more than mountains of gold, who would not value a thousand promises made to an individual, on condition of his faith and fidelity, and which do not respect his being one with Christ, of the worth of a single cent. Here, again, we have a discovery which might have saved much disputing, had it been made timely; for a warm argument has been held in our country, that there is not a promise in the Bible to any one, which does not respect his being a member of the body of Christ, and his standing in union with him. We observe, however, an apparent clashing between our author and the apostle, who asserts that all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen. The Apostle has been understood to say, in this passage, that all the promises of God are confirmed in Christ, and are infallibly sure.

There is also some appearance of a clashing of the author of the discourses with himself; for in one place he says, "To Abraham and his seed "were the promises made; not indeed to seeds as of many, but to seed, as intending but one sort

or description, namely, Christ in person, and "all true believers, as included and blessed in "him."....But in the passage now under observation, he tells us of two sorts and descriptions of people to whom the promises were made, namely, individuals standing alone, to whom the promises are made conditionally; and the whole Church standing in union with Christ, to whom the promises are made absolutely......It would be useless to remark upon all our author's apparent inconsistencies; we notice another nearly related to this. In describing those to whom the promises were made, he says, "The promise of the land " of Canaan had respect, unquestionably, to A"braham's natural seed; and therefore as God

promised to be a God to the same seed, to "which he would give the land of Canaan, it is

plain that all the promises of the covenant had primary respect to Abraham's natural descen"dants.....I will give unto thee and to THY SEED af“ter thee, all the land of Canaan, and I will be 66 THEIR God."....But how is this to be reconciled with his frequent declarations, that the promises respected only believers, or the subjects of true religion? that God is not in the covenant sense a God to any but such? Is it to be understood, that all those who enjoyed the privileges and blessings of the land of Canaan were believers, and the subjects of true religion? Certainly he would not say this. Again, our author observes, that "Peter, when addressing the mixed multitude on the day of Pentecost, called upon them to repent "and be baptized; and that he might present the strongest motive, added, for the promise is to you, and to your children.".......And in another place, "Peter, in his address to the people, at "the beautiful gate of the temple, says, Ye are "the children of the prophets, and of the covenant; "thus addressing himself to a promiscuous mul ❝titude of the natural descendants of Abraham."

66

But why is the assembly which Peter addressed on the day of Pentecost, called a mixed multitude? they were all men of Israel, Jews and proselytes of the house of Israel; no uncircumcised men were allowed to enter the upper gates of the temple; it consisted, doubtless, both of believers and of unbelievers; but Peter declared that the promise was to them promiscuously, without any discrimination: no other discrimination but this of believers and unbelievers could have been made. It is not perceived what other meaning our author could have, in calling an assembly of the natural descendants of Abraham, a promiscuous multitude.....How is this to be reconciled to the frequent declarations in these discourses, that the

promise is to none but believers, and the children of faith?

Eighthly. We remark, that our author has conceded to the Baptists their principal arguments; and, as far as his influence extends, has furnished them with new strength.

They affirm, that there were "promises of a "certain nature made to Abraham respecting "his natural seed, as such, which rested on con"ditions, and not as being in union with Christ; "and, therefore, did not intitle them to the blessings peculiar to the church of Christ." This, for substance, our author has granted.

They readily admit, that "better promises, "absolute and unconditional, were made to Abraham, and to his natural descendants, "and all others as many as are in union with "Christ,which entitle them to gospel privileges." This distinction between promises made to people, as in union with Christ, and not in union with Christ, commonly styled spiritual aud natural seed, is the great bulwark of the Baptists. Eut this distinction our author has countenanced, and, in effect, plead for it.

They affirm, that the covenant of promise does not include our infant children, and they are not proper subjects of baptism, the seal of it; "for to be included in the gospel esta"blishment, or in the covenant, as confirmed in "Christ, faith," &c. " is necessary;" and infant children do not exercise faith. To the principle upon which this argument is founded, our author assents. "God's promise to those with "whom this covenant is established, is to be a "God to them, and to their seed after them. "But God is not in the covenant sense a God to any but believers, or the subjects of true reli gion." The Baptists will now say, that baptism is the H

the sign and seal of the privileges and blessings of the covenant; that the Rev. Doctor Worcester does not consider infant children intitled to these privileges and blessings; and plainly, as that two and two make four, the sign and seal of title ought not to be placed where no title exists.

They will say, if ye be Christ's, then are ye heirs, intitled to the privileges and blessings, according to the promise. But the Rev. Pastor of the Tabernacle church says, " that baptized per"sons, previously to their taking personally the "the vows of the covenant upon them, are nei"ther intitled to the privileges, nor subject to "the discipline of the church, as members in complete standing."* As, therefore, they are not visibly Christ's, why is the name and mark of Christ's people put upon them?

*As members in complete standing...... This sentence, as coming from Mr. Worcester, is difficult to be understood. Had a Methodist expressed himself thus, it would have been understood as referring to his Classes: or, if one practising on what is called the half-way covenant, had used it, we should have understood him to mean his half-way members; but coming from the Pastor of the Tabernacle Church, it seems to be meant merely as a saving clause......If our baptized children have a standing in Christ, they are complete in him; but if they have not a standing in Christ, where are they? When a Baptist says, that he holds our churches to be churches of Christ, and he holds our ministers to be ministers of Christ, but not in complete standing........Mr. Worcester readily understands, that he holds our standing to be nothing; for like his seamless garment, the body of Christ is so intirely one, that a standing in it which is not complete, can only exist as a rent in the garment, or as a disjointed member in the body; which is, indeed, a standing worse than nothing. And the condition of a person in such a standing is no better than that of a broken tooth, or a foot out of joint.

They will surely say, that our children are either heirs, intitled to the blessings of the gospel, or aliens under the curse of the law. There is no third class, no middle standing. This question Doctor Worcester has decided against them; that, antecedent to their believing, they are not to be considered as in union with Christ, and intitled to the blessings. They must, therefore, be considered as without God and without Christ, in the world that lies under condemnation. And what warrant have we to baptize such persons?

They have already said, that the argument in favour of baptizing our children from the recorded transaction, that Christ blessed certain little children, does not apply; for Doctor Worcester holds, that our children, previously to their believing, are not intitled to the blessing; and, therefore, from this circumstance, we cannot argue that they are proper subjects for baptism..

The sentiment adopted by our author, that the children of believers are not to be considered as in union with Christ, and intitled to the blessings of the covenant, was publicly advanced, a few years ago, by a gentleman in Connecticut, who, at the same time, professed to defend Infant Baptism; and we know how his sentiment was turned against him by his opponents. To stigmatize his practice,, they thought it enough to state his own view of it...

"They call it baptism, and think it will stand,

"A few drops of water, dropt from a man's hand,.. "On the face of an infant, that is under the curse!? "But this is our answer, we don't see it thus."

This was a bold flout upon a people named of Jehovah; and of whom he has named himself, their God. Not so, however, if our author's sentiment is just; and our children are not to be considered as Christ's, and intitled to the bless