APPENDIX.

279

tized in infancy, that Chrift, that is, his name is put upon them, without either their knowledge or confent; but how it can be rendered actively, you have put on Chrift, is difficult to reconcile either to common sense or to truth. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; FOR YE ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS. What! whole families! believing parents (at least one of them) and unbelieving children? faints and finners, all one in Chrift? Strange union indeed! What communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Chrift with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel ?*

If St. Paul were to addrefs a modern congregation, where perhaps feven-eighths of them had been baptized in infancy, could he with propriety addrefs them as he did thefe Galatian Christians: As many of you as have been baptized into Chrift, have put on Chrift? Ye are all one in Chrift? Do Pædobaptist Christians themselves believe this of their families? Do they believe that their baptized but unregenerate children have put on Christ? That they and their children of this defcription are all one in Chrift Jefus? They certainly do not treat them as if they believed any fuch thing; nor can we fuppofe they do feriously believe it. Yet if they do not believe it, will they not feel this conviction, that their churches differ effentially from these in the apoftolic age? As the apoftles, themfelves did not profefs to know the hearts of others, the language addreffed to the Galatians, would be proper to any body of baptized profeffors who acted in character as Chriftians.

It only remains here to obferve a few words upon the text itself. And if ye be Chriff's, then are ye Abraham's feed, and heirs according to the promife.

We have already feen that the promise here mentioned did not refer to the covenant of circumcision, but to a previous promife made to Abraham, and confirmed of God in Chrift. We have alfo feen that believers only, or fuch as are of faith, are confidered as partaking in the bleffings of that promife. But if there were nothing in the context to determine us with re

* 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15.

gard to the fubject, one would fuppofe that the text itfelf speaks a language irreconcileable to the doctrine of infant baptifm.* If ye be Chriffs; this determines our title to the bleffing. This determined the title of our ancestors, and this will determine the title of our children. But the author of the discourses has advocated a fentiment exceedingly different from this: it implies the following; If ye parents, one or both of you, be Chriff's, then are ye, and all your children, Abraham's feed, and heirs according to the promife. But it will be asked, In what fenfe can unconverted Gentiles be confidered as the children of Abraham? What promife has God ever made to Abraham of spiritual bleffings, that unconverted Gentiles may claim, by right of heirship? The answer muft be, None at all.

Indeed it is believed that Mr. Worcefter himfelf has fully conceded this very point, notwithstanding all his laboured arguments to prove that the baptized children of Gentile believers are Abraham's feed. His words are, "To become entitled then to the bleffings of the covenant, Abraham must walk before God, and be perfect; must have TRUE FAITH, and be fincerely obedient. This was neceffary as it respected himfelf perfonally, and equally neceffary as it refpected his children." (page 36.) If "true faith" was neceffary to entitle Abraham and his children to the bleffings of the covenant, is not the fame neceffary for us and our children? This perfectly agrees with the language of the apoftle in the text, as we understand him. If ye be Chrif's, that is, have "true faith" in him, then are ye Abraham's feed, &c. No Baptift, we believe, ever difputed but that all fuch, whether young or old, as have true faith in Christ, are Abraham's fpiritual feed, and heirs according to the promise, that all nations should be bleffed in his SEED. It appears to us, that many of our

*This text ftands fo fentimentally oppofed to infant baptifm, that it has been a little surprising that Mr. Worcester fhould choose it as the foundation of his difcourfes. He muft, we conceive, have thought it more friendly to his fubject than it appears to us: for we are unwilling to fuppofe he chofe it upon the principle which Socrates is faid to have chofen one of his wives, the noted Xantippe, (one of the frewardeft women in the world) i. e. to few bis skill in managing ber.

Pædobaptift brethren mistake the fubject on this ground, That the promises which were made to Abraham, which refpected his fpiritual feed only, they apply indifcriminately to the natural feed of Gentile believers.

In the ninth of Romans it is faid, They are not all ISrael who are of Ifrael; neither, because they are the feed of Abraham, are they all children. They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promife are counted for the feed.* Are not the children of Gentile believers, children of the flesh, as really as others? If fo, the apoftle has decided the point, that they are not the children of God, nor the feed of Abraham: for the children of the promise are counted for the feed. By thefe we think no perfon can doubt, but the apoftle meant fpiritual perfons, as diftinguished from the children of the flesh. This perfectly correfponds with the general tenor of the fcriptures. This will alfo affift us in determining who are intended by Abraham's feed in the text.

On the whole, we cannot perceive that a fingle bleffing is promised to any unbeliever, throughout the whole chapter on which the difcourfes are founded. We therefore conclude, that the author, in applying them to believing parents, and their unbelieving offfpring; and by endeavouring to prove, that they are all Abraham's feed, and heirs according to the promife, has applied them in a fenfe, which neither the fcriptures in general, nor the apoftle's reafoning throughout the context, will justify. The reader will judge, whether the preceding reasoning will fupport this conclufion or not.

It will be remembered, that we propofed in the beginning of these strictures to attempt the proof of two points:

1. That Mr. Worcester had miftaken the promise in his text, and reasoned from one totally different from the one which the apoftle reafoned from.

2.

We proposed to show, that his application of the promise to believers and unbelievers, or to believing parents and unbelieving children, was unfcriptural, and contrary to the apoftle's reasoning.

* Rom. ix. 6—8.

B b

On the firft, we have shown, that the promife quoted by the apoftle was diftinct, in its nature and defign, from the one on which the difcourfes are founded; and that the time at which it is ftated to have been given, will not agree with the covenant of circumcifion.

:

On the fecond, we have fhown, that by the apostle's reafoning in the context, and other fcriptures, the bleffing of Abraham is annexed only to faith: That it comes on Gentile believers individually, and not otherwife That parents, by faith in Jefus Chrift, may enjoy the blefling of Abraham, while their unbelieving children lie under all the miseries of the curfe : That the blefling of Abraham comes on believing children, through Jefus Christ, and not through their parents : That they are not faved by their parents' faith, but by their own.

If the two preceding points have been demonftrated, it is all that we undertook. We do not pretend to have confidered all Mr. Worcester's arguments, nor to have expofed all his errors. Our limits forbid that we fhould enlarge on this part of the subject. We have confcientiously endeavoured not to mifrepresent his fentiments; if it fhould be found, in any inftance, to be the cafe, it will be fincerely regretted when pointed

out.

May the Spirit of the living God, that Spirit which was promifed by Jefus to his difciples, difcover to each of us his errors, by leading us into the truth. And may we be always ready to receive the truth, whenever it is prefented to our minds, although it may cross our preconceived opinions. If we love the Lord Jefus Chrift, we are folemnly bound to keep his commandments. In order to this, we must be willing to know what they are, and how they are to be obferved. And let us fee to it, that we do not make void his commandments through our tradition.

To the tribunal of public opinion, the preceding remarks are cheerfully fubmitted. And were it not for fome charges particularly brought against our denomnation in the difcourfes before us, we fhould here take

our leave of them; but, under prefent circumstances, we fhould be wanting to ourselves, not to attempt a vindication. We must therefore afk the reader's patience a little longer, hoping that he will candidly attend to what we have to fay to the things laid to our charge, and then judge whether they ought to be placed

to our account or not.

SECTION

VI.

The Baptifts vindicated from the Charges brought against them by the Rev. Samuel Worcester.

Το reprove a Christian brother, and to do it in the temper of the gofpel; and especially, when we feel ourselves injured by the faults which call for reproof, is by no means one of the leaft difficult duties of our holy religion.

If the things of which we are about to complain had emanated from avowed enmity, or had been vocifcrated only by the tongue of flander, they had never excited any other emotions in our minds, than pity and filent contempt: but when they are ufhered upon the public, as undeniable facts, and fanctioned too by all the gravity of the pulpit, they affume a very ferious and dangerous afpect, and imperiously call us to felf defence.

Our limits will not allow us to animadvert on all that Mr. Worcester has faid againft us; and even the few articles which we do touch upon, we are obliged to handle with great brevity.

Without particularly noticing feveral preceding remarks, in which he probably aimed his fhafts at the Baptifts; yet, as he neither named, nor hit any one, we fall proceed to what is directly applied to us.

1. In a note, page 23, we are charged with imbibing the error of the old "legal Jews," by unfcripturally. blending the covenant of circumcifion made with Abraham, and what is called the Sinai covenant, together.