, who first taught him to condemn such transcriptions, (y) The Dr. and his incomparable disciple sometimes translate blasphemy and blaspheme, though poorly enough; yet at other times both the noun and the verb are adopted by them. (z) As for denarius, I believe they uniformly transfer it;(a) although our American dime is a coin of the same value, and would, (in our country at least,) afford a good translation. He has adopted Euroclydon, (b) although he knows that Levanter is a translation familiar to the commercial world. To be more intelligible to common readers, he has adopted tartarus, (c) instead of translating it hell as our bible does. In one instance now before me, (d) he follows Dr. Campbell in transferring the word abyss, where our bible translates it the deep, notwithstanding their censures against it for transferring instead of translating. In other cases he copies Doddridge's abyss; (e] besides which he translates it the deep with Macknight, (f) and the bottomless pit, with Doddridge. () In relation to another word of similar import, my Opponent says, "There being no one word

    u) Hebr. xii. 22. (v) Rev. xvii. 5. (w) 1 Cor. xii. 25.

    - x 1 Cor. xi. 18. i. 10. (zy) 1 Cor. i. 10. and Appendix, No. 67.

    In Matl. xxvi. 65, both occur.

    I have examined them in Matt, xviii. 28. xx. 2. 9. 10. 13. xxii. ir.

    Acts xxvii. 14. (c) 1 Pet. ii. 4. (d) Luke viii. 31.

    Rev. xi. 7. xx. 3. (/) Rom. x. 7. () Rev. ix. 11. xvii. 18. xx, 1.

    ( 102 )

    in our language which corresponds to the term hades, he [Dr. George Campbell] is obliged to retain and explain it." He at the same time says, "We [Mr. Alexander Campbell] have uniformly followed his method in the books which he did not translate." ^) That is, the word hades is never translated, but always retained in his New Testament. This he does in despite of Macknight's grave, (i) and Doddridge's hell, (j) and his unseen world(k) yet in this last translation my Opponent actually copies Doddridge in three places, (/) notwithstanding his promise uniformly to retain hades after Dr. Campbell's example. From these instances we may conclude that when he promises to adopt, he will be sure to translate, and when he abuses our Translators for adopting, he means to adopt twice as much as they have done.

    As my Opponent promised always to translate, so his incomparable makes extraordinary pretensions to uniformity in its translations. His three guides have rendered the same word sometimes one way and sometimes another. This he seems determined to avoid as an error. He says "Wherever the word church is found in the common version, congregation will be found in this. We shall let Drs. Campbell and Doddridge defend the preference. For although they have not always so rendered it, they give the best of reasons why it should be always so translated." (m) Here the arguments of Doddridge and Campbell are given for a uniformity which they did not approve nor practise. But on this subject my Opponent is a professed disciple of Home Tooke, who was a great enemy to allowing a diversity of significations to the same word. After informing you that Dr. Johnson assigned forty-six meanings to an English monosyllable, he says, "But the celebrated Home Tooke demonstrates that it has but one meaning, and that all the pretended meanings of Dr. S. Johnson are resolvable [[kt into it." (/i) He then goes on to apply the remark to the

    (/;) Appendix No 21. (i) 1 Cor. xv. 5.5. (j) Rev. vi. 8.

    () Rev. xx. 13. 14. (/) Acts ii. 27. 31. Rev. i. 18.

    ) Appendix No. 10.

    Y Spurious Debate with W. L. M. p. 313; Note.

    ( 103 )

    Greek prepositions in opposition to Parkhurst, who allowed sixteen meanings to one, and eighteen to another. Let it be remembered that Home Tooke, in ascertaining his one meaning of a word, is governed by its etymology. Here also my Opponent follows him; and he gives this as a reason for banishing the word church from his New Testament. He says, "The term church or kirk, is, an abbreviation of the word xv^ov the house of the Lord, and does not translate the term [a calling out.] (o) Here the mere fact of two words being differently derived, is given as a reason why they cannot have the same signification, and why one of them cannot properly translate the other. If church cannot render ecclesiu, merely because it is etymologically the house of the Lord, and not a calling out, then surely his favourite congregation cannot render it, for this is, by derivation, a gathering together, and not a calling out. This places ecclesia in the same predicament in which he says that hades is, without a corresponding word in our language. To be consistent, then, he should either transcribe it, or form some new word, like evocation, of a similar derivation. So completely has my Opponent entangled himself by this position, that if it can be maintained, then he has destroyed his whole new version. If the mere want of coincidence in etymology is sufficient to disqualify church from rendering ecclesia, then his incomparable has not translated one verse of the New Testament correctly. If he were tried by his own test, he would fall infinitely below our own translators. This he knows very well, and, therefore, in direct defiance of his own principles, he condemns them for paying too much attention to the literal and etymological meaning of words. He says, "The kings translators have frequently erred in attempting to be, what some would call literally correct. They have not given *' the meaning in some passages where they have given a literal translation." More directly still to the point, he says, "that is what a classical scholar, or a critical etymologist [such as

    (o) Appendix No, 10,

    ( 104 )

    Home Tooke or his disciple] might approve, as a literal version of some passages, is by no means the meaning of the "writer." These sentiments, he informs us, are the fruit of his "better acquaintance with the idiomatic style of the Apostolic writings, and of the Septuagint Greek;" while he stigmatizes as u smatterers in the original Greek," (/) those who lean to the closer and stricter rendering of our Translators. He would have come nearer the truth if he had told you that instead of obtaining these sentiments from his own better acquaintance with the Greek Scriptures, he took them, second-handed, from Dr. George Campbell, who published them, as an apology for his extremely loose version of the four Gospels, which might more correctly be called a paraphrase than a translation. In avoiding the literal extreme of Arias Montanus, he went so completely into the liberal extreme, that he saw himself in danger of being accused of licentiousness. In relation to my Opponent's views of the words ecclesia and church, on account of their want of etymological coincidence, permit me to give you a little more from Dr. Campbell. In shewing how unsafe it sometimes is to trust to the etymology of a word for its meaning, he says, "There are many cases wherein, though its descent may be clearly traced, we should err egregiously, if we were to fix *' its meaning from that of the primitive or root." Thus the three words xw/ttjeoj in Greek, paganus in Latin, and villain in English, though evidently so conformable in etymology, that they ought all to denote the same thing, namely villager; have, for many ages, both lost that signification, and acquired others in which they do not in the least resemble one another. If the use in these languages should ever come to be very little known, and the history of the nations nearly lost, we may form a guess at the absurdities in explaining those terms, into which men would be misled by etymology." (q) Doubtless my Opponent will agree to all this when Dr. Campbell says it, just as he agrees to the very opposite when Home Tooke says it.

    (*) Preface, p. 7.

    (y) Dr. Campbell's fourth Preliminary Dissertation. Sections 16, 17.

    ( 105 )

    When he sells himself to two masters, he is for yielding implicit obedience to both, even when they are diametrically opposed to each other, and lead him into palpable contradictions and absurdities.

    The absurdity of his preferring congregation to church, as a rendering of ecclesia, and then uniformly adhering to that rendering, will soon be evident. The word ecclesia is used to denote the place of worship as well as the worshipping assembly. The word church has the same latitude of signification: but congregation has not. Paul says, "When ye come together in the ecclesia, I hear that there be divisions among you." (r) Our Bible says, "when ye come together in the church." Of this Dr. Gill approves, and says that the word means "the place where the church met together to perform divine service," which exposition he proves by the context. Accordingly Dr. Macknight says, "when ye come together in the church." As usual, my Opponent alters the word churchy and says, "When ye come together in the congregation."

    In another instance, according to Doddridge, "The Sadducees say, there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit." (s) My Opponent's incomparable reads, "There is no resurrection, neither [good nor evil] messenger," &c. What Doddridge calls angel in the next verse, my Opponent calls "heavenly messenger," without enclosing the word heavenly in brackets, as he did the words "good and evil" in the former verse. This way of translating leaves the common reader, (whose benefit my Opponent had supremely in view,) perfectly at a loss to know what is in Doddridge, what is in the Original, and what the new translator would be at.

    Another instance of the astonishing uniformity of my Opponent's New Testament. There are four texts in which Doddridge, with some claims to uniformity, transfers the word mystery. (t) In the first of these my Opponent agrees with him

    (r) 1 Cor. xi. 18. (s) Acts xxiii, 8.

    (0 Rev. xvii. 5. 7. (com, 22) x, 7, i. 20.

    ( 106 )

    in transferring. In the second and third, he translates it secret* In the fourth he renders it hidden-meaning.

    Again, there are six texts in which Doddridge uniformly transcribes the words blaspheme, blasphemer, blasphemy, blasphemously. (u) Only four of these are in those books of which he professes to give Doddridge's translation. In the first of these, my Opponent transcribes blasphemers as Doddridge does. In the second he translates detractions, in the third, abusive things, in the fourth reviled, in the fifth slander, and in the sixth defamation. All this is for the sake of an extraordinary and scrupulous uniformity!

    Once more. The word anastasis occurs four times in the compass of eight verses. (v) In the first of these instances, my Opponent's incomparable uniformity renders itfuture life, in the second resurrection, in the third that state, and in the fourth revival, where Dr. Campbell has it quickening. Now in all these places, our translation, which is so much censured for its want of uniformity, uses the word resurrection, as Doddridge does. With this uniform rendering agree the Latin translations of Jerome, Castalio, Beza, and that of Junius and Tremellius: as do also the German, Italian, and French, of Luther, Diodati, and De Sacy, with a variety of others in different languages. Even the Unitarian Improved Version, and the Universalist double-distilled version by Mr. Kneeland, renders the word uniformly resurrection as our bible does. My Opponent's superfine is the only one which professes an unparallelled consistency, and he and his pattern, whom he has altered, are the only ones who have given four renderings to this word, in a passage of eight verses.

    Let it be remembered that my Opponent does not openly offer to the public a new version of his own, but he proposes to give us the works of Drs. Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. In his Appendix he says, "we were scrupulously intent on giving

    (u) Acts xix. 37. Mk. iii. 28. Luke xxii. 65. Acts xviii, 6, Rev. ii. 9. xiii. 6. (i>) Matt. xxii. 23, 28. 30. 31.

    ( 107 )

    every word of the works proposed," (w) It is true that in making this declaration, he may have had his eye upon the notes, in which, however, he has not given every word of the works proposed, as may be seerf in the alteration last mentioned, and others without number. But if he had scrupulously given every word of theirs in the notes, would that justify him in imposing the work upon the community, as the "New Testament translated from the original Greek, by George Campbell, James Macknight, and Philip Doddridge, Doctors of the Church of Scotland?" He ought rather to have called it, the translation of one man, accompanied with the various readings of three others: or, at least, he should have given it such an honest title as that of the Unitarian translation; "The New Testament, in an Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, with a corrected text, and notes critical and explanatory." The authors of this work did not dare to offer it to the British public, as [[<; the New Testament translated by Newcome, a Primate of the Church of England," but only a new version "upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's." What then would they think of a Unitarian Baptist, who would publish a translation, purporting to be the work of three "Doctors of the Church of Scotland," and yet containing more variations from these Doctors, by three or four, if not ten times, than the Improved Version has alterations of Newcome's translation? Mr. Kneeland's New Testament is as good a copy of either Scarlett or the Improved Version, as my Opponent's is of the three Doctors: yet he had not the audacity to palm it upon the public as either of these works, but was satisfied with the puerile vanity of being the author of a new version, between which and its models there was no important difference.

    In some important instances, nly Opponent agrees with these corrupt versions, in opposition to those which he promised to copy. It is well known that the Unitarians endeavour to fritter down the interview between Paul and the jailer to little more

    (w) p. 38,

    ( 108 )

    than a consultation about temporal safety from civil punishment by the Roman government. This has been attempted I am told, by Dr. Holley in Lexington. With a view to this, the Unitarian Improved Version makes the jailer say, "Sirs, what must I do to be safe?" And it makes Paul and Silas answer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be safe and thine house-hold." (a?) To the word safe, they append a note informing us that Newcome has the word saved in accordance with our translation: after which the note says "Mr. Wakefield explains it, to avoid punishment for what has befallen the prisoners and the prison. "This," he adds, "is beyond all doubt, the sense of the passage; though Paul, in his reply, uses the words in a more extensive signification: a practice common in these writings." Kneeland copies the translation and the note without giving credit for either. My Opponent translates, "O, Sirs, what must I do that I may be safe? And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be safe, and thine house." As there is nothing about this passage in the margin, and as there is no note referring from this or any other part of the chapter to the Appendix, any reader, who has not been accustomed to catching eels, would take it for granted that Doddridge had given the above translation in accordance with the Unitarian and Universalist versions. But on examining the Appendix, half of Doddridge's translation is found wedged in between notes to which reference is made from the preceding and succeeding chapters. In connexion with this half-reading, he gives the reason why he had thus hidden Doddridge, and u given the most conspicuous place to that [Unitarian] version, which appeared to deserve it." This reason is given in the words of Wakefield the Unitarian, as follows, viz. "The jailer meant no more than, what shall I do to be safe from punishment? for what had befallen the prisoners and the prison? This is, beyond doubt the sense of the passage; though Paul, in his reply, uses the words in a more extensive signification; a practice common in

    (r) Acts xvi. 30. 31.

    ( 109 )

    "these writings." These words in the Appendix are preceded and followed by the name of Wakefield, as the author of the translation and note. Thus, while there is a happy agreement between Doddridge and our translation, there is also a sweet harmony between the Socinian version of London, the Universalist of Philadelphia, and the Arian Baptist of Buffaloe Creek. It is well known that the exhortation of Paul "to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," (y) is shocking to the feelings of those who do not believe in the supreme deity and true humanity of him whose blood has satisfied divine justice for the sins of his people. It even wounds weak Christians, on account of its appearing to attribute blood and suffering to God who is impassible. For this reason various transcribers and translators, ancient and modern, have softened down the Apostle's expression, by substituting, some, one word, and, some another, which may not be so^ shocking to their feelings. Some of these transcribers and translators are adduced by the Unitarian Improved Version, to prove that the word Lord is a better reading than that of the received text. Mr. Kneeland's Universalist Version also prefers the word Lord; and so does my Opponent's edition of Dr. Doddridge's translation, without one marginal note or reference to the Appendix from any part of the Chapter to shew that he was not reporting the Dr. correctly. On this account, "A Friend to Truth" in The Western Luminary," (jz) in noticing this alteration, says that my Opponent "passes over it silently." This mistake was owing to the violation of a promise made by my Opponent in his Preface. His words are these, viz. "instead of crowding the margin with different translations and critical notes, we have placed them in an Appendix and made references to them at the bottom of the page." () After having generally disregarded this engagement until he gets to the 224th page of his translation, he then refers to a note in the Appendix, which gives notice that he will violate this promise on a greater

    (?/) Acts xx, 28. (z) For Jan. Hi, 1827. () p. 10.

    ( 110 )

    scale "in the subsequent books of the New Testament, than in the preceding," and assigns as a reason for this course, that so many references "at the bottom of the page" "would rather have disfigured the page." I confess that if his work were bespangled with asterisks and other marks as numerous as the instances in which he has altered his three great men, it would give his page some resemblance to whortle berries and milk: but the right way to remedy this evil, is not to conceal the alterations, but to remove them, by giving a fair copy of his Doctors. At present, however, he saves his page at the expense of his veracity and honesty. Instead of making his notes plain for common readers, and opening them by distinct references, he makes them short, contracted, and to most men, unintelligible; and then wraps up a great number of them in a bundle, not with the order of a pedlar's pack, but with the confusion of a rag-man's sack. With the exception of one little note of less than a line, all my Opponent's notes on eight chapters now before me, are squeezed into one of these bales, to which there is only one reference in the whole translation. Snugly enclosed in the centre of this astonishing hurra's nest, you find the following note, viz. v. 29. ' Church of God;' Dod. [[< Of the Lord; Griesbach." This I perceive to be a note on the 29th verse of something. Going very little farther back, I find "Chap, xx." This therefore must be the 29th verse of the 20th Chapter of some book. Anxious to find the name of the book, I in vain explore this branch of notes to its source. Being disappointed here, I examine the batch of notes preceding it, and the one preceding that, until I have tried as many as you have fingers and toes, without being able to discover the name of the book to which one note belongs. Here he will say that this defect in the notes is supplied by the "references to them at the bottom of the page," where the text is found in the translation. This would have been the case in some measure, if he had performed his promise in making those references at the bottom of the page. But the text to which this note belongs, is on page 266. Here there is no reference, nor on any preceding page nearer than

    ( 111 )

    259, where another verse of another chapter gives occasion to refer to this mass of notes, seven pages before the text in question, and thirteen pages before the last text contained in the mass. After a tedious search you can discover that his "v.9," means not the 29th, but the 28th verse of the 20th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; and that his [[< < Church of God;' Dod. ' Of the Lord;' Griesbach," means that Doddridge agrees with our bible in giving the name of God to him who purchased the church with his blood, whereas my Opponent had rejected Doddridge, and followed Griesbach, in substituting the word Lord. In answer to his detector in the Western Luminary (6) he defends this substitution by observing, "I said in the preface I gave the most conspicuous place to that reading or rendering which I thought deserved it and so it happens here." Yes, let it be remembered that he puts into the text of this new translation, whatever he thinks deserves it, and then publishes this compilation of a Unitarian Baptist, as the work of three Presbyterian Pedobaptist Doctors!!!

    As my Opponent in connexion with the above remark, gave his reason at large, for supplanting Doddridge with another reading, indulge me with the liberty of paying a moment's attention to them. They are three. One is that Griesbach "decides in favour of the latter." Another is that Ireneus "quotes it as in the new translation." A third is that "The Syriac translation, the oldest in the world, has it Lord,"

    The two last reasons are alledged facts which he observes, "I [Mr. Campbell] added in my own mind to the authority of Griesbach." Thus my Opponent, with all his professed opposition to creeds and confessions of human composition, is not yet escaped from human authority. In favour of a Unitarian translation of Acts xvi. 30, he gives no other authority than that of Wakefield, a Unitarian writer: and in favour of a Unitarian reading of Acts xx. 28, he gives "the authority of Griesbach," whom the Unitarians claim. Real Christians call no man

    (6) For Jan 3, 1B27,

    ( 112 )

    Father; and they adopt a human creed, as they would preach or hear a human sermon; because they believe it to be founded upon the scriptures. But many unregenerate persons receive this creed, as my Opponent once did the Westminster Confession, upon no other ground than human authority; and they afterwards reject it, as my Opponent has done, because they prefer a Unitarian Master to any other. Here also it may not be improper to observe, as the writer in the Western Luminary has done, that the celebrated Nolan has proved that the criteria by which Griesbach has made his decision, are fundamentally erroneous, and Wakefield himself has decided against him in this instance.

    In answer to my Opponent's second reason, drawn from the testimony of one of the Fathers, in favour of his reading, I would observe that Middleton, who is not decided in favour of our reading of the passage, still says that "it is quoted or referred to by a great many of the Fathers."

    My Opponent's third reason exhibits, if I mistake not, a greater degree of moderation than he is accustomed to. He only says that "The Syriac translation, the oldest in the world, has it Lord." Considering the liberties which he usually takes, we should expect him to claim the Latin Vulgate, which is the next oldest in the world; and the Arabic and Ethiopic which are highly esteemed by some. Griesbach, my Opponent's Master, actually did claim the Ethiopic; in consequence of which his professed brother Wakefield declared his testimony on this point, "infamously false." (c) Yet it is not more false than the testimony of a certain translator, in claiming the Syriac Version in favour of his reading. The Syriac Version has neither his reading nor ours, (rf) but a reading which is found in no Manuscript, and which both parties consider unsupported by evidence. But my Opponent, no doubt, thinks that he has as good a right to alter ancient translations as modern ones; and in this I agree with him.

    (c) Middleton on the text,

    But Messiah -- or Christ,

    ( 113 )

    Before I dismiss this incomparable of my Opponent, permit me to notice his last refuge from that infamy to which the voice of an insulted and defrauded people will consign him. When his Prospectus says that he will translate such words as the three Doctors had adopted, he adds, "But in doing this [that is, in translating,] we shall not depart in any instance from the meaning which they have declared those words to convey." In answering his newspaper antagonist, the "Friend of Truth," he refers to this as a "promise of great importance," and adds, Now it can be proven in any court of law or equity where the English language is spoken, that I have not, in one instance, departed from this promise. I challenge all the colleges and divines on this continent, to shew that I have not, in every instance, so done. Let this Doctor of divinity, this * Friend to Truth' make an attempt."

    This pompous challenge would make some take it for granted that my Opponent never alters the meaning of either of his Doctors, although he may alter his words. But if this be the case, why does he, according to his Preface, (e) substitute the words of Dr. Campbell for those of Doddridge or Macknight, in every passage whicty he has translated? and why does he give as a reason for this, the superior "correctness and elegance" of his translations? Is there no difference of meaning between Dr. Campbell's correct and elegant translations, and those for which they are substituted? But correct and elegant as Dr. Campbell is, he is not to compare with my Opponent, to whose translations, those of Dr. Campbell as well as Macknight and Doddridge must give way, in order to form a book concerning which it may be said, that "the ideas communicated by the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, are incomparably better expressed in this than in any volume ever presented in our mother tongue." Can this much altered translation be incomparably better than its models, as published by themselves, or in the London Edition, without any change in the meaning of

    (0 p. 10,

    ( 114 )

    one word? If there be no difference in meaning, how comes it to pass that when he substitutes hades for Doddridge's hell, he gives as a reason that the word "is very improperly translated hell?" (f) Is there no difference between the original and a very improper translation? Taking the Epistle to the Hebrews as a specimen of the whole work, he says, in his answer to the Friend of Truth," "About fifty times you will find Macknight in the Appendix in this one Epistle," and then offers a guess that there are as many as three thousand such alterations in the whole work, instead of the reduced calculation of fifteen hundred which his Antagonist had made. Are we to understand that he has altered the words of his authors fifty times in one Epistle, and three thousand times in all, without once changing their meaning?

    But the letter of his challenge calls for an instance in which his New Testament gives a meaning different from his Doctors, by translating a word which they had adopted. The word heresy is translated by my Opponent, and adopted by his author. Doddridge says, "After the way which they call heresy, so do I worship the God of my Fathers." My Opponent says, "After the way which they call a sect, so worship I the God of my fathers." Now if it can be shewn that my Opponent understands the word sect in an indifferent sense, and that Doddridge understands the word heresy in an evil sense, then my Opponent has altered his author's meaning by translating a word which his author had adopted. In a note to which my Opponent refers from this text, his meaning is conveyed to us in the language of Dr. Campbell. After explaining the original by class, party, sect, he observes, "The word was not, in its earliest acceptation, conceived to convey any reproach in it, since it was indifferently used, either of a party approved, or of one disapproved by the writer." Thus my Opponent's word sect is understood indifferently. Now although Doddridge gives the word sect in his paraphrase, he gives a reason for preferring the

    (/) Rev. vi. 8. Compare Appendix No. 21,

    ( 115 )

    word heresy in the text. He admits that on account of the circumstances of the primitive Christians, "they might properly be called a sector party of men," but he says, "I cannot but think this a place, where the word [[ai^crtf, which I own to be often indifferent, is used in a bad sense; for Paul plainly intimates, that Christianity did not deserve the name they gave it." Thus my Opponent's translation gives a word in an indifferent sense, which Doddridge thinks might properly be applied to Christians instead of his author's adoption of a word in an evil seme, which Doddridge thinks the Christians did not deserve. Yet my Opponent's promise says, "We shall not depart in any instance from the meaning which they have declared those words to convey."

    Paul once preached Christ to the Jews. My Opponent says, But when they set themselves in opposition, and reviled, he shook his garments." (g-) Would not any common reader understand from this, that the Jews reviled Paul? and was not this what my Opponent meant that they should understand? Yet Doddridge says, "they set themselves in opposition, and BLASPHEMED" that glorious name on which he was pressing them to fix their dependence. To the same amount, in other places, (A) Doddridge adopts blasphemy, and my Opponent translates slander, defamation. It is well known that in common language, reviling, slander, and defamation, denote an offence against our fellow men; whereas Dr. Allison, a Baptist Preacher, in his English Dictionary, says that "blasphemy is an offering of some indignity unto God himself." In accordance with this, Doddridge in describing the Roman Beast, says that it was "full of blasphemous names," (i) which his paraphrase explains by its "ascribing to itself, and the harlot upon it, properties and glories which belong to God alone." My Opponent, instead of "blasphemous names," translates "slanderous names."

    My Opponent might here urge in extenuation, that he was following his perfectly correct and elegant pattern, Dr. George

    (g-) Acts xviii. 6. (//) Rev. ii, 9, 13, 1, (/) Rev. xvii. 3,

    ( 116 )

    Campbell, as he promised in his preface. If this were true, it would only shew that he made two promises which were inconsistent with each other: one is that he would always substitute Campbell's words for those of the other two Doctors; and the other is that he would never depart from their meaning. But if I mistake not, while Campbell justifies him in one departure from Doddridge (j) his principles and practice condemn him in all the rest. He admits that the word blaspheme should be retained when God is the object of this offence. In the last text the Beast is said to be full of blasphemous names, because he claims divine attributes and honors. For this very thing the Jews repeatedly accused our Saviour of the same offence; and in no such case does either Dr. Campbell or my Opponent render it reviling* slander, or defamation, but they both retain the -word blasphemy. "Who is this that speaketh blasphemies? Can any one forgive sins beside God?'' "For a good work we do not stone thee, but for blasphemy, because thou, being [a] man, makest thyself God." (&) In these texts my Opponent has exactly followed his model, except in the insertion of our indefinite article before the word man, which, among three thousand alterations, can hardly be noticed.

    According to my Opponent's translation, Paul's reason for delivering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, was "that they might be taught by chastisement, not to defame." Although Macknight, whom he here professes to copy, uses the word revile in his commentary, yet as he expressly declares '* Christ or his doctrine" to be the object of this reviling, he retains blaspheme in the text, according to the principles of my Opponent's favourite, Dr. Campbell: "that they might be taught by chastisement not to blaspheme." ([) In another instance (m) he retains blasphemers, where my Opponent substitutes defamers, although Macknight's commentary explains it "blasphemers of God, by the injurious "representations which they give of him." I cannot tell how

    0') Actsxviii. 6. See his Prelim. Dissert. 9. Part 2. Sect. 12.

    () Luke v. 21. John x. 33. (/) 1 Tim. i. 00. (/) 2 Tim. Hi. 2.

    ( 117 )

    many cases of this sort his book contains; but I have very little doubt that one whose time and patience would permit him to wade through this mass of perversion, would discover many other instances, in addition to the seven which I have pointed out, in which my Opponent's authors adopt a word with one meaning, and my Opponent translates it with another meaning: yet the promise of his Prospectus is, "But in doing this, we shall not depart in any instance, from the meaning which they have declared those words to convey." And after the work was published, he challenges "all the colleges and divines on this continent to shew" that he has "in one instance, departed from this promise."

    My Opponent may be called a challenge-monger. The Reformers used to challenge that they might debate: my Opponent debates that he may challenge. A Reformer once contended ten days upon the ground of one challenge: my Opponent does not stop at ten challenges in one day, and sometimes in one speech. When used as a manoeuvre, it sometimes appears ingenious, although it may be disingenuous. If a man accuse him of Unitarianism, he challenges him to prove him a Socinian, as if Unitarianism did not embrace his darling Arianism, as well as his brother Holley's Socinianism. A. accuses B. of stealing one of his cattle. B. challenges A. and all the colleges and lawyers on the continent to prove that he has stolen a cow; thinking thereby to conceal the fact that he had stolen a calf. But in the present case his right hand appears to have lost its cunning: for he challenges the continent to shew one instance in which he has departed from a promise, which he has directly violated in the seven specified cases, and we know not how many more.

    There was a time when I thought the Unitarian Improved Version a non-par eU in theological atrocity: but, in reapect of fraud and falsehood, this Arian Baptist's New Translation is incomparably beyond it. I am not sorry, therefore, that the word Church [[^ which introduced it to our notice, is not once found in this master-piece of deception.

    ( 118 )


    It has already been shewn that the application of this word to the Jews in the Old Testament proves that they were once the visible church of God. You have heard, moreover, that it is confessedly used more than a hundred times in the New Testament, to signify the visible church. Now if we or our Baptist friends who agree in this matter, were asked for our proof, how could we answer more properly than by quoting such passages of the New Testament as shew, by their connexion, that the people called the church, were a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion? There are now before me nine authorities^ ) which give the name of ecclesia to those who had the worship, discipline, character and condition of such a society. Perhaps, there is not a regular Baptist on earth who will deny the conclusion, or deny that it is authorized by these passages of the New Testament. But a good rule will work both ways. If these premises prove the existence of a New Testament church, they will also, if they can be found, prove the existence of an Old Testament church. We are then to look for the worship, discipline, character, and condition of a visible church among the Jews.

    (ri) Acts xi. 26. xx. 17. xiii, 1. xii. 5. xiv. 23. (comp. 32.) xv. 41. xvi. ,5, Matt, xviii, 17. xvi. 1.

    ( 119 )

    I. WORSHIP. "And all the church worshipped." And the whole church took counsel to keep other seven days:" ' in religious exercises/ as Gill says. (o) The religious exercises of the Old Testament were such as the following.

    1. Sacrifices. "For Hezekiah, king of Judah, did give to the church a thousand bullocks, and seven thousand sheep: and the princes gave to the church a thousand bullocks and ten thousand sheep: and a great number of priests sanctified themselves." And they brought forth the he-goats for the sin-offering before the king and the church; and they laid their hands upon them." "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 church 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 church brought, was," &c. (p)

    2. Festivals. "For the king had taken counsel, and his princes, and all the church in Jerusalem, to keep the passover in the second month." "And there assembled at Jerusalem much people, to keep the feast of unleavened bread in the second month, a very great church." "For there were many in the church,, that "were not consecrated: therefore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the passovers, for every one

    (o) 2 Chr. xxix. 28. xxx. 23.

    (/O 2 Chr. xxx. 24. xxix. 23. 31. 32. xxx. 2.

    ( 120 )

    that was not clean, to consecrate them unto the "Lord. (?)

    3. Prayer. "And he stood before the altar of the "Lord in the presence of all the church of Israel, and spread forth his hands. For Solomon had made a brazen scaffold," "and upon it he stood, and kneeled down upon his knees before all the church of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven." (r) Compare this with certain passages of the New Testament, in which Baptists themselves see evidence that the visible church of God is meant. "Peter, therefore, was kept in prison; but prayer was made without ceasing, "of the church, unto God for him." "Now there were, in the church that \vas at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers." "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." (s)

    4. Praise. "I will give thee thanks in the great church, I will praise thee among much people." The great congregation," as our bible has it in the first clause of this verse, Dr. Gill explains, "the church" and "people of God." The expression in the last clause, he explains, "the people of God meeting together for solemn worship." The Psalmist says again, "The heavens shall praise thy wonders, Lord! thy faithfulness also, in the church of the saints." Here Gill says "holy men are meant, such as are called to be saints, and are gathered together in a gospel church-state."

    (7) i Chr. xxx. 2. 13. 17. (r) 2 Chr. vi. 12. 13.

    (v) Actsxii. 5. xiii. 1. xiv. 23. (comp. 22.)

    ( 121 )

    The same explanation he gives of the following: "Praise ye the Lord. Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise in the church of saints." It is plain that this is directly applicable to the Israelitish church, as well as prophetical of the Christian church. The same may be said of the following: "I will declare thy name "unto my brethren; in the midst of the church will I praise thee." U) Several of these texts mention sing' ing, one important means of ecclesiastical praise, [u]

    5. Reading, expounding, and preaching. "There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the church of Israel, with the women and the little ones, and the strangers that "were conversant among them." "And Ezra the priest, brought the law before the church." "So they read in the book, in the law of God distinctly, and .gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." "I have preached righteousness in the great church." (#) Compare this with the declaration that God anointed Isaiah "to preach good tidings unto the meek;" that he anointed our Saviour, the Antitype of Isaiah, "to preach the gospel to the poor;" that he actually "preached in the synagogues of Galilee:" and compare the whole with what is said of Paul and Barnabas, "that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (w>) Thus does the connexion of the word

    (0 Ps. xxxv. 18. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix. 1. xxii. 52. (u) 2 Chr. xxix. 28. Ps. cxlix. 1. M Josh. viii. 35. Neh. viii. 28. Ps. xl. 9. (u) Isa. Ixi. 1. Luk. iv. 18. 44. Acts xi. 26.

    ( 122 )

    shew that it denotes a society consecrated to religious purposes, both in the Old and New Testaments.

    6. Implements and places for worship. "The brazen altar that Bezaliel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, he put before the tabernacle of the Lord: and Solomon and the church sought unto it." "So Solomon and all the church with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the tabernacle of the church of God, which Moses the servant of the Lord had made in the wilderness." "The heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy church." And Ezra the priest brought the law before the church." "And he read therein." "And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood which they had made for the purpose." "And the king turned his face, and blessed the whole church of Israel, and all the church of Israel stood." "Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in 66 my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." "It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." (a?) Can any one suppose that when the word church occurs in the above passages, it means any thing short of a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion?

    Or) 2 Chr. i. 5. 3. Lam. i, 10. Nch. vlii. 2. 3. 4. 2 Chr. vi. 3. Isa. Ivi. 7. Mat. xxi. 13.

    ( 123 )

    II. DISCIPLINE. The rules by which a society refuses candidates, or expels members, will easily determine whether it is an ecclesiastical body or not.

    1. Preclusion. Moses points out some characters who shall not enter into the church of the Lord," until the third generation, others until the tenth, and others never. (y) If this law goes no farther than to forbid their being invested with ecclesiastical offices, this, nevertheless proves the existence of a church to which those offices are attached. This will appear in the following words of Dr. Gill upon one of these statutes, which, he says, "is to be understood, not of the sanctuary of the Lord, or of being refused admittance into the church of God, and to join in religious rites, and partake of sacred ordinances, which all Israelites, and strangers that were proselytes, had a right unto; such might bring their offerings, keep the passover, &c. (z)

    2. Exclusion. "But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the church, because he hath defiled the "sanctuary of the, Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled on him." (a) What it is to be thus "cut off," Gill professes not certainly to know, but among three conjectures, to a be excommunicated from the church," is one. To be cut off "from the Israelitish church-state," is one of three alternatives which he gives us on another similar statute; (b) and to

    (t/) Dcut. xxlii. 1 8^

    (z) For this, Gill on Dent, xxiii. 1, quotes Ex. xii. 48. 49. Lev, xxii. 18. Num. ix. 14. xv. 14. 15.

    (a) Num. xix. 20. (com p. 13, to which Gill refers from the 20th.)

    (b) Ex. xii. 19. (comp. 15, to which Gill refers for a fuller explanation.

    ( 124 )

    be excommunicated from them as a church" is only a part of the punishment which Dr. Gill believes to be contemplated in one of Ezra's decrees. (c)

    III. CHARACTER. They were no synagogue of Satan, or "congregation of the dead," as such are called by Solomon. (d) They were not a confused and unlawful assembly, like Demetrius and his Ephesians. (e) Neither were they a civil society, although they were connected with such a body. When, in a certain case, they were called "the whole church of the Lord." (f) Dr. Gill says, "they don't call them the congregation of Israel, but of the Lord, because it was not on a civil, but religious account they were come." As they were not a civil, so they were not a military body, although they were the militant church, and when providentially called, entered the military establishment of their country: as in the case of David and the Assembly who were with him, which Dr. Gill says, was a "great part of" the congregation of Israel, and church of the living God." (g) Its members were consecrated to religious privileges and enjoyments. It was given in charge to the Levites "to sanctify them unto the Lord." (h) This was to prepare them to "worship at his holy hill," which "holy hill of Zion," Dr. Gill tells us, means "the church." (i) To the same amount does he explain Joel's proclamation for a religious fast, although it speaks of children as belonging to the congregation, and partaking of their consecration and their

    (c) Ear. x. 8.

    (d) Prov. xxi. 16.

    (e) Acts xix. S2. 39,

    (f) Josh. xxii. 16.

    (g) 1 Sam. xvii. 47.

    (h) 2Chr. xxx. 17.

    (i) Ps. xdx. 9.

    ( 125 )

    humiliation. "Gather the people, sanctify the church, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breast." ^') In accordance with this, Gill says that Joshua's reading to the congregation was "not before the men only, but ' with the women and the little ones/ who all had a concern in the things that were read to them." (A) From this consecration, the officers of the church were, of course, not excluded. "A great number of priests consecrated themselves." (/) This ecclesiastical consecration, as well as spiritual sanctification, appears to be contemplated in calling the Jews and the Christians, "the church of saints." (m) Their imperfection in spiritual sanctification is confessed by all parties, and taught in the scriptures. Sacrifices are appointed for a case in which "the whole church of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the church." (ri) This is the text by which Gill and Ainsworth prove "that the church may err." But on account of their perfect Head, and that degree of sanctification which they enjoy, the scriptures call them "the church of the upright," (o) and recognize an evident incongruity between church-membership and a life of iniquity. "I was almost in all evil in the midst of the church assembled." (p) These things evidently shew that they are a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion.

    IV. CONDITION. On that text which speaks of the

    (j] Joel ii. 16. (comp. 15. 17.) () Josh. viii. 35.

    (/) 2Chr, xxx. 24. (m) Ps. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix. 1.

    00 Lev. iv, 13. (o) Ps. cxi. 1. (/O Prov. v. 14.

    ( 126 )

    trumpets which were made "for the calling of the churchy and for the journeying of the camps, (#) Dr. Gill takes occasion to remark that the Christian church is in the same condition: "Saints are pilgrims and travellers; they are passing through a wilderness, their way is attended with many difficulties; Canaan is the place they are travelling to, and the gospel [like the trumpets] is of singular use to them by the way both to refresh them with its joyful sound, and to direct them in the path in which they should go." But an inspired writer has said concerning Christ's presence with the Israelites, "This is he that was in the ff church in the wilderness, with the angel, which spake to him in the Mount Sina, and with our fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (r) The context shews that this person who was with them, was the Divine prophet, priest and king of the visible church, and it connects him and them with the tabernacle and temple which were ecclesiastical buildings; and thus shews that "the church in the wilderness" was really, and not nominally only, the visible church of God. Dr. Gill says that this "must be understood of the children of Israel, who were the then church of God, whom he had chosen and separated from the rest of the world, to be a peculiar people to himself, to whom were given the word and ordinances, the service '' of God, and the promises; and God always had, and will have a church; though that is sometimes in the wilderness; which has been the case under the gospel

    (7) Num. x.?. (r) Actsvii, 38. (comp. 37. 44. 47.)

    ( 127 )

    dispensation, as well as before; See Rev. xxii. 6. 14, and it was a peculiar honour to Moses, that he was in this church, though it was in the wilderness; even a greater honour than to be in Pharaoh's court." In accordance with this, Paul quotes David, as saying for himself and for his Antitype, concerning Jews and Christians, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren; in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." (s)

    You were told some time ago, of my Opponent's statement, that "the term church or kirk, is an abbreviation of the word [[xv&w
    (s) Hebr. ii, 12. (comp. context.)

    (t) 1 Tim. Hi. 15.

    ( 128 )

    Peter tells the churches that "the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God;" fe) Dr. Gill says, "By the house of God is either meant the temple of Jerusalem," or else the church of God, which is frequently called the house of God." When Paul says that we have "an high priest over the house of God," (v) Gill says that it means "the church of God, over which Christ is as prophet, priest, and king, and as the son and owner of it." When Paul says "every house is builded by some man," Gill understands it of "the whole church in general, of particular congregations, and of individual believers." When Paul says "he that built all things is God," Gill explains it "of Christ, and of his building the church." (w} This explanation he still continues, when it is intimated that Moses belonged to that house, as it is repeatedly, in the Epistle to the Hebrews. (x) When it is said that "Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant," (y) Gill says, a servant in holy things;" He says, "he was not a servant in the world, and with respect to civil things, and the affairs of Providence, but in the church of God, and in divine things." And as the scriptures never once intimate that this church began with Moses, so neither does our great Baptist Commentator; but in the very same passage in which he says that "it was a peculiar honour to Moses that he was in this church," he also says that "God always had, and will have a church." (z)

    (u) 1 Pet. iv. 17. (

    (v) Hebr. x. 21. (comp. v. 6.)

    (w) Hebr. iii. 4.

    (x) Hebr. iii. 2. 3.

    (y) Hebr. Iii. 5.

    (z) Gill on Acts vii, f8, quoted above.

    ( 129 )

    To me it seems that a small part of the evidence which has been adduced, ought to convince any one of the truth of the proposition, that Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God. They have been shewn to have the oracles and ordinances of a visible church, the members and officers of a visible church, with the constitution and the express, inspired, and unequivocal name of a church. Under this last point, they have been shewn to have the worship of an ecclesiastical body, such as sacrifices and festivals, prayer and praise, reading, expounding and preaching, together with ecclesiastical implements and places for worship, such as the altar and pulpit, the tabernacle and temple, which latter is called, in the Old and New Testament, the house of prayer. Under this point, it was proved, moreover, that they had the discipline of a church, in respect of preclusion and exclusion, and that the scriptures attributed to them the character and condition of a visible church. The existence, therefore, of the Patriarchal or Old Testament church, is as certain as the existence of the Christian or New Testament church. And some of you are ready to say that if my remaining propositions are as irrefragably proved as this first one, then the conclusion in favour of infant-baptism is inevitable. We proceed than to R

    ( 130 )



    You will be at no loss to account for my calling the Christian church a branch of the Abrahamic, when you remember that this is the figure used by Paul on the same subject. The Jews he considers the natural branches which are now cut off, and the Gentiles he treats as foreign branches engrafted in their place. (a) As our proposition is scriptural, both in phraseology and doctrine, my Opponent, for the want of argument, falls into a rhetorical ecstacy, about the inferiority of a branch to the stock, and the consequent inferiority of the Christian to the Jewish church, if my language be correct. On this ground he says that I can "be put to silence by every stripling who could ask the following question; Is not a branch inferior to the stem or trunk from which it grows?" (b) I suppose my Opponent's strippling would hardly deny that the superiority of a branch to the trunk into which it is inserted, is the very reason why engrafting is generally practised. But the scriptures say, "behold the man whose name is The BRANCH." "Behold I will raise unto David a righteous BRANCH." "And there shall come forth a rod '* out of the stem of Jesse, and a BRANCH shall grow out

    (a)Rom. xi. 1624.

    (b) Mr. Campbell's Spurious Debate with me, p. cc

    ( 131 )

    of his roots." (c) These passages evidently represent Immanuel as a branch of the stock of David, and David as a branch of the stem of Jesse. Now I will let my Opponent or his stripling say, whether Messiah the Branch was not greater than the stock of David, and whether David the branch was not greater than the stem of Jesse.

    The proposition in hand is sufficiently guarded in respect of the sameness of the Jewish and Christian societies. It says nothing more than that they are the same church; and nothing more than ecclesiastical identity is intended. You know that that lofty tree has not changed its identity since it was a plant of a foot high. Each of my hearers believes that he has, at this moment, the same body with which he was born. The constant mutation of its constituent particles never makes you doubt your personal identity. The adjacent town of Washington (d) is governed by the same board of Trustees from its foundation to the present day, although, perhaps, not one individual remains of those who origiginally composed it. When the Baptist church claims the Petrobrussian church, and the Waldensian church, and the Primitive church as belonging to their church, they must mean nothing more than that ecclesiastical identity which we say subsists between the Jewish and Christian societies. The change of administration can hardly make a greater difference between these, than the change of condition makes between the church militant and the church triumphant, which are nevertheless

    (c) Zech. vi. 12. Jcr. xxiii. 5. Is. xi. 1.

    (d) The first two days of the debate were in a forest near the town.

    ( 132 )

    the same church in different states; my Opponent to the contrary notwithstanding. (c)

    This view of ecclesiastical sameness, my Opponent considers "as absurd as to say, that the human body and the soul are one and the same thing," as if there were no difference between "flesh and spirit." (/) As the human soul and body, though distinct beings, do really form one person, they would afford a good illustration, if they did not exist simultaneously, but in succession, as do the Jewish and Christian churches. My Opponent's sophism concerning the supposed identity of a horse and an elephant, because they are both creatures;(#) or, (if he would prefer it,) the identity of a quibbler, and a monkey, because they are both empty chatterers, would answer very well, provided he will first establish the doctrine of metempsychosis, a doctrine fully as correct as some which he holds at present.

    On this subject the Appendix to my Opponent's spurious Debate with Mr. Walker (A) has several questions which it is convenient to answer.

    1. Are not a constitution, laws, ordinances, subjects, and privileges, the chief constituents of a of church state?"

    The visible church is a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion.

    2. Was the constitution that erected the Jewish nation into a national church, the same as the New Testament, or constitution of the Christian Church?"

    (e} Spur. Deb. with me. p. 19?.

    (f) Spur. Deb. with me. p, 155.

    (g) Spur. Deb. with me. p. 83.

    (h) p. 195.

    ( 133 )

    The Abrahamic covenant is the constitution of the visible church under the Jewish and Christian administrations.

    3. Were the laws that regulated the worship, discipline, political economy, judicial proceedings, and common intercourse of the Jews, the same as those under which the disciples of Christ act???

    It has been ably proved by Pedobaptists, and is maintained by Dr. Gill, the greatest Baptist that ever lived, that the political economy of the Jews was distinct from their ecclesiastical economy. But, in the present case, the one serves as a very convenient illustration of the other. As the national identity of Israel was not destroyed by the change of their government from judges to kings, so the ecclesiastical identity of God's people is not destroyed by the transfer of their privileges from Jews to Gentiles. After this transfer, the Baptists themselves must confess that the government of the church-general underwent many alterations, while the body remained the same. If I mistake not, the Baptists generally believe in opposition to us, that the government of the Apostolical churches was an Independent Congregationalism. This they probably admit gave place to a confederated parochial Episcopacy, or what is now called Presbyterianism, as early as the days of Ignatius and Polycarp. And they cannot deny that Dioscesan Episcopacy, or full-blooded Prelacy, was the government of the same church, in the days of Cyprian and Augustine. Neither can they deny, that, at present, there is a great variety of laws and modes of discipline, in the various branches of the Baptist church, which in their view, do not

    ( 134 )

    destroy their identity with the church of John the Baptist, or with one another. (i)

    4. Were the ordinances of the Jewish state, the same, with regard to their import, times of observance, number, the character and quality of the ob servers or participants of them?"

    There was a difference in form, yet a substantial sameness in the passover, and the eucharist, and in circumcision and baptism, as we hope to shew fully in its place. Circumstantial differences effect not the substance.

    5. Are the subjects of the Christian church to be such in birth, education, temper, and character, as the subjects of the commonwealth of Israel?"

    They are the same thus far, that they should be believers and their seed.

    '6. Are the privileges enjoyed by Christians in the church of Christ, just the same as those enjoyed by "the Jews?"

    Privileges, whether in church or state, may be enlarged or restricted, created or suppressed, without affecting the identity of the body. The repeal of the edict of Nantz did not annihilate the French nation, neither did the toleration act under William the Third, create a new nation in England: neither did these decrees affect the identity of churches, Popish or Protestant, Conformist or Non-conformist, in France or England. Virginia would still be Virginia, if she were

    (i) If, by common intercourse, in this third question, is meant domestic intercourse, such as is contemplated in Lev. xx. 18. Ez. xviii. 6, I say that those particular laws are still binding. If he have regard to social intercourse, I say that we are now permitted to eat with unbelievers.

    ( 135 )

    to extend the right of suffrage to her poorest citizen, and Pennsylvania would still be Pennsylvania, if she were to compel Preachers and Quakers to perform military duty. These United States would still be the same, (though somewhat disgraced,) if they were to give constitutional permission to the society of Cincinnati, to wear an empty honorary title of nobility. And the Presbyterian ehurch would be the same, (though somewhat enhanced in value,) if, while they advocate a parity of clergy, they Would, like Martin Luther, leave their Doctorates in Egypt, where those vain and invidious distinctions were born. If a change in respect of privilege must destroy identity, then Joseph was not the same person in prison and in the office of prime-minister to Pharaoh.

    7. When he(j) has answered the first question in the affirmative, and the next five in the negative, (which, if he consults the holy oracles, he must,) then how are two things the same, which differ in every essential particular?"

    The author of the above questions does not know what is essential, and what is not essential to a church. He considers not only ordinances, but "times of observance" essential. The excommunication of the Asiatic church, by the Roman Bishop, because they differed from him in their time of observing Easter, must please my Opponent much: for they ought to be out of the church, when they lack that which is essential to the church. If uniformity in "times of observance" be

    (y) Thet>e questions were addressed to Dr. Ely.

    ( 136 )

    essential to ecclesiastical identity, then those whose sabbath begins at sunset, and those whose sabbath begins at midnight, cannot both belong to the Christian church; because they lack that which is essential to being in the same church. He might as well say that two persons cannot be members of the same family, or citizens of the same state, unless they observe precisely the same time in eating and sleeping. There are four things essential to the visible church: visibility, association, consecration, and investiture; by which last I mean, being intrusted with the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion. Now the Jewish and Christian societies were thus invested, and were consecrated to this trust, for which they were visibly associated. As both, therefore, were visible associations, and both were consecrated depositories, they both had all the essentials of God's church on earth; and no possible difference could hinder their amalgamation, any more than the difference between olive trees would make engrafting impossible, or the difference between different countries would prove an insurmountable obstacle to making a British subject an American citizen by naturalization.

    My Opponent's eleven objections to the sameness of the Jewish and Christian societies, I shall have to notice concisely in an order of my own.

    1. My Opponent's sixth argument is founded upon our Saviour's consolatory address to his small family; Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

    (z) It was prudent

    (r) Luke xx. 32. Spur. Deb. with me. p. 228.

    ( 137 )

    dent for my Opponent to spend but little of his breath in showing that this text excludes the Old Testament society from God's ecclesiastical kingdom, because if it does prove that, it must also prove that the Christian church must always be a little flock, even in the millennium, and in the kingdom of glory.

    2. My Opponent's seventh argument is founded upon Matt. xix. 28. "And Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (a) He gives it to us in Campbell's translation, which uses the word renovation instead of regeneration, intimating that this renovation means the institution of the Christian church. My Opponent then says, "Observe here the erection of this new kingdom is called emphatically THE RENOVATION; in the common translation THE REGENERATION, not the continuation of the Jewish church."

    My Opponent has considerable versatility of genius. When he is at a loss for proof, he can turn any thing into evidence by merely making it emphatical. By this means he can even impress opposite arguments into his service. All that they need is a due degree of emphasis. When our Saviour promised to build his church, my Opponent discovered that to build a church was very different from rebuilding or repairing a church; for rebuilding and repairing supposed a previous existence of a church which had fallen into decay.

    (a) Matt. xix. 28. in Spur, Deb, against me, p. 228.

    ( 138 )

    But now he lays an emphasis upon regeneration and renovation, words equivalent to rebuilding and repairing, and makes out that they do not presuppose existence, but the very contrary.

    3. His tenth argument is founded upon a passage which, (strange as it may seem,) is a direct proof of the identity of the Jewish and Christian societies, according to my proposition. "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained ' ' in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." (&) According to him, this proves that Jews and Gentiles are emphatically made


    Very well. So says Dr. Gill also. And so be it. My Opponent, however, believes it to be a new church, as to its essence, and I believe it to be a new church, as to its administration. The second temple was, in one sense a new temple, but in another, it was only a renovation of the old temple. So the higher gate of the temple, which Jotham repaired, is twice called by Jeremiah "the new gate," (c) in consequence of its repairs, although it was as old as the temple. This same prophet says concerning the Lord's mercies "they are new every morning" (d) which Gill justly explains, by saying that they are "daily renewed in the manifestations thereof." John says, "I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment, which ye had from the be

    (a) Eph. h. 14. 15.

    (b) Spur. Deb. ag. me, p.

    (c) Jer. xxvi. 10. xxxvi. 10. (comp, 2 K

    (d) Lain. iii. 23.

    ( 139 )

    ginning." This, Dr. Gill thinks, is the law of love. And the same law of love, he thinks, is meant in the next verse, which says, "A new commandment I write unto you." (e) This he says, "is the same with the former, considered in different respects. The command of brotherly love is a new one; that is, it is an excellent one, as a new name is an excellent name, and a new song is an excellent one." So the Jews and Gentiles are now united in one new man, or new church, because there is now a new administration, and one which far excels the old.

    4. My Opponent's eleventh argument is based upon Paul's declaration that we have received "a kingdom which cannot be moved." (/) He thinks the word kingdom here means the New Testament church, and that these words, with the context, amount to a proof that there is an essential difference between the Jewish and Christian societies, as the one can be moved and the other cannot.

    If this argument prove that these two bodies cannot be one church, then it will also prove that a human soul and body cannot form one person; for the one can be removed by death, and the other cannot. But, if Providence permit, I hope, in due time, to lay before you plain scriptural evidence that the ecclesiastical kingdom of God embraces both the Jewish and Christian administrations. When, however, the word kingdom is used to denote the latter administration to the exclusion of the former, it has, of course, the precedency in point of dignity

    (e) 1 John, ii. 7. 8.

    (f) Hebr. xii. 28.

    (g) Spur. Deb. with me, p. 236.

    ( 140 )

    and stability, as the soul excels the body with which it is united. That this word does sometimes signify administration, both in church and state, will not be difficult to prove by my Opponent himself. Where our translation says, "the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king," my Opponent's New Testament reads, "the administration of heaven resembleth that of a king." (h) This is a copy of Dr. George Campbell, and accords with his Preliminary Dissertation on this word, in which he says that "in some of the parables, it evidently means administration, or method of governing." (i) Now that the Jewish administration is removed, and that the Christian administration of the church never will be removed, I have never denied. But in the same part of Dr. Campbell's dissertation, he mentions a parable, in which "the word denotes royalty or royal authority;" and it so happens that the phraseology of that parable is exactly parallel to that of the text on which this argument of my Opponent rests. This text speaks of our (( receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved." The parable uses such an expression twice. "A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return," "having received the kingdom" (j)

    Instead of "to receive for himself a kingdom," Dr. Campbell's translation has it, "to procure for himself royalty" and instead of "having received the kingdom," the Dr. renders it "vested with royal power." My Opponent promised that his translation should be a

    (h) Matt, xviii. 23.

    (i) Dissert. 5. Part. 1, Sect. 7.

    (j) Luke xix. 12. 15.

    ( 141 )

    copy of Dr. Campbell's; and, for a remarkable thing, lie has made no other alteration than to insert our definite article before royalty. Remember that my Opponent has pronounced Dr. Campbell "the first translator in point of correctness and elegance that ever gave a version of any part of the scriptures." And for this reason he has altered the versions of Macknight and Doddridge, to make them conformable to him. Why, therefore, did he not read his favourite text, "being vested with a royalty which cannot be moved?'? He cannot plead a scrupulous regard to his promise that he would copy Macknight: for that very verse which he has given us as Macknight's translation, is a heterogeneous mixture of Macknight, Thomson, and a certain gentleman who boasts much of his critical acumen. Neither can he plead that the proposed rendering would materially differ from Macknight, in sentiment: for Macknight, in his commentary, expressly declares that the word kingdom in that text, means "that excellent dispensation of religion," which I have called the Christian administration. Another hint of his, which may tend to the farther elucidation of this text, is, that this kingdom which we receive, was "foretold by Daniel to be given to the saints." Daniel says, "The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom." (k) Gill says, or receive it, as a free gift from God:" which latter translation he informs us is agreeable to Munster, Piscator, and the Tigurine version. He claims the Chaldaic Original also: but this may be rendered either take or

    () Dan. vii. 18,

    ( 142 )

    receive, as may also the Septuagint, although it has the identical verb which is correctly rendered receive, in Paul's text, quoted as the basis of my Opponent's argument. Now let us compare the Prophet and Apostle. The latter says, "We having received a kingdom [or royalty^ which cannot be moved." The former says, The saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom [or royalty'] and possess the kingdom [or royal power] for ever, even for ever and ever." It is remarkable that this view is as unequivocally approved by Dr. Gill's Commentary as by Dr. Campbell's Dissertation. Daniel's promise that the saints "shall receive the kingdom," Dr. Gill explains by saying "they shall have the rule and government in the world." This interpretation is corroborated by many passages in the Septuagint, which I need not take time to repeat. (/) Permit me, however, to add one more instance from my Opponent's translation to the same amount. John speaks of a woman, who (literally) "hath a kingdom over the kings of the earth." (m) Instead of "hath a kingdom," our Translation says, reigneth, and my Opponent says ruleth. This supports Dr. Gill's interpretation that to receive the kingdom, is to have the rule and government; or to obtain royalty, according to Dr. Campbell. Peter tells believers that they are "a royal priesthood." But the Septuagint applies this very same title to pious Jews, and it is translated, "a royal priesthood," by Thomson. (n) Their ecclesiastical administration,

    (/) See particularly Dan. v. 31. 2 Sam. v. 12. Also 1 Sam. xxiv. 20. xxviii. 17. 2 Sam. iii. 10. 1 Kgs. ii. 22, and a number of other places, (i) Rev. xvii, 18. (n) Ex. xix. 6. 1 Pet. ii, 9.

    ( 143 )

    however, was moveable; whereas the present administration is "a royalty which cannot be moved:" but is like the believer's "crown of glory that fadeth not away.''

    5. Several of my Opponent's eleven reasons for denying the ecclesiastical identity of the Jewish and Christian societies have now been answered. His first, second, third, fifth and eighth, (o) which have not yet been noticed, all relate to this kingdom or ecclesiastical house, of which we have already been speaking, and may be more conveniently answered in that part of my defence, in which I hope to prove more fully, that the house, or the kingdom of God, embraces the Jewish and Christian administrations. His fourth and ninth reasons(/0 relate to the terms of admission, circumcision and baptism. These will be effectually answered by proving, as I hope to do, under my third proposition, that circumcision and Baptism are one and the same seal in substance, though in different forms.

    After the attention which has now been given to my Opponent's objections to the proposition in hand, the evidence upon which I rest my belief that the Jewish and Christian societies are the same church, may reasonably be expected. This shall be given under three heads; the sameness of their religion, of their names, and of their covenant. The first amounts to a strong probability, the two last to an absolute certainty.

    (',) Spur, Deb. pp. 195. 197. 209. 229.

    (/i)Spur. Deb. pp. 197. 234,

    ( 144 )

    POINT I.

    God gave to the Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, essentially the same RELIGION.

    An eminent writer, (q) in explaining the word religion, says that "in a practical sense, it is generally considered as the same with godliness" It is godliness, or piety, or experimental religion that is meant, when some entreat their friends to get religion, or express a hope that they have got heart-religion; expressions which my Opponent considers "very vague," and very much at random." (r) Perhaps he knows more of what the Apostle James calls a vain religion.

    The religions which exist in the world have been generally divided into four, the Pagan, the Jewish, the Mahometan, and the Christian," (s) Paul says, "After the most straitest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee." ^) The same Apostle tells the Galatians that he had his "conversation in time past in Judaism," and that he "profited in Judaism," in both of which instances, our translators render it "the Jews' religion" (u) In one of the few times in which the word for religion occurs in the Greek Testament, it is rendered worshipping: (( Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels." (#) This angel-religion is very general, and embraces all the four sorts which have been mentioned. It is an

    (q) Buck, in his Theological Dictionary.

    (r) Spur. Deb. pp. 150. 151.

    (s) Buck's Theol. Dict.

    (t) Acts xxvi. 5.

    (u} Gal. i, 13. 14.

    (v) Col. il 18.

    ( 145 )

    important and conspicuous feature in the religion of the Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, and Christians. But this religion was not known to the Jews, until their subjection to the Babylonians, and it was not called Christianity, until the An ti-Christian apostacy. We see, therefore, that there are two sorts of Judaism, as Paul informs us, (w) and two sorts of Christianity, as James assures us. (a?) Now I will very readily admit, with my Opponent, that degenerate Judaism is essentially different from Primitive Christianity: but it was also essentially different from Primitive Judaism, as found in their inspired standards; just as Popish Christianity is essentially different from Primitive Christianity, as found in our infallible standards.

    When I say that God gave the same religion to Jews and Christians, I mean that the religion of the Old Testament and that of tjie New are essentially the same, notwithstanding the great difference in the two administrations. My Opponent says, Nay. While I undertake to prove this point, it gives me pleasure to remember that all real Christians are in my favour; not even the Baptists excepted. In speaking of the two silver trumpets used by the Jewish Church, Dr. Gill says, The number two may be applicable to the two dispensations, under which the gospel has been ministered, directing to the same Saviour, and to the same way of salvation, by his grace, his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; and to the two Testaments, which agree in the same truths respecting his person, offices, obedience,

    (w) Rom. ii. 28. 29.

    (r) James i. 26. 27.

    ( 146 )

    sufferings, and death; and to the prophets 66 and apostles of both dispensations and testaments, who have united in laying Christ as the foundation." (y)

    The Dictionary of Dr. Allison, the Baptist preacher, says that the word religion means "a system of divine faith and worship, as opposite to others." If the Old and New Testaments contain not only the same system of faith, but of practice, not only the same worship substantially, but the same system of government and discipline, then they must contain the same religion. As this is a subject, which alone might occupy more than a week, I can do little more than point out the general features of the Jewish and Christian systems, and refer you to a few obvious scripture proofs. This shall be done under the following particulars.

    I. THEOLOGY. The scriptures of both Testaments contain the doctrine of the unity of essence, and Trinity of persons, in the true God; of the person, offices, and work of Christ; of original sin, regeneration, justification, &c. Paul says, "We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers, [the Jews,] God hath fulfilled the same unto us, their children, [the Christians,] in that he hath raised up Jesus again." "Seeing it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." (z) Peter says, "We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we, [the Christians,] shall be saved, even as they, [the Jews.]" (a) Understanding him here to mean "the

    (y) Gill on Num. x. 2. (r) Acts xiii. 32. Rom. Hi. 30. (a) Acts xv. 11.

    ( 147 )

    Jewish fathers" Gill says, "For they were justified, pardoned, accepted, and saved, in the same way, as the saints under the New Testament are: They could not keep the law perfectly, nor was there then, nor even now, salvation by it, only by the grace of Christ; and in that way, and that only, Old and New Testament believers, Jews and Gentiles, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, are saved. The Gentiles were not saved by the light of nature, nor the Jews by the law of Moses 5 the one were r not lost for want of circumcision, nor the other saved by it; the only way of salvation to both, and under all dispensations, is the Lord Jesus Christ." Paul says, "They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Which shews," says Dr. Gill, that the faith of Old and New Testament saints, Jews and Gentiles, is the same; their blessings the same, and so their eternal happiness; they have the same God and Father, the same Mediator and Redeemer, are actuated and influenced by the same Spirit, partake of the same grace, and shall share the same glory." (b)

    II. MORALITY. Moses and the Prophets contain a perfectly pure moral law, of which the Decalogue may be considered an inspired compend. Concerning this our Saviour says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (c) Moses says, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Christ says,

    (b) Gill, iii. 9, is thus expounded by Gill in his commentary on Mutt U.

    (c) Ex. xx, 317. Matt. v. 17.

    ( 148 )

    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." (e?) Moses says, "Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy." Peter says, As he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation: because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy." (e)

    III. WORSHIP. Here I need not dwell on the substantial evidence of the most important ordinances, the Passover and the Eucharist, or of circumcision and baptism, which may be fully considered hereafter, but I would merely refer you to what has been already proved concerning the worship of the Jewish church; such as reading and preaching, praying and praising, &c.

    IV. GOVERNMENT. This was by Presbyters or Elders. Moses says, "And the Elders of the congregation shall lay their hands," &c. The Psalmist says, Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the Elders." Luke says "And when they had ordained them Elders in every church." (/)

    V. DISCIPLINE. This concerns disciples, in respect of their initiation and their regulation.

    1. Initiation. That faith is necessary in an adult proselyte, under the New Testament, is urged by both parties, from the words, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." But one of the most remarkable

    (d) Deut. vi. 5. Luke x. 27. (O Lev. xix. 2. 1 Pet. i. 15. 16.

    (/) Lev. iv. 15. Ps. cvii. 3^. Acts xiv. 2:?.

    ( 149 )

    proofs of this is found in the words of Paul, where he shews that God demanded the same prerequisite to legitimate membership in the Jewish church. "Well; because of unbelief, they [the Jews] were broken off, and thou [the Christian church] standest by faith." (#) And let it be marked, that in both churches, believers and their households are initiated.

    2. Regulation. Without taking time to quote the authorities at large, I will just tell you, in a few words, what you know can be easily proved on this subject. In both the Old and New Testament churches, an offender must be told of his fault;(A) in both, a penitent must be forgiven;(i) and 'in both, the impenitent must be cut off. (jO


    The Scriptures give to the Jewish and Christian societies the same NAMES, in such a manner as plainly to prove that they are the same church.

    This has the appearance, and only the appearance, of contradicting the following prophecies. "The Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou [the Jewish church] shaltbe called by a [[newwa/rze, which the mouth of the Lord shall name." "And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen; for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants, by another name." (k) A diversity of names, in one

    (,-) Mk. xvi. 16. Rom. xi. 20. (/z) Lev. xix. 17. Mat. xviii. 15.

    (i) Lev. iv. 20. Luke xvii. 3. (/) Deut, xvii. 12. Mat, xviii. 17.

    (*) Is. Ixii. 2. Ixv. 15.

    ( 150 )

    respect, is consistent with an identity of names in another respect. But even this prophecy concerning the change of name, proves the sameness of the churches. It is not said that the Jews had been called by one name, and another people should be called by another name; but it is, in a certain sense, the same people, whose name is to be altered. "And thou shalt be called by a new name." While the name was to be altered, the people were to continue the same. Yet how the same? Not nationally; for those who bore the old name were Jews, and those who were to bear the new name were Gentiles: they were the same people, therefore, considered as the church, the professed servants of God; for he says that he will "call his servants by another name." This change of name only points out the change of administration, while an inter-community of names shews the sameness of the church.

    This inter-community of names is visible throughout the scriptures. Moses calls the Jews, God's peculiar treasure, a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. Peter calls the Christians "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." (/) There are also many other figurative appellations which, in their connexion, shew clearly that these two administrations are called by the same name, because they are, ecclesiastically, the same thing. It is in this sense, that they are called a tree and vineyard; a foundation,' floor, and house; a kingdom and commonwealth; man and body; brethren, bride, and children.

    (/) Ex. xix. 5. f>. 1 Pet. ii.

    ( 151 )

    I. TREE. Of this the Apostle Paul speaks largely in his Epistle to the Romans. (m) My Opponent, in his Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, (?2) speaks of it as follows, viz. "Distinguished commentators have found it extremely difficult to comprehend every thing the Apostle says in this eleventh chapter. Therefore, we find the ablest of them differing among themselves. One cause of this difficulty, I presume, is the Apostle's so frequently referring from one part of the subject to another so often stating and applying his remarks in sudden transitions from Jews to Gentiles. Another difficulty in expounding the metaphors is, that the engrafting spoken of, appears to be predicated upon a mistaken view of grafting. A wild olive into a good olive, does not improve the wild olive; the fruit being similar to the cion engrafted, and not similar to the stalk. But the Apostle's design was to shew that the Gentiles partook equally with the Jew, as the engrafted cion equally partakes with the natural branch, in the sap and vigour of the root."

    If I am not egregiously mistaken, my Opponent has, in this extract, displayed a modesty to which he is usually a stranger. He generally speaks as if those subjects which puzzled and divided the ablest commentators were perfectly translucent to his penetrating eye. He not unfrequently spurns the opinion of the most distinguished expositors, Baptist as well as Pedobaptist; and advances his own dogmas with the lofty confidence, of one who had a grain of intelligence diluted with an

    (m) Rom. xi. 1624,

    (n) p. 28. Note.

    ( 152 )

    ounce of self-conceit. But when he comes to the Abrahamic Olive-tree, with its Jewish and Gentile branches, his confidence for a while forsakes him; it is all involved in obscurity, to himself and to the ablest commentators, if not to Paul also. He even sees something in the sacred text, very much resembling those "far-fetched analogies and inaccurate reasonings" which Unitarians often discover in the Apostle's writings. He tells us that the engrafting spoken of appears to be predicated upon a mistaken view of grafting." If the Apostle was not mistaken, my Opponent certainly is, for they differ very much from each other. But there is no reason to believe that the Apostle's views of grafting were different from those of every practical man among you. You practice engrafting, that you may improve the fruit, by a change of the branches, while there is no change in the root, the trunk, or the sap. So Paul, with the ecclesiastical Olive-tree. Its root, trunk, and fatness remained; its branches only were changed: and whether it was not an improvement, to exchange infidel for believing branches, to exchange the Jewish for the Christian administration, judge ye. This opinion does not suffer by a closer examination.

    1. The root. It is equally consistent with the Pedo-baptist system, to consider this as referring to Christ or to Abraham, the original or derived root. When the figure of a building instead of a tree is used, the prophets and apostles are spoken of as a foundation, but Christ is the foundation of foundations. When Christ is

    ( 153 )

    said to be "the root and the offspring of David," (o) the sense is, that he is the Father as well as the son of David. But Abraham is said to be "the Father of circumcision" [that is, of ecclesiastical initiation] to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he f( had, being yet uncircumcised." (/>) His very name Abraham, signifies a high fattier, and it was given to him, because he was to be a father not to the Jews only, but to many nations: that is, he was the root of that ecclesiastical tree, which bore both Jewish and Christian branches,

    If, instead of to Abraham, you should apply this figure to the seed of the woman, revealed to Adam, and worshipped by Abel, Seth, Enoch, and Noah, I see no ground of objection; since Christ is really the Head of the church visible, as well as invisible. This is evident from his representing himself as a vine, from which fruitless branches are cut off. The invisible church has no/ruitless branches, and from it none can be cut off. My Opponent says, a Pardon, justification, sanctification, and salvation, are inseparably connected;" and gives Paul on perseverance, to prove it. Dr. Gill says, There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine; the one sort are such who have only an historical faith in him, believe but for a time, and are removed; they are such who only profess to believe in him, as Simon Magus did; are in him by profession only." < ( These are the other sort of branches, who are

    (o) Rev, xxii. 16. (/*) Rom. iv. 12.

    ( 154 )

    truly and savingly in Christ; such as are rooted in

    2. The fatness. The engrafted branches are said to partake "of the root and fatness of the olive-tree." This means ecclesiastical ordinances; as when David says, "They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house." (r) Dr. Gill says, "By his house is meant the church of God, of his building, and where he dwells; by the fatness of it, the provisions there, the word and ordinances, and the blessings of grace which they hold forth."

    3. The trunk. This must mean the visible church of God, or the invisible church, or no church at all. If no church at all, then the Roman converts must be here addressed, as having the privilege of being engrafted into some worldly kingdom, contrary to the authority of our Lord, who said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The Jews also are to be considered as broken off from a worldly kingdom by unbelief! whereas their unbelief, instead of breaking them off from a temporal dominion, riveted the Roman yoke more closely upon them, and made it at last the means of their destruction.

    Neither can the trunk of this tree mean the invisible church, for from it no branches are ever broken off. This is an argumentum ad homincm, for I have the pleasure of quoting my Opponent's approbation of this principle. After citing Paul on the perseverance of the saints, he says, "There is one proposition which 1 f ' shall here submit; it is an universal negative, viz.

    (?) (iill on John xv, 2,

    (/) Ps. xxxvi

    ( 155 )

    there never was, there never will be, a child of Adam lost, that had but one sin of all his sins forgiven him. The converse of which is, that there never was a child ''of Adam that had one sin forgiven him that had not all his sins forgiven. The reason is, the Almighty does not his work by halves; where he begins to work he finishes. He does not resemble a foolish artificer or mechanic, who begins a piece of workmanship, and after he has blocked it out, or begun to work upon it, throws it away, either from versatility or incapacity to execute and perfect it." (s) It seems therefore, from my Opponent's own shewing, that when a person is once attached to the invisible church, he is always attached to it, and can never be broken ofF.

    As this trunk, then, cannot mean no church at all, and as it cannot mean the church invisible, it must, according to the dilemma stated a little while ago, mean the visible church. Here another inquiry arises. Does it mean the Jewish administration as distinct from the Christian? or the Christian administration as distinct from the Jewish? or does it mean the visible church general of God and of his Christ, which embraces both these administrations, which began with Abraham, or with Adam, and which will continue to the end of the world? This stem cannot mean the Jewish administration, because it is in this very trunk that the engrafted Gentiles flourish, long after the Jewish administration is at an end. Neither can it mean the Christian administration distinctly, because the trunk existed long before

    (s) Appendix to Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 176.

    ( 156 )

    that administration commenced. But my Opponent says that "in a still more enlarged and exalted sense, the "Christian Church is the good olive tree." U) If by this still more enlarged and exalted sense, he means the visible church of Christ, as constituted with Adam or Abraham, and as embracing the Jewish and Christian administrations, he means what the premises compel us to believe. Dr. Gill says, "particular believers and the whole church of God are sometimes compared to it;" as when Hosea says, "His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive-tree, and his smell as Lebanon." (w) Jeremiah says, "The Lord called thy name a green olive-tree, fair and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken." (r)

    4. The branches. As the stock of this tree has been proved to mean the whole visible church of God these branches must be visible constituents, either individual or corporate. Of these there are two kinds. Concerning one of them Jeremiah says "The branches of it are broken." This Dr. Gill interprets of "the high and principal ones" of "the Jewish church and people." Concerning the other kind of branches, Hosea says, "His branches shall spread." Dr. Gill says, "This respects the propagation of the church of God, and the interest of Christ in the world, as in the first times of the gospel, and will be in the latter day." Paul

    (t) Spur. Deb. with Mr. W. p. 28.

    (u) Hos. xiv. 6. comp. Ps. liu 8. cxxviii. 3.

    (v) Jer. xi. 16. Although (Jill believes that Paul alludes to this in Rom. xi. 17. he does not explain the olive-tree in either place with entire accuracy, nor in perfect consistency with what he says on Ilosea xiv. 6. as quotcd above.

    ( 157 )

    speaks of both kinds of branches, as belonging to the same tree, though not at the same time. The first he tells us were "broken off." The second he says were grafted in among them [[/' or "in their place," as Gill tells us the Syriac and Ethiopic versions have it. Paul expressly gives the name of Israel and Jacob to the rejected branches, and of Gentiles to those which were engrafted, (w) He does not limit these branches, (as Dr. Gill sometimes does,) to the "principal members" of churches or nations: but he uses these general terms, with a general (though not a universal) application. Neither does my Opponent understand Paul as speaking of the high and principal ones, but of Jews and Gentiles, without regard to their dignity or power. This is evident from his remark concerning Paul's "sudden transitions from Jews to Gentiles," and from his declaration that "the Apostle's design was to shew that the Gentiles partook equally with the Jew, as the engrafted cion equally partakes with the natural branch, in the sap and vigour of the root." (#) This rooty my Opponent declares, "was Jesus Christ." Dr. Gill says, "This is not to be understood of an ingrafture into Christ, unless by a visible profession." This visible profession must be in the true church of God, and, of course, the breaking off of the old Jewish branches, must be an excommunication from the visible church of God. Both, then, must be branches of the visible church of God, though at different times; and if Abraham be their ecclesiastical father or root, then the Christian

    (w) Rom. xi. 17. 25. 26.

    (x) Spar. Deb. with Mr. W. p. 28. Note, this was quoted a little above.

    ( 158 )

    church must be a branch at the Abrahamic church: and if the Seed of the woman be their rooty then the Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, are only different branches of the same ecclesiastical tree; or, in other words, they are one and the same church in different administrations.

    This conclusion is not at all affected by what Dr. Gill says about the "Gentiles being grafted into a gospel of church-state with the believing Jews;" unless it can be shewn that one truth must contradict another. Remember that the old branches were not believing Jews; for they were broken off on account of unbelief, from that very stock, into which believing Gentiles were engrafted. It is true, therefore, that there is a simultaneous union of believing Jews and Gentiles, both before and after Christ: but it has been proved to be equally true, that there is an asynchronous identity between the Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society after Christ.

    II. VINEYARD. Our blessed Lord, in one of his parables, informs us of a man who planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, and then went into a far country, whence he sent several inferior messengers successively for the fruits which were due. Failing in these, he sent his own Son, whom the husbandmen killed. He then asks the question, "What shall therefore the Lord of the vineyard do?" Mark well his answer: "He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard [the same vineyard] unto others." As the context says that the Jews "knew that he had spoken the parable against them," they

    ( 159 )

    are therefore the husbandmen. Dr. Gill says, that when the Master went into a far country, he "left the people of the Jews to these husbandmen or rulers, whether civil or ecclesiastical, but chiefly the latter, to be instructed and directed by them, according to the laws and rules given them by the Lord." (?/) But after these Jewish husbandmen abused their trust it is said that the Lord "will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen." On this Dr. Gill remarks that "it was [[< 4 a righteous thing with God, to remove the church-state, gospel and ordinances, from the Jews, and deliver them to the Gentiles, which shall render him the "fruits in their seasons." (2r) Here the Baptist Commentator agrees with his Divine Master, in considering the vineyard as the church with its oracles and ordinances; and in considering the Jews as the first tenants, and the Christians as the last occupants of the same ecclesiastical vineyard.

    III. FOUNDATION. "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the "saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (a) Here the Prophets and Apostles are one common foundation, for the Jewish and Christian societies, who are supported and connected by Jesus Christ, who is the chief corner stone, or connecting foundation stone of Apostles, prophets, and churches.

    (y) Gill on Mk. xii. 1.

    (z) Gill on Matt. xxi. 41,

    (a) Kph. ii, 19. 20.

    ( 160 )

    IV. FLOOR. "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chafF with unquenchable fire." (b) "O my threshing, and the corn of my floor!" (c) On this last text, which was spoken by Isaiah, Dr. Gill says, "it is the Lord that speaks by him, calling the church of the Jews his floor, and the people his corn." If he does not intend to restrict u the church of the Jews," to the Jewish administration, he is perfectly correct: for the floor does mean the visible church, and the corn means the Jewish people who were then its members. But in the fulness of time, this ecclesiastical floor was found so full of Jewish chaff, as to require a thorough cleansing. This cleansing was an excommunication of the unbelieving Jews. This was not laying a new floor, but only purging the old one; and who occupied John the Baptist's ecclesiastical platform after its judicial ventilation, let Baptists say.

    V. HOUSE.

    "And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God, O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house." "They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house." "I am like a green olive tree in the house of God." (d) This, according to Dr. Gill, is to "be in a very flourishing condition, in the church of God, which is here meant by

    (b) Mat. in. 12.

    (c) Isa. xxi. 10.

    (d) Kz. xliv. o. 7. Ps. xxxvi. 8. lii. 8.

    ( 161 )

    the house of God." The same explanation he gives of the word house in all the cases which have just been quoted. It is, then, an undoubted truth, that long before the New Testament administration, the Jewish society were the visible church of God. They were not only the genealogical, but the ecclesiastical house of Jacob. Now the question is, whether their ecclesiastical house was utterly annihilated, and a new one erected at the coming of Christ; or whether the ecclesiastical house of Jacob continued, but with a change of administration. That it does continue, is evident from the angel's words to Mary, when he said concerning the Messiah, "He shall reign over the house of Jacob, for ever." (e) This house of Jacob is meant, when Paul says, "Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant;" "but Christ as a Son over his own house" (f) Now take notice that Moses and Christ are here spoken of as belonging to the Old and New Testament administrations; yet the one serves in, and the other rules over the same house, even the house of Jacob, over which Christ shall reign for ever, although Jacob's natural descendants have long been ejected.

    My Opponent's fifth reason for denying this doctrine, is founded upon our Saviour's declaration to Peter, Upon this rock I will build my church." (l) "This church, then," says he, "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

    (e) Luke i, 33.

    (f) Heb. iii, 26.

    (l) Matt. xvi. 18.

    ( 162 )

    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'Calla'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." At another time he represents this fifth argument as drawn from the fact, that Jesus taught that he was, in the future time, to build his church upon a foundation different from that on which the Jewish commonwealth was built." (m)

    I take it for granted, that by Jewish commonwealth in this last declaration, he means the Jewish church of which he spoke in the former passage; and the amount of this argument is, that when Christ says, "I will build" he means not that he will repair an old ruin, such as the Jewish church, but that immediately after his death and resurrection, he will commence a building which shall be entirely new, and entirely different from the Jewish church, both as to its foundation and its superstructure. And these things he thinks so evidently taught by this one single Greek word, rendered (f I will build," that they must be obvious to "babes and sucklings," and that this one word is sufficient to subvert my proposition concerning the sameness of the Jewish and Christian societies, "if there were no other proof" at all.

    (m) Spur, Deb. with me, pp. 209. ~~

    ( 163 )

    It sometimes happens that babes and sucklings understand a word in one way, and men of learning understand it in another way. My Opponent thinks it perfectly plain that to build never means to rebuild or repair, but Dr. Gill, who was no babe, but the greatest giant, in the languages, that the Baptist church ever boasted, thought otherwise, and supported his opinion by infallible evidence. The Scriptures say that the sons of Elpaal built Ono and Lod, with the towns thereof." (n) Dr. Gill agrees with the Talmudists in saying that "Elpaal came and rebuilt them." The Scriptures say that Jotham "built the higher gate of the house of the Lord." (o) Dr. Gill believes that this, like the rest of the gates, was originally "built by Solomon;" but that Jotham "repaired and beautified, or added something to it." Yes, the Dr. actually makes out that Jotham's building the gate, was only repairing it. After the destruction of the first temple, it is written, "Thus saith Cyrus, King of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah." (p) Dr. Gill says that Isaiah's prophecy, Cyrus "had seen and read, and believed it to be a charge upon him, and a command unto him to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem." Thus, to build was, in his opinion, to rebuild. Concerning a greater than Cyrus, Isaiah says, "He shall build my City." (q) Dr. Gill applies this to "Christ, the builder of the church, often compared to a city;'' and then refers to my Opponent's

    (n) 1 Chron. viii, 12.

    (o) 2 Kgs. xv. 35

    (p) Ear. i, 2.

    (q) I sa . xlv, 13,

    ( 164 )

    text, "upon this rock I will build my church." "By the church is meant/' says Gill, on this text, "the elect of God, the general assembly and church of the First-born, whose names are written in heaven." When the Psalmist says, "The Lord shall build up Zion," (r) it does not throw Dr. Gill into a rhapsody about future tenses, and the folly of identifying Zion with the true church, and of confounding the building of a new house with the rebuilding of one that is fallen down. He tells us plainly that, in this text, Zion is "the church of God, fallen down, and in a ruinous condition;" and that this promise to "build up Zion" is fulfilled *' in rebuilding his church." The same explanation he makes of that passage which says, "The Lord doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel." (5) Although there is a certain sort of "babes and sucklings" who cannot abide the thought of building decayed places, yet those who are acquainted with the poetical parallelisms of the prophets, will admit that raising up decayed places is sometimes exegetical of building; as when God says "to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof." (/) Dr. Gill believes that Judah and all the adjacent country were to be "in a ruinous condition," and that then they should be rebuilt, and restored to a flourishing state again." To the same amount he explains the following text; "And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall "repair the waste cities, the desolations of many

    (r) Psalm cii. 16.

    (s) Psalm c.xlvii, 2,

    (t) Isa. xliv. 26.

    ( 165 )

    generations." (u) In the prospect of the Christian sera, when the Gentiles were to be engrafted on the Abrahamic stock, Isaiah says to the Jews, "The sons of strangers shall build up thy walls." (#) But in the following passage a person who builds is again expressly called a repairer in our translation, and in this it most exactly agrees with the translations of Castallio, Tremellius, and Diodat, and with the commentary of Dr. Gill. "And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in." Dr. Gill says, "As the cities in Israel and Judea, which had u been long laid waste by the Assyrians and Chaldeans, were rebuilt by those of the Jewish nation, who returned from the captivity of Babylon, to which there is at least an allusion; and as the church of God, the tabernacle of David, which was fallen down, and had lain long in ruins, through corruptions in doctrine and worship, to the times of Christ, when the Apostles, (( who were of the Jews, those wise master-builders, were instruments of raising it up again, and repairing if its ruins, so, in the latter-day, the waste places of the world, as the words may be rendered, shall be built by a set of men, that shall be of the church of God, who shall be instruments in his hand of converting many souls, and so of peopling it with Christians; such [[<< places as before were desolate, where before there [[*< was no preaching of the word, no administration of ordinances,

    (u) Isa, Ixi. 4. (v) Isa, Ix. 10,

    ( 166 )

    nor any Gospel churches. "In this extract, this great Baptist commentator calls the tabernacle of David the church of God. He represents it as fallen down and lying long in ruins, until the times of Christ, the Divine Architect, who appointed twelve Apostolical builders, and made them instruments of raising it up again, and repairing its ruins." Thus, "the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner," (w) or, as Dr. Gill says, (#) "the chief corner-stone, that adorns, strengthens, knits, and keeps together, the whole building; in which Jews and Gentiles, saints in all ages and places, even all the elect of God are united together." He says, "By the builders are meant the rulers of the Jews, both civil and ecclesiastical, and especially the latter, the Scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests, who set up for builders of the church of God, but were miserable ones." "These disallowed of Christ in the building;" "but to their great mortification, he is not only laid and retained as the foundation and corner-stone, but made the head of the building." For this reason, Paul, in allusion to the temple and Jerusalem, the house and city of God, says to the Ephesian Christians, Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." (y] Dr. Gill says that these

    fry) 1 Pet. ii. 7.

    (r) (iillon Acts iv 11 (coiup, also 1 IVt= ii, vi.)

    (s) Kph. ii. iy. m

    ( 167 )

    are "The prophets of the Old Testament, and the apostles of the New, who agree in laying ministerially the one and only foundation, Jesus Christ." Now let any reasonable person say whether the words, "upon this rock I will build my church," are alone sufficient to refute my proposition concerning the ecclesiastical identity of the Jewish and Christian societies.

    VI. KINGDOM. This figure is used by our Saviour, in the same discourse, and in immediate connexion with what he said about the transfer of the same vineyard from one set of husbandmen to another. After speaking of the unworthiness of the Jewish husbandmen, in rejecting the Son of their Lord; and the wicked folly of the Jewish builders in rejecting the chief corner-stone, he adds, "Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (g-) Here is only one kingdom; yet it embraces the Jewish and Christian administrations. So in the following; "And I say unto you that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into utter darkness." (A) This is as much as to say that the Gentiles shall take their seat in the Abrahamic church, while the Jews are cast out of it. That this cannot mean the kingdom of heaven above, is evident, because no man shall be cast out of that kingdom, after he has once obtained admittance. Dr. Gill says that the children of the

    (t)Matt. xxi. 4J.

    (u) Matt. viii. 11. 12.

    ( 168 )

    kingdom are "The Jews, who were subjects of the kingdom, and commonwealth of Israel, from which the Gentiles were aliens; and who were also in the church of God, which is his kingdom on earth; and besides, had the promise of the gospel dispensation, sometimes called the kingdom of heaven, and by them, often, the world to come; and were, by their own profession, and in their own apprehension and expectation, children and heirs of the kingdom of glory."

    The kingdom of heaven is, therefore, the Abrahamic church, the church of God. The Jews were once its children, but they are now cast out. The Gentiles were once aliens, but are now subjects, not in a new kingdom, nor in one which commenced even with Moses at Mount Sinai; but in that kingdom in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were.

    My opponent's second argument against the sameness of the Jewish and Christian societies, is founded upon the preaching of our Saviour and his Precursor and inspired servants, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (#) He says, "This is proof positive that, ' at this time, the new kingdom was not yet setup, and that the old Jewish was yet standing." In this place our translation uses, the word kingdom; my Opponent's paraphrase calls it new kingdom; his New Testament follows Dr. Campbell in calling it the reign of heaven; but Dr. Campbell's preliminary dissertation says that the word sometimes means administration; arid Dr. Gill here explains it dispensation. That there

    (v) M.'itt. hi. 2. and other places quoted by my Opponent, in his spur. IX b. after his own iutihion, in page 1 ( J7.

    ( 169 )

    is a new administration I have never denied 5 that there is any thing more, my Opponent is the only one to assert; and he asserts it, not in translating, but in debating.

    His third argument is founded upon our Saviour's declaration, "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." (w) Here also Gill justly calls the kingdom of God, the gospel dispensation: and so he does the same word in the text on which my Opponent feebly rests his eighth argument; "My kingdom is not of this world." (x] This passage he uses in such a way as strongly to infer that the Waldenses, whom he claims as good Baptists, could not be Christians, because they sometimes bravely defended themselves from their oppressors. But this was my Opponent's way of paying court to the Quakers.

    But his first argument deserves more notice. It is as follows, viz. "My first argument, for affirming that the Christian religion and Christian church differ essentially from the Jewish, is drawn from Dan. 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 [[6 made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter." (i) To make this passage prove that there is an essential difference between the Old and New Testament

    (w) L. xvi. 16. Spur. Deb. p. 197.

    (x) John xviii. 36. Spur Deb. p. 229.

    (y) Spur. Deb. with me, pp. 195. 196.

    ( 170 )

    kingdoms, he claims our particular attention to three things. One is, that the prophecy was written by Daniel, centuries before the Jews were cut off. I say, yea. Another is that it was to be fulfilled "hereafter," that is, when Christ came. Very well. The third is, that at that time God should set up a kingdom. No objection. But there is an objection to what he afterwards says, when he endeavours to persuade you that setting up a kingdom is a creation or original constitution of a kingdom, as in the following words, viz. "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 constituting it under new regulations."

    We have already shewn that the Bible and the best Baptist authority consider the word build as often equivalent to rebuild or repair. And if, as my Opponent intimates, the expression, set up, is tantamount to build, then to set up a kingdom may mean to reinstate or reestablish; and thus the whole of his argument, which rests entirely upon a perversion of this single word, must fall to the ground. In order to make this apparent, I would inquire, What do you understand from another passage of this same prophet Daniel, where we have the same original word with the same rendering? Concerning Nebuchadnezzar's golden image, we are told u that

    ( 171 )

    he set it up in the plain of Dura." Does this mean that he created or made or constituted it in the plain of Dura? By no means; for the manufacture of it was expressly mentioned as having taken place before its erection; ^* ) as the existence of God's ecclesiastical kingdom is often mentioned before its resuscitation by the Messiah. Although the Tabernacle was originally constituted immediately after the departure from Egypt, (k) yet it was set up at many subsequent periods. (/) Indeed it was a law of Moses, that "when the Tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down; and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up." (m) The same word is used by Solomon to denote such an act as lifting up a person who "falls from his horse, or out of his carriage, or into a ditch." (w) In the use of the same original word, Saul complains that Jonathan had set up or stirred up David against him. (o) Did Saul suppose that Jonathan had just then given to David his original constitution? Our Bible renders the same word raise in application to him who is the Root and Offspring of David. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth." (p) God also says, "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (g) Had the Messiah

    (j) Dan. iii. 1.

    (k) Ex. xl. 17.

    (l) Num. vii. 1. ix. 15. x. 21,

    (m) Num. i. 51.

    (n) See Gill on Eccl. iv. 10.

    (o) ISam. xxii. 8.

    (p) Jer. xxiii. 5.

    (q) Deut, xviii, 18,

    ( 172 )

    no constitution before his incarnation? or rather, does he not himself say, "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." (r) The name of this glorious personage is an answer to the question of Amos, "Who will raise up or lift up, or set up Jacob??? (s) The same word is rendered, establish, in a promise recorded by Moses. Long after Jacob had been constituted a holy people, Moses said f( The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself." ^) Dr. Gill understands it that he "should continue them as such." Exactly to the same purport does he explain the prophecy of Daniel quoted by my Opponent. "And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom." The Doctor says, "which kingdom is [[
    (r) Prov. viii. 23, where, however, the original has a different word.

    jyj Amos vii. 2. Gill tells us that it is rendered "quis suscitabit Jahacob?" by Pagninus, Montanus, andVatablus. To these he might have added Calasio and the Vulgate. In accordance with these, Castallio says, quis Jacobeum eriget?" and the Septuagint, -rtj ava^sti, -t

    (/) Deut, xxviii. 9. (?/) 1 Sam. xxiv. 20.

    ( 173 )

    It appears, then, after a patient examination, that those arguments upon which my Opponent relies, are perversions of scripture; and mere fancies of his own; in which he is as much opposed to the views of the Colossus of Baptist theology, as he is to the view which I defend. Contrast this with the evidence by which our opinion is supported. The scriptures do not say that one ecclesiastical kingdom shall be destroyed and another created; but they assure us that the same kingdom of God shall be taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. Concerning the same kingdom of heaven it is said that the Jews shall be cast out, while the Gentiles shall enter and sit down: neither are they restricted to the honor of sitting with Moses and Aaron and Joshua, but they are admitted to a seat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, in this ecclesiastical kingdom, or Abrahamic church.

    VII. COMMONWEALTH. Paul tells the Ephesians that they were once "Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel;" but he soon informs them that they "are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." (y) Dr. Gill tells us that a stranger was the name "by which the Jews called the Gentiles;" that the Gentiles were originally "foreigners in the commonwealth of Israel, in the church of God;" "being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, both from their civil and [[cAwrcA-state." That the city in which they become fellow citizens with the saints is "the church

    (y) Eph. ii. 12. 19.

    ( 174 )

    below, which is the city of God," and "heaven above, which is a city of God's preparation and building also." In this most valuable Baptist Commentary, we learn that the commonwealth of Israel means the church of God, to which the Jews once belonged, and from which the Gentiles were once strangers and foreigners: but the New Testament administration has naturalized them in the city of God, which is his church below, even that church of which the Jews were once members.

    VIII. MAN. "But now, in Christ Jesus, ye [Gentiles] who sometimes were far off, are made nigh [even as the Jews,] by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both [Jews and Gentiles] *' one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the ff enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new f man, so making peace." (2r)

    IX. BODY. "And that he might reconcile both [Jews and Gentiles] unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." (a) The connexion of this and the last particular, and the 7th also, shews that man and body, as well as commonwealth, relate to the visible church. It is not said that they relate to that exclusively; nor is it necessary that they should.

    X. BRETHREN. In Ps. xxii. 22, Christ calls the Jewish church \usbrethren: in Hebr. ii. 11. 12, this is quoted as intended for Christians. They must therefore

    (z) Eph. ii. 1315.

    (a} Eph. ii. 16.

    ( 175 )

    be one in some sense. The connexion shews that they are ecclesiastically one.

    XL BRIDE. Jeremiah says that Jehovah is married to the Jewish church; (&) John tells us that the Christian church is the bride, the Lamb's wife;(c] yet God says, by the pen of Solomon, "My dove, my undefiled, is but one; she is the only one of her mother; she is the choice one of her that bare her." (d) It seems then that Christ has but one bride or church; but the Jewish and Christian societies are both that church; therefore they are one church. That this passage relates to ecclesiastical unity, Gill himself is inclined to believe.

    XII. CHILDREN. The scriptures represent Jewish and Gentile professors as the children of the church. When the Jews are cut off, the church is represented as a widow: but she is comforted by the accession of Gentile children. "The [Gentile] children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other [the Jewish], shall say again in thine ears, the place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell. Then shalt thou say in thine "heart, 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 had they been? Thus saith the Lord God, behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders." (e) Some who admit the identity of

    (b) Jer. iii. 14.

    (c) Rev. xxi. 9.

    (d) Cant, vi. 9.

    (e) Isa. xlix, 2022.

    ( 176 )

    the Jewish and Christian societies are inclined to doubt that the former is intended by either of these classes of children. Their mistake ought to be corrected by the preceding context, in which "Zion said, The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me." Messiah says, "Though Israel be not gathered, yet * shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength." The Father says to him, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant, 16 to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." (/) I do not deny that the ultimate accomplishment of these prophecies is yet future: yet that their primary fulfilment was in the Apostolic day, is too plain to admit of a doubt. Can any one suppose that Zion, Jacob, and Israel, have no reference to the Jews, even when they are expressly contrasted with the Gentiles? Here, then, are two distinct sets of ecclesiastical children, sent before and after the affliction of their mother; just as Job had two sets of children sent before and after his affliction. These Patriarchal decades form a good illustration of the subject, and were probably intended to do so; and this opinion may have weighed with the Jews in considering the number ten, as forming a congregation. But Job's two congregations had only one father, and thus formed one family: so the Jews and Gentiles had only one ecclesiastical mother; that is, they were one church.

    (/) Isa. xlix. 14. 5. 6.

    ( 177 )

    If not very much mistaken, the evidence which has been laid before you, goes clearly to the establishment of the point in question; that is, that the Scriptures give to the Jewish and Christian Societies the same names, in such a manner as plainly to prove that they are the same church. This evidence my Opponent endeavours to rebut in the following words, viz. "Mr. M'Calla (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, 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

    ( 178 )

    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'Calla has said on this subject, it amounts to precisely the same 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." (g)

    The question whether the two societies are under different covenants or not, will, with divine permission, soon be tried. It is true that a difference of administration, and a difference in many other respects, has been admitted. I never undertook to prove their personal or political, their chronological or geographical identity. In my explication of the 2d proposition, I expressly declared that "it says nothing more than that they are the same church, and nothing more than ecclesiastical identity is intended." While this can be shewn, they may differ in ten thousand respects, without sapping the foundation of my system. But if I mistake nol, my Opponent considers his own system not perfectly

    (f) Spurim$ Debate with me, p. 1

    ( 179 )

    tenable, as he has changed it to meet the present emergency. He would now make you believe that it amounts to precisely the same thing" with what I have said; except that instead of the Jews and Christians being one and the same church, they are two essentially different churches, but one has come in the stead of the other. He says that the great Head of the church always had but one bride" at one time; but that Israel having broken the marriage covenant, was divorced," "and that in their stead another bride was chosen, another house was built," &c. Has he not at last admitted the truth of my first proposition that the Jews were once the visible church of God? But where does he find evidence that this church was destroyed, and a perfectly new one instituted? How does he prove what he has said on this subject, that "another vineyard was planted, another kingdom was constituted," "another bride was chosen, another house was built?" What Scripture has he quoted to shew that the Jewish church was as different from the Christian, as a house in Washington is different from a house in Lexington? It is evident that nothing but the sad necessities of the times have driven him to this flimsy subterfuge. According to this theory, can we believe that the Messiah shall reign over the house of Jacob forever? The house over which he now reigns must be essentially different, in all respects, from the house of Jacob. It must also be built upon the foundation of the Apostles only, and not upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets," as Paul has declared. We must moreover give up the doctrine of John the Baptist, that the Messiah "will thoroughly

    ( 180 )

    purge his floor." My Opponent teaches that he does not cleanse his floor, but that he destroys it, and lays a new one, as different from it, as two floors in Washington and Lexington are different from each other. It may be that some Baptist farmer in this assembly is sufficiently prejudiced to believe this exposition. It may be also that when you came to this debate you left to your servants a barn floor full of wheat, with directions to clean it well before your return. What would you think if they should set flre to the barn instead of to the chaff? Would you not say that there was a great difference between cleaning a floor and destroying it? If some tidy housewives were to destroy their floors as often as they clean them, they would keep the carpenters busy. Suppose that you have let out your farm or vineyard to tenants who will pay no rent. You send officers to eject them. Instead of this, these officers destroy the vineyard and leave you to plant a new one near Lexington, according to my Opponent's doctrine. Would this be in accordance with the text which says, He will destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others?" My Opponent teaches that the kingdom of God was not taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles; but that the Jewish kingdom was destroyed, and "another kingdom was constituted" for the Gentiles. Compare this with the words of the King. Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." According to my Opponent's theory, the Head of the church ' had but one bride" "at one time;" but different brides at different times. So the Jews were one man and one body, but the Christians another

    ( 181 )

    man and another body essentially different. But the Spirit says that this bride "is the only one of her mother:" and concerning the Jews and Gentiles, it declares that Christ hath made "in himself of twain one new man;" and that he hath reconciled "both unto God in one body." When they are called children, it is not said, as my Opponent would have it, that the Jewish children had one mother, and the Gentile children had another mother essentially different, like two mothers in Washington and Lexington; but the same mother who lost the Jewish children is represented as obtaining comfort from the birth of her Gentile children. You do not find it said, that the Jews were one olive-tree, from which certain branches were broken off, and the Gentiles another olive-tree, into which other branches were engrafted; but the Gentile branches are engrafted into the same olive-tree from which the Jewish branches were broken off. How different this from two olive-trees in Washington and Lexington!

    We conclude, therefore, that if the fact that the scriptures call the Jewish and Christian societies the same peculiar treasure and priest-hood, nation and people, the same ecclesiastical tree and vineyard, kingdom and commonwealth, the same foundation, floor, and house, the same man and body, brethren, bride, and mother, and if an express declaration of unity, as in several instances just quoted, will prove them to be the same church, then their ecclesiastical identity has been proved.

    ( 182 )


    The Jewish and Christian societies must be. the same church, because they have the same CONSTITUTION, the Mrahamic COVENANT.

    'On this subject, my Opponent has spoken as follows, viz. "Mr. M'Calla 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. 9 Circuitous and intricate are the paths of error. What a labor, what a toil to establish infant-membership. The Rev. Samuel Rallston, it seems, borrowed this ecclesiastical covenant from Dr. John Mason, and Mr. M'Calla appears to have borrowed it from Father Rallston. What a valuable acquisition! How much more are we indebted to philosophical divines for their discoveries, than to the 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 favour, request him

    ( 183 )

    to specify where this covenant may be found. Is it "in the 12th, 15th, or 17th Chapter of Genesis? Till then we must merely conjecture. In our Appendix to 66 the Debate at Mount Pleasant, we were somewhat (f particular in fixing the meaning of the term covenant as used in the holy scripture. Mr. M'Calla, so often as has referred to that Debate, has not called in question the facts there stated. The term diatheke is there exhibited as signifying, either appointment, constitution, covenant, or testament, and it is there [[f proven from matter of fact, that promises and commands are called covenants." (h] Thus far, my Baptist Opponent. I confess myself attached to the old-fashioned technical theology. That it was the fruit of much labour and toil, as my Opponent has insinuated, cannot be denied. Our Fathers were addicted to prayers and pains, and, at the same time, gifted with piety and parts, very far beyond that superficial race of apostates which have learned to despise their attainments. Some of this motley brood deny that there is a covenant of works or a covenant of grace, and others deny that the original words ever signify a covenant between God and man at all, and say that our Translators have been guilty of encouraging "a very erroneous and dangerous opinion," by using the word covenant in such a connexion. Such extravagant folly as" this, my Opponent is not now willing to avow. He admits that the original words are properly translated, testament, constitution, covenant; although they may sometimes

    (A) Spur. Deb. p. 173.

    ( 184 )

    signify an appointment, command, or law. Between these two there is no more discrepancy, than there is in saying with one breath that the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and with another breath, that it is our great political covenant or federal compact.

    My Opponent speaks of our ecclesiastical covenant as a novelty. I boast no new discoveries of my own, nor am I conscious of following any novelty of the last or of the present century, on this subject. An enlightened and candid examination of the seventh chapter of the Westminster Confession, and the scriptures t there referred to, ought to convince any one, not only that the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace were held by the Puritans and by the Apostles, but that both the Reformed Presbyterians and the Primitive Christians believed that the Abrahamic covenant was an ecclesiastical exhibition of the covenant of grace, differently administered, in the Old and New Testament dispensations; and of course different from the Sinaitic covenant which has vanished long ago.

    When my Opponent calls upon me so loudly and so frequently to point out that particular chapter in Genesis to which I refer as containing the covenant with Abraham, I wish him to understand that I refer to all the chapters which he has specified, and to every other in which any part of the Abrahamic covenant is contained. The opinion that all these passages record the same covenant appears to be founded on inspired authority. The scriptures say "Ye are the children of the covenant which God made with our Fathers, saying unto Abraham.

    ( 185 )

    And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." "For the Lord thy God is a merciful God; he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers, which he sware unto them." "To remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our Father Abraham." "I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee? saith the Lord God." "Remember, break not thy covenant with us." ()

    Against this familiar language of scripture, in which only one Abrahamic covenant is mentioned, my Opponent quotes one or two instances in which Paul speaks of covenants ) without intimating that they were Abrahamic covenants. "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." (^') Although "some copies, and the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, read the covenant," in the singular number instead of the plural, it is evident that the common is the correct reading. But why must we believe all these covenants to have been made with Abraham? Dr. Macknight, whose version my Opponent professes to copy, in his New Testament, calls these "the two covenants," the covenant with Abraham," "and the covenant at Sinai." Some suppose them to mean the two testaments: but Dr. Gill says that these covenants are not the two Testaments, Old and New, but the

    (i) Actsiii. 25. pent. iv. 31. Luke i. 72, 73. Ez. xvi, S, Jcr, xiv, 21.

    (j) Rom. ix. 4. in Spur. Deb. p. 175.

    ( 186 )

    covenant of circumcision, made with Abraham their father, and the covenant at Sinai, they entered into with the Lord/' But my Opponent says, "Besides, and prior to the covenant at Sinai, there was a plurality fi of covenants;" and he connects these covenants with the fathers, in a manner quite too ingenious for me to imitate. He does it by altering the text, in such a manner as to give it a meaning different from the Original, and from his own Incomparable New Testament, and from every other translation. The following is given by him, as the word of God, in Rom. ix. 4. "Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption and the giving of the f * law and the covenants, whose are also the fathers." In his New Testament, the covenants, are separated from the fathers, by a dozen words, three commas, and one semicolon; all of which he has here suppressed, except one expression, "the giving of the law," which he has put out of the way by transposition, in order that he may connect the covenants with the fathers, which he attempts to do more effectually by interpolating the word also. This alteration, however, is not much more outrageous, than one contained in his book against Mr. Walker, where he puts "by the Father," instead of, "to our Fathers," in Luke i. 72. (k) If he cannot prove a plurality of covenants with Abraham without making scripture for the purpose, you will probably believe that he cannot prove it all.

    But in the text under consideration, my Opponent says that i( the giving of the law" means "the covenant

    () Spur. Deb. against Mr. W. p. 15V.

    ( 187 )

    at Horeb," or the Sinaitic covenant, and therefore "the covenants" mentioned along with it, cannot mean the same thing. This, however, is an assertion, not only without proof, but in opposition to proof. The Greek word here used for "the giving of the law," either signifies the right of giving law, or the act of giving law, or the law itself. As it is said to pertain to the Israelites, it cannot signify the right of giving law; as it pertained to Paul's contemporaries, it cannot mean the act of giving law; it must therefore mean the law itself. Kype remarks that "by [[vo/to0
    The other instance quoted by my Opponent for a plurality, of Abrahamic covenants, is where Paul tells the Ephesians that they were once "strangers from the covenants of promise." Whether or not this is a Hebraism, in which the plural is used for the singular, need not here be discussed. Dr. Gill says that this refers (( to the covenant of circumcision given to Abraham; and to the covenant at Mount Sinai, made with Israel; a and to the dispensation of the covenant of grace to that people, sometimes called the first covenant and the old covenant, and which peculiarly belonged to them, Rom. ix. 4. One copy reads, strangers to the promines of the covenant; which is natural enough." (/)

    (0 Gill on Eph. ii. 12. See Spur. Deb. with me, p. 183.

    ( 188 )

    But," says my Opponent, "we have shewn 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 a years old, in Haran: this was 430 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 afterward 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. xvii.) ** 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 ecclesia mentioned in it, norjfor 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!" (m)

    This rhapsody of my Baptist Opponent considers the number of the Abrahamic covenants as plain as the noon-day. They must be three, exactly three; and this is so obvious and so important, that nothing but the daring spirit of error will ever doubt it. Yet in another case my Opponent himself seems to doubt whether a we should say there were three covenants, or only two

    (w) Sjiur. Deb. with me, p. 183.

    ( 189 )

    "covenants made with Abraham." At that time he could not make out the number three without adding the Sinaitic covenant, which was not made with Abraham, but with Moses. The following are his words, viz. 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 f( relation to Christ,' 430 years before the giving of the a 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 66 latter Mr. M'Calla 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. (n)

    If my Opponent has found only two Abrahamic covenants after all, you must not be surprised if I can find only one; especially if I am supported in this opinion by the Bible and by Baptist authority. He has said much about these two alledged covenants being 24 years apart, the first in Gen. xii. in the year Before Chris 1921; the second in Gen xvii. in the year 1897 Before Christ. His book against Mr. Walker contains some pompous chronological trifling on this subject, in which he appeals to a table at the end of Johnson's Dictionary. Thinking it probable that Dr. Allison, the Baptist preacher, had the same or a similar chronological table at the end of his English Dictionary, I consulted it, arid

    (H) Spur. Deb. with me, pp. 174. 175,

    ( 190 )

    found the following items in relation to the 12th and 17th chapters of Genesis. They are as follows, viz:

    1921. The covenant made by God with Abram, when the 430 years of sojourning commenced.

    1897. The covenant renewed with Abram; his name changed to Abraham; circumcision instituted."

    So far are these two places from recording different covenants, that the covenant with Isaac, and the covenant with Jacob, are only the same one Abrahamic covenant remwtd, as Dr. Allison expresses it. David says He hath remembered his covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations: which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant." As a reason for its being everlasting, Dr. Gill says that "being remembered, commanded, repeated, and confirmed, it can never be broken." (o) To shew that he sometimes [[ ^) thought Gen. xii. xvii. and xxii. to contain only this one Abrahamic covenant, "commanded, repeated, and confirmed," he expressly refers to these chapters in his exposition of this passage, and then requests the reader to compare with them Luke i. 72. 73. "To perform the mercy promised to our Fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham." When the Psalmist says, Have respect unto the covenant,'' Gill says that this means "not the covenant of works," "but the covenant of grace, made with Christ before the world was,

    (oj Gill on Ps. cv. 810.

    (/i) Dr. Gill sometimes cuiuidcrs thcs,e as distinct covenants.

    ( 191 )

    and made manifest to Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to David, and others." ()

    Much of my Opponent's opposition to the oneness of the Abrahamic covenant, rests upon the untenable position, that all the parts and appendages of a constitution must be drafted and published at the same moment; that it is annulled by any subsequent enlargement or amendment; that distant and different editions destroy its integrity; that every such edition, especially if accompanied with additions, even verbal or circumstantial, makes it essentially a new constitution. But if this be correct, we shall have to believe that God made eight covenants with Abraham, instead of two or three. He certainly appeared to him, and addressed him in covenant language, at eight different times. Nor is there any thing in the subjects on which he addressed him, which would lead us to fix on two covenants, rather than eight. Those, therefore, who do not believe that he made eight distinct covenants, with him have no reason to suppose that he made with him more than one." (r) The same criterion should lead its advocates to believe that there have been half as many constitutions of the United States. Our political covenant, as proposed by the Convention, in 1797, had seven articles. The first Congress, at its first session, proposed ten additional articles. The eleventh article was proposed by the first session of the third Congress, and the twelfth by the first session of the eighth Congress.

    di/) Ps. Ixxiv, 20.

    (r) Pond's Reply to Judson. p. 74. He refers to Geri. xii. 1. and 7. xiii. }4- xv. 1. xvii. xviii, xxi. 12, and xxii. 15,

    ( 192 )

    All these articles now form one and the same constitution, yet as drafted and adopted at four different times, and published in distant and different editions. Neither would its oneness be at all affected, if a thirteenth article were now added, appointing a governmental seal, or altering the seal now in use, as circumcision was added as a seal to the Abrahamic covenant, twenty-four years after its alledged origin, and as this seal was altered to baptism, near two thousand years after that period.

    The two titles which the New Testament gives to the Abrahamic covenant, make a delightful subject of declamation for my Opponent. Stephen calls it "The covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ;" and Paul calls it "the covenant of circumcision." (s) When Stephen says that it "was confirmed before," he means before "the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after." Here my Opponent sets all his chronological apparatus to work, to shew that this 430 years before the law, will take us back, not to Gen. xvii. when circumcision was instituted, but to Gen. xii. to "the ever-memorable charter of all the blessings which Jewish and Gentile believers enjoy through Christ;" as a certain Baptist writer styles this first publication of the Abrahamic covenant. But mark well a distinction between the promulgation and the confirmation of this "covenant confirmed." The promulgation may be in Gen. xii. and this may be 430 years before the law: but that the confirmation is in this

    () Acts vii, 8, (Jal. iii. 17.

    ( 193 )

    chapter or at this date, is not asserted by Stephen, nor, (I believe,) by the Baptists themselves. My Opponent, in a passage already quoted, instead of referring to Gen. xii. sends us to Gen. xxii. for this confirmation. His words are "This covenant was afterwards confirmed by an oath, Gen. xxii. when Abraham offered up his son upon the Altar. w (/) Dr. Gill does not believe that Stephen refers to Gen xii. for one thing or another, but that his mention of the covenant is to be understood, "of a peculiar confirmation of it to Abraham, either by a frequent repetition thereof, or by annexing an oath unto it; or rather, by those rites and usages, and even wonderful appearances, recorded in Gen. xv. 9. 10. 12. 13. 17. 18, and which was four hundred and thirty years before the law was given, which are thus computed by the learned Pareus." He then gives us the computation of Pa^ reus.

    My Opponent looks for the confirmation in Gen. xxii. Dr. Gill looks for it in Gen. xv. one on each side of Gen. xvii. where it is really to be found. Circumcision gives this seventeenth chapter a repulsive aspect. It resembles many a mud-hole in the road from Washington to Lexington. The way of safety lies right through it: but a span of horses will try hard to go one on each side of it. There is Dr. Gill, with the chronological traces of Pareus, pulling hard to the left; Here is my Opponent, with his chronological harness, tugging and slipping and floundering toward the right. But it will not

    (/) Spur. Deb. with me. p. 185,

    ( 194 )

    all do; the middle is the road, and through it the church will go.

    Dr. Gill is that reasonable sort of a man who is apt to make a poor advocate for a bad cause; because he admits enough of the truth to refute his own errors. In the extract just now given, he admits a frequent repetition of the covenant to Abraham. While he allows, with my Opponent, that it may be confirmed by an oath, he admits that it is confirmed, fe rather by those rites and *' usages, and even wonderful appearances recorded in Gen. xv." Perhaps you think that he will, at no time, admit circumcision among those rites and usages by which the Abrahamic covenant was confirmed. If so, you are mistaken. On the New Testament he tells us "that circumcision was a seal, not for secresy, but *' for certainty; it being a confirmation not only of the sincerity of Abraham's faith, but of his justifying righteousness, which was not his faith, but that "which his faith looked to." (w) Even in Gen. xvii. 7, when God says, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee," Gill explains this as a declaration that he will "not only renew it, but confirm it by the following token of circumcision." Thus it appears that the covenant of circumcision was not a new one, but a renewal of a former one, with the addition of a seal by which it was confirmed of God in Christ, to whose righteousness Abraham's faith looked, when "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised."

    (u) Rom. iv. 7.

    ( 195 )

    There is, in truth, no more difference between the covenant of circumcision and the covenant of confirmation, than there is hetween our great political compact and our federal constitution. They mean the same covenant as certainly as that the scriptures and the bible mean the same book.

    All parties appear to agree that the promises of Gen. xii. contemplate spiritual blessings, and are given to Abraham's spiritual seed: but my Opponent, in his book against Mr. Walker, (v) assures us that the promises in Gen. xvii. are confined to Abraham's natural descendants, and to temporal blessings. To do entire justice to the subject, it may not be amiss to institute a brief inquiry concerning the persons and things contemplated in both places.

    I. The persons. The proof given by the Baptists, that Gen. xii. was in behalf of Abraham's spiritual seed, is found in the following words of the third verse; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Now let us see whether there is not something like this in the seventeenth chapter. In the 2nd verse, God promises that he "will multiply thee exceedingly." Gill says that "this may include his natural seed by her [Sarah], and his spiritual seed among all nations, who are of the same faith with him, see ch. xii. 2, and xiii. 16, and xv. 5." Here the Dr. expressly refers to the 12th chapter as containing promises co-extensive with those of this chapter. But read on. Gen. xvii. 4, says, "Thou shalt be a father of many nations."

    (v) p, 160.

    ( 196 )

    After enumerating the many nations naturally descended from Abraham, Gill says, "and, in a spiritual sense, the father of all that believe, in all the nations of the world, circumcised or uncircumcised, as the Apostle explains it, Rom. iv. 11. 12. 16. 17. 18." The 5th verse says, "thy name shall be Abraham," which Gill interprets "the father of a numerous offspring; and with this agrees the reason of it as follows; 'for ' a father of many nations have I made thee:" on which he says, "Abraham has not only been the father of many nations, in a literal sense, as before observed," but in a mystical sense, of the whole world; that is, of all in it that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles." Verse 6th says, "and kings shall come out of thee." Gill's remarks on this are closed with the following words, viz. "... the king Messiah: to which may be added, in a mystical sense, all Christian kings and princes of the same faith with him; nay, all believers, who are all *' kings and priests unto God." The 7th verse says, And I will establish my covenant between me and thee." Gill says, "Not only renew it, but confirm it by the following token of circumcision." The same verse adds, "and thy seed after thee in their generation, for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee:" in commenting upon which, Gill thrice declares that the promise is to his spiritual seed." Here we have the greatest Baptist Commentator producing abundant inspired evidence that the covenant promises of Gen. xvii. are not only to Abraham's natural, but to his spiritual seed also. II. The blessings. Arc they spiritual, or arc they

    ( 197 )

    temporal only? My Opponent says that they are the latter; for which he gives five reasons, (w)

    1. "That they should be a numerous and powerful people." But the same promise is contained in Gen. xii. 2 f which is confessedly spiritual; and the same is repeatedly made to the church militant, and even to the church triumphant, after all temporal things have ceased.

    2. "That they should inherit the land of Canaan for a perpetual possession." It is true that this is a temporal blessing; but let it be remembered, that, as Dr. Gill observes, it is one "which was a figure of the heavenly inheritance, which is an eternal one, and will be enjoyed by all his spiritual seed, to all eternity." It is on this principle that my Opponent has followed Dr. George Campbell in translating our Saviour's words, "Happy the meek, for they shall inherit the land;" (#) meaning the land of Canaan, here used as a figure, referring not only to temporal, but "to eternal benefits," as Dr. Campbell expressly declares in his note on the place. Thus did Paul view this promise to Abraham when he says, "By faith he sojourned ff in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker isGod." (y)

    3. You will, no doubt, be astonished to hear that the ground of my Opponent's third reason is, that in the 7th

    (w) Spur. Deb. with Mr. W. p. 160. (x) Matt, v. 5,

    (y) Hebr. xi. 9. 10.

    ( 198 )

    verse God promises "to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee;" and in the eighth verse he says, "I will be their God." In the 7th verse Gill believes that his Maker enters into covenant with Abraham's spiritual seed, as the God of all grace, supplying them with grace here, and bestowing upon them glory hereafter." The eighth verse he explains in a similar manner.

    4. "It was conditional." This assertion my Opponent endeavours to support, by saying "See Gen. xvii. throughout." But fearing that this would not answer, he quotes "and the uncircumcised man-child.... he hath broken my covenant:" that is, says Dr. Gill "made it null and void, neglecting the token of it, circumcision." As this does not appear sufficient, my Opponent tacks to it, as belonging to the same chapter, the following words of Isaiah, viz. "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land." The next verse adds, "but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword." (z) This may do very well to shew the character of the Sinaitic covenant; for it is almost transcribed from Leviticus xxvi. which Gill declares related to "the covenant made with them at Sinai." (a) My Opponent may excuse his disingenuousness, by recurring to a pretended amalgamation of these two covenants. I hope soon to shew you, with the help of heaven, that this also is a fiction.

    5. "It was a covenant in the flesh and not in the spirit. 'My covenant shall be in your flesh,' Gen.

    (z) Is. i. 19. 20.

    (a) Lev.

    ( 199 )

    xxvi. Y 4. 14. 17. The mention of the covenant is in verse 15.

    xvii. 13. The rite of circumcision was the seal of this covenant."!!!! What an admirable argument!! Well may its author boast of his "critical accumen," and his "respectability as a scholar." We have been accustomed to thinking that the expression, "My covenant shall be in your flesh," meant, that circumcision, the seal or token of the covenant, should be in the flesh, while the thing signified by it might, nevertheless be in the spirit, according to an express promise that the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed." () So we have always thought that the application of baptism to the body did not exclude the answer of a good conscience: but my Opponent has discovered that an application of the sacerdotal knife, or of the baptismal water to the body, proves that the covenant with which they are connected is wholly temporal, and has no relation to spiritual blessings at all! According to Dr. Gill, however, "circumcision was a typical sign of Christ, as all the ceremonies of the law were, and of the shedding of his blood, to cleanse from all sin, original and actual, and also of the circumcision of the heart; and was moreover a seal of the righteousness of faith." (c)

    That you may feel a proper interest in this discussion, it is necessary to keep in mind the reason, why there has been such a waste of industry and ingenuity, in endeavouring to debase and destroy the holy ordinance of

    (b) Deut. xxx. 6.

    (c) Gill on Rom. iv. 11. In relation to this subject, the Doctor's opposition to Pedobaptism makes him sometimes speak in such a manner as to contradict himself, and to reject truths which he, at other times, admits.

    ( 200 )

    circumcision. If the substance of this ordinance be permitted to continue as the seal of a permanent covenant, my Opponent knows that it can be found no where in the Christian church, except in the form of baptism. If baptism, therefore, be the Christian circumcision, as it was considered by the Apostles and primitive Christians, then it must, like the Jewish circumcision, be administered to believers and their households. Here would be infant baptism at once; and all this, on account of circumcision, that obnoxious institution. To avoid this he must destroy circumcision both in its form and substance. But this cannot be done without destroying the covenant of which it is a seal. To accomplish this they must either deny the perpetuity of the one Abrahamic covenant, which they are not prepared to do, or they must find two Abrahamic covenants, one of which may lay exclusive claims to circumcision, and be destroyed with it. Because circumcision is found in Gen. xvii. that chapter is marked for destruction, as containing a covenant which is temporary in its duration, and temporal in its benefits, and essentially different from the covenant which is recorded before and after it. But this plurality of Abrahamic covenants is not only unknown to the inspired writers, but is, as we have shewn, in direct opposition to their repeated declarations, both in the Old and New Testaments: and so far is Gen. xvii. from containing a temporary covenant with temporal benefits, that its evidence of spirituality and perpetuity is more abundant than that of any other publication of the Abrahamic covenant in the whole book. To an unprejudiced mind, it is plain, that the covenant which

    ( 201 )

    was published and repeated in the twelfth and fifteenth chapters, was ratified or established, or, as Dr. Gill explains it, renewed and confirmed, in the seventeenth, where circumcision was given as a seal.

    Even those who make this latter a distinct and destructible covenant, have to give it entirely a new name, before they can find any Scripture that will put it to death. There is not a word in the bible, for destroying any Abrahamic covenant: they are obliged, therefore, to call it the Sinaitic covenant, or the covenant of Horeb. Ask my Opponent how it obtained this new name, and he will tell you that it was by amalgamation. Yes, it was not by inspiration, but by a process unknown to the Scriptures, or the ancient church; a federal amalgamation, elaborated in the flimsy prejudices of modern theological alchymists. As it has been proved that there are not two distinct Abrahamic covenants, permit me now to shew that the Abrahamic and Sinaitic are two distinct covenants, which never have coalesced and never will. According to the Scriptures, they differ in the following features.

    1. They are said to be two, "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants." (^)

    2. They diifer in their tendency. This is proved by the words immediately following those just now quoted. The one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (cfl

    3. They are distinguished as my and thy covenants; the Lord claiming the one which tends to promote liberty.

    (rf) Gal. iv. 24.

    ( 202 )

    Nevertheless, I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish [or confirm it] unto thee [as] an everlasting covenant. Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sister, [the Gentiles] thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant. And I will establish [or confirm] my covenant, [made in the days of thy youth] with thee." (e) My Opponent justly remarks that Ezekiel here "promises the union of Jews and Gentiles under a covenant positively declared to be not the Sinaitic," for he says, "not by thy covenant." The next question is, what is that everlasting covenant, which, in this short passage, the Lord twice promises that he will establish or confirm on the union of the Jews and Gentiles? Dr. Gill says it is (( the covenant of grace, made with the Messiah and his spiritual seed; which is confirmed of God in Christ." But both he and my Opponent believe the "covenant confirmed of God in Christ" to be the Abrahamic covenant. And where is this everlasting covenant first said to be established or confirmed? It is in Gen. xvii. Yes, in the seventh verse of that offensive chapter, God says, I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant." It is here also that Gill's admirable commentary says that this establishing of the covenant, means that God will "not only renew it, but confirm it by the following token of circumcision."

    ( liz. xvi. 606^ *.

    ( 203 )

    This, therefore, is "my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth." Gill's Baptist prejudices make him anxious to confine the days of their youth to the Sinaitic covenant. He nevertheless approves of the declaration of Kimchi, who says that f( all the while they were in Egypt, and until they came into the land of Canaan, t( were called the days of their youth." This account of their youth embraces many centuries before the Sinaitic covenant, during all of which time they were under the Abrahamic covenant, in wbich God had predicted their bondage in Egypt, and deliverance from it. (/) This was done in a covenant which was made before the institution of circumcision, and only "renewed" and "confirmed" in the appointment of that seal. This covenant which God confirmed with them in their youth', by circumcision, he promises to confirm with them on the union of Jews and Gentiles, that it may indeed be an everlasting covenant, after that of Sinai is abolished.

    4. They differ in their dates. Moses says, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. [[t( The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this [[f( day." (g*) Gill supposes that the fathers here mentioned, may "be understood of their more remote ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with whom the covenant of grace was made, or afresh made manifest, especially with the former; when the law, the covenant here spoken of, was not delivered until 430 years

    (/) On. xv. 1316. (g) Deijt. v. 2 r 3,

    ( 204 )

    after. Gal. iii. 16. 17. These references read as follows: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

    5. They differ in their qualities. "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also f( he is the Mediator of a better covenant which was established upon better promises. For if the 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 my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." (A) Notwithstanding the obscurity of what my Opponent says on this passage, [[^) you may perceive that he admits the Sinaitic covenant to be the old and faulty one which gives way to the new and better covenant. Thus also Dr. Gill; "That the Sinai covenant is intended, is clear by the following circumstance: ' In the day that I ' took them by the hand to bring them out of the land f of Egypt;' that is, immediately after their being

    (A) Heb. viii. 6 9.

    (f) Spur. Deb. with n)p, p. 246.

    ( 205 )

    brought out of Egypt, the covenant was made with them." (/) But the question in dispute is, What is meant by the new and better covenant, which is so far superior to that of Sinai? My Opponent can give no other account of it than to assure you that it is a new covenant, essentially different from the Mrahamic. If so, it must be newly made, or newly revealed, or both newly made and revealed. My opinion is, that it is no new constitution or revelation, but a new administration of a covenant revealed to Abraham.

    My Opponent has sometimes made a show of quoting our Confession of Faith against me. Permit me to quote it on this occasion. It is an excellent expositor of Scripture; it speaks my sentiments in better words than my own; and it gives me an opportunity of shewing the exact agreement which there is between the highest Baptist and Pedobaptist authorities on this subject. In relation to the covenant of Grace, our Confession speaks as follows, viz. "This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the Paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to [[' ' come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.

    (/) Hill on Jcr. xxxi. "?, which Pan! quotes.

    ( 206 )

    Under the gospel, when Christ the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, *' yet in them it is held forth, in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in '* substance, but one and the same under various dispensations." (/) In support of these sentiments, the Confession refers to those passages in which Jeremiah and Paul speak of the old and faulty covenant giving way to the new and better one. It also refers to several texts which relate to the Abrahamic covenant and its seal. The extract, with its proofs, goes to shew that the authors of the Confession believed with me, that the new covenant of Jeremiah and Paul, was no new constitution or new revelation, but a new administration of a covenant revealed to Abraham.

    The coincidence of Dr. Gill's opinion will appear in the following extract, viz. "'That I will make a new ' covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house "'Judah;' by this covenant is meant the covenant of grace; called new, not because newly made, for it was made with the elect in Christ from everlasting; so early was Christ set up as the Mediator of it; and so early were promises made, and blessings given to

    (/) Confession, Ch. 7. Sect. 5. 6.

    ( 207 )

    them in him: nor because newly revealed; for it was made known to all the saints more or less, under the former dispensation, particularly to David, to Abraham, yea, to our first parents immediately after the fall, though more clearly manifested under the gospel dispensation; but because of its new mode of exhibition; not by types, and shadows, and sacrifices, as formerly; but by the ministry of the word, and the administration of gospel ordinances; and in distinction from the former covenant, which is done away, as to the mode of it; and because it is a famous covenant, an excellent one, a better covenant, best of all; ff better than the covenant of works, and even better than the covenant of grace, under the former administration." (m) There is no difficulty in seeing from this extract, that Dr. Gill believes that the new and better covenant which supplants the Sinaitic, is no new constitution or revelation, but only a new administration of the covenant of grace, revealed to Abraham, and even to Adam; and exhibited to God's people both in the Old and in the New dispensations, in ecclesiastical ordinances; so that it is an ecclesiastical exhibition of the covenant of grace, Dr. Gill himself being judge.

    But this is not all. The same sentiments, as far as is necessary for the point now in hand, have been officially declared by the Regular Baptist churches of England and America, in "A Confession of Faith put forth by the Elders and Brethren, of many Congregations ' of Christians, (baptised upon profession of their

    (/;?) Gill on Jer. xxxi, 31.

    ( 208 )

    faith, J in London and the country. Adopted by the Baptist Association met at Philadelphia, September 25, 1742." In relation to the subject now before us, this Baptist Formulary says, "This covenant is revealed in the gospel first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were saved, did obtain life and blessed immortality; man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.^(n) I would call your attention to a particular doctrine stated in this extract, in connexion with the texts referred to in the bottom of the page to support it. The doctrine is, that "it is u alone by the grace of this covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were saved, did obtain life and blessed immortality." In support of this doctrine, this Baptist Confession refers to John viii. 56. "Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad." But lest this should leave us in doubt, whether they meant the Abrahamic covenant, with or without the seal of circumcision, this same Baptist Confession refers us to Rom. iv. throughout; which dwells almost wholly upon the Abrahamic

    (n) Chap. 7. Sect. 3.

    ( 209 )

    Covenant as recorded in Gen. xvii. where Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uneircumcised." This shews from the highest Baptist authority in the world, that the new and better covenant of the New Testament church, which supplants the Sinaitic covenant, is no new constitution or revelation, but only a new administration of the eternal covenant of grace, which was revealed to Adam in Gen. iii. and which was visibly and ecclesiastically exhibited to Abraham, in Gen. xvii. where it was sealed with circumcision.

    Notwithstanding the great inferiority of the covenant of Sinai, its institutions were an obscure publication of the gospel. It was therefore subservient to the covenant of grace. But, that it made, comparatively, a very slender provision for the consolation and salvation of the church, is evident from the fact that Moses, by whom it was given, goes past his own ceremonial and legal covenant, and resorts to that of Abraham, when interceding for rebellious Israel. In the same chapter of his law, the legal character of the one covenant, and the gracious character of the other are plainly marked. Speaking the language of the Sinaitic covenant, he says, "But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments, and if ye shall despise my ff statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant, I also will do this unto you." Then he denounces [[^multiplied and aggravated curses upon them. Dr. Gill says that this was "the covenant made

    ( 210 )

    with them at Sinai, when they promised on their part, that they would hearken and be obedient." (o) Immediately after this Moses adds, "If they shall confess their iniquity," "then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land." Gill says that this covenant "chiefly respects the multiplication of their seed, the continuance of them, and the Messiah springing from them; which is the mercy promised to these fathers, and the principal part of the covenant made t( with them, and which was remembered and performed when God visited and redeemed his people by him, Luke i. 68 73." (p) Immediately after the Sinaitic covenant was given, and Aaron and the people had provoked the Lord with the golden calf, Moses says, "Turn [[<( from 'thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel thy servants, to whom thou swearest by thine own self." (g) To this was God's mercy ascribed in after days. "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." (r) In the Jewish synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, Paul shewed that the Abrahamic covenant may well serve as a text for a gospel sermon. "And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

    (e) Gill on Lev. xxvi. 15. ( fi ) Gill on Lev. xxvi. 42.

    (V) Ex. xxxii. 12. 13. (r) 2 Kings xiii. 23.

    ( 211 )

    God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again." Dr. Gill says that this promise is "not barely and solely that which respects the resurrection of Christ, but the mission of him, the exhibition of him in human nature, his incarnation, his work and business he was to do, namely, to obtain salvation for his people; it chiefly regards the promise of his coming into the world to do the will of God, which promise was made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah." ($)

    6. There is such a difference in the duration of the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants, as totally to forbid the amalgamation system. We have already found that Paul meant the covenant of Sinai, when he said, "Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away." M This covenant vanished soon after the coming of Christ: but where is the evidence that the Abrahamic covenant vanished at that period? Instead of that, Paul represents Abraham as the father of believing Gentiles as well as Jews. (w) It was concerning this period that God said, "Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember." Dr. Gill expressly says that this covenant (i was remembered and performed when God visited and redeemed his people by him [Christ] Luke i. 6873." The Psalmist says "He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand

    (s) Gill on Acts xiii. 32. (/) Hebr. viii. 13.

    (u) Rom. iv. 11. 12. Compare Is. Iv. 3 5. Ivi. 4 8, where the extension of the covenant to Gentiles is foretold.

    ( 212 )

    generations: which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant." Dr. Gill says that this covenant "shall stand good, and be punctually performed, ( to a thou-sand generations,' that is, forever." (#) For this also, as well as the last text, he refers to the latter part of the first Chapter of Luke. "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people," "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant," "which," says Dr. Gill, "was made between him and his Son from all eternity; and was, at various times, dispensed and manifested to the patriarchs, and eminent saints, as Adam, Noah, Abraham, &c." (w) This is confirmed by the very next verse, which says, "the oath which he sware to our father Abraham." Besides referring us to this passage from the Psalm just now quoted, the Doctor sends us to three different places in Genesis, among which we find the seventeenth chapter, where this covenant is confirmed of God in Christ, by the seal of circumcision. It is not, therefore, some other Abrahamic covenant, but the covenant of circumcision, which God has "commanded to a thousand generations, that is, forever," as the Doctor says. If, therefore, the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision is eternal in its duration, and the Sinaitic covenant has already perished, their amalgamation must be a work of imagination only.

    (v) Gill on Ps. cv. 8.

    (w) Gill on Luke i. IxxiL

    ( 213 )

    It appears, therefore, from the bible and the highest Baptist authority, that the one Abrahamic covenant, sealed with circumcision, is perpetual; that notwithstanding the change of administration, the covenant is the same; and that this ecclesiastical exhibition of the covenant of grace is the common constitution of the Jewish society before Christ, and of the Christian society after Christ; wherefore these societies having one constitution, are one church; which was the point to be proved.

    We have now finished the evidence promised in support of the second proposition, that "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 diiferent administrations." We have proved this by the substantial sameness of their religion: they have the same theology, morality, worship, government, and discipline. This has, moreover, been shewn from the manner in which the same names are given to them: they are both God's peculiar treasure, a royal priesthood, and an holy nation. They are both God's ecclesiastical tree and vineyard; foundation, floor, and house; kingdom and commonwealth; man and body; brethren, bride and children. And it has just now been shewn that the same ecclesiastical exhibition of the eternal covenant of grace is the one common constitution of the

    ( 214 )

    two societies: wherefore they must be one church, though in different dispensations. Both the premises and the conclusion have been supported by the Scriptures, and it has been shewn that they are both ratified by Doctor Gill, the greatest Baptist writer who ever lived. If, through prejudice or forgetful ness, any one doubt the correctness of this statement, let him candidly attend to what the Doctor says, on that declaration of Solomon, that "Wisdom hath builded her house; she hath hewn out her seven pillars." (A) This, Gill says, is the church of Christ on earth, the house of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." "Such a house there was under the Old Testament, and such an one there is under the New; and which is continually building up by Christ, by means of the word and ordinances, and will continue to the end of the world." When Solomon says, u There is no new thing under the sun," () Dr. Gill says, that even "spiritual things," though in some sense new, are also old; or there have been THE SAME THINGS FOR SUBSTANCE in former ages, ff and from the beginning, as now; such as the new covenant of grace; the new and living way to God; new creatures in Christ; a new name; the New Testament, "and the doctrines ofit; new ordinances, and the new commandment of love; and yet these, in some sense, are "all old things, and indeed are THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE." These are the words of Dr. Gill. In them you find express and repeated acknowledgments of the scriptural truths, that the church and covenant, doctrines

    (A) Prov. ix, 1. (0 Eccles. i. 9.

    Return to top of the page

    Sidney Rigdon "Home"   |   Rigdon's History   |   Mormon Classics  |  Bookshelf
    Newspapers  |  History Vault  |  New Spalding Library  |  Old Spalding Library

    last revised Aug. 18, 2007