well as the substance, of God's dealings with men. This, which may be called the manner of inheritance, is likewise in analogy with the general plan of divine Providence. The human race is not an assemblage of disconnected individuals, but a connected series, receiving and transmitting evil and good. Thus it is in religion. In Adam all die. In Christ all are made alive. The covenant of grace is, "to be a God to Abraham and his seed." The Gospel proclamation is, "to you and to your children." This is the genius of the Gospel. It goes first by natural descent, if the faith be continued, and then to those who are afar off, even many as the Lord our God shall call."

66 as

And thus the salvation of the Gospel was first to be offered, and, in point of fact, was first offered to the natural descendants of Abraham, and then to the Gentiles; and they are considered by the Apostle Paul as the true olivetree, and the others, as branches of the wild olive, though the privileges of the Gospel were ultimately and intentionally common to both. And this view of the case appears to me to give a harmony to all the dispensations of God, and to exhibit a beautiful provision wisely adopted as the most efficacious moral means of preserving religion in the world, and securing its universal triumph.

3. It is argued that this view of the covenant, and of infant baptism founded upon it, tends to secularize the church, and to produce an unholy mixture and alliance between it and the world. That the church can ever be perfectly free from mixture with the world, neither Seripture nor experience leads us to expect. But the objection founded upon this necessary intercourse, has its force, not in the connection between believers and their offspring, but in that system of temporal establish

ment of Christianity, which has prevailed from the time of Constantine the Great, and by which all its institutions have been thrust out of their natural order and design. When every member of the civil community is made, as such, a member of the church, and entitled to all its rights and privileges, then indeed it becomes difficult to maintain the propriety of our Lord's declaration, " My kingdom is not of this world."

Mr. Birt, in his answer to Mr. Burder, allows that Independent and Baptist Churches perfectly resemble each other in every particular but that of baptism; and as far as my observation extends, the practical result, as it concerns the present question, is the same in this also. Neither are the Independent Churches more blended with the world than those of the

Baptists, nor are the Baptist Churches more free from secular contamination than those of the Independents. The difference is this, the latter baptize their children as introductory to the bringing them up "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;" and the former bring them up in that nurture and admonition as preparatory to baptism. At the point of admitting them to full communion they unite, each alike receiving them as the personal profession of their faith. There is, doubtless, a truth on this subject, as on every other, and the practice of one or the other party is most in accordance with it; but as the great Head of the church has not seen fit to mark the error, on which side soever it exists, with the seal of his practical reprobation, it is our duty to hold what our conscientious inquiries point out to us as that truth, with the fullest candour and the largest charity to those who differ from us.

4. It is asked, again and again, "Of what advantage to infants is their baptism?" I might answer

this in many ways. First, in the words of the apostle, " Much every way, but chiefly because to them are committed the oracles of God." That is, because their baptism, if properly improved, insures to them the privileges of a religious education. Secondly, I might ask of what use is adult baptism to those who receive it? "Are the waters of Jordan better than those of Abana or Pharpar, rivers of Damascus ?" If you say, with Ananias to Paul, the waters of baptism will wash away your sins; or with Peter, "This baptism serveth us," I reply with the same Peter," Not the washing away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God." That is, not the act of baptism, not the sign, but the thing signified. For he is not a Christian who is one outwardly, neither is that baptism which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Christian, who is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit. If you come at last to the truth of the case, and say to the believer, This washing is a pledge that your sins are washed away, if your faith and repentance be genuine, I will say to his child, as he becomes the subject of instruction, This baptism is also a seal of your salvation, if you attain to the faith of your father, or rather to that of Abraham, which he had before he received the "seal of the righteousness which is by faith, that he might be the father of all them who believe, though they be not circumcised."

5. These brief observations do, I think, show, in opposition to the objections of the Baptists, that the spiritual nature of the covenant, made with Abraham, is the same as that made with believers under the Gospel dispensation; and that it is therefore probable, à priori, that as the sign of that covenant was originally administered to children, that practice was now

intended to be continued. Yet I do confess, that when we come to the mere direct evidence, this is a subject which, on both sides, appears to me to have its difficulties, such as ought to exercise our diligence, our forbearance, and our charity. On the one hand, when I combine the practice of the ancient church with that of the Christian, up to the very clouds that hang upon its early history, and with the many declarations and incidental circumstances in the New Testament, which seem to imply its existence in the very times of the apostles; when I consider the harmony which this principle gives to the different dispensations of God, and that infants are not baptised, as some of the fathers erroneously imagined, that they might be saved, but because "that of such is the kingdom of heaven;" there seems to be a chain of evidence, which justifies the belief and practice of many of the wisest, and some of the best of men, in modern times. But when I advert to the fact, that the New Testament contains no express declarations respecting this practice, and that Justin Martyr, when he gives, in his apology, a full account of the ordinance of baptism, and that of the Lord's Supper, makes no mention of infants; and when I consider moreover the superstitious practices, and erroneous views, which have from the very first been associated with it; I do not, I cannot, wonder that many wise and many conscientious persons should adopt the Baptist system. The strongest argument against that system, from ecclesiastical history, seems to be that furnished by Mr. Hall, in his controversy with Mr. Kinghorn. His argument, I think, is, that as there was confessedly no infant baptism in apostolic times, and as that practice was universally prevalent before the end of the third century, and

lent at

as there are no records remaining of any controversy existing, whilst the church was gradually passing through this great change, either mixed communion must have been allowed, or this change must have been made at once, which is incredible, and nearly impossible. With great deference to that accomplished writer, I would suggest, that the argument appears not so much to support his conclusion, as to disprove his main assumption. For, as infant baptism was undoubtedly prevaan early period of the church; and as there is no trace of any controversy respecting mixed communion, which must, from the nature of things, have existed, had such an extraordinary change, as is supposed, taken place; therefore I conclude that infant baptism was the apostolic practice, never disputed till the time of Tertullian, and consequently exciting no divisions, or calling for any toleration in the church. And is it credible, that the church, if it held the principles of the Baptists, would have granted such a toleration, or that it would have suffered such a change to take place, without any controversy, or remonstrance, when we know that it was nearly divided, by the dispute, respecting only the day of keeping Easter? If this were really the case, we must at least admit, that the Baptists of former days were very different men from those of the present.

6. To Mr. Birt's statement, "that the commission of our Lord Jesus Christ is the sole rightful authority for the ordinance of baptism," I fully and entirely accede. But to the following paragraph," that the statements on this subject in the New Testament, are the only certain directory for its administration," I must offer a word of explanation.

What we have now in the New Testament, on the subject of bap

tism, we may indeed consider as certain; and viewing the corruptions to which tradition has been exposed, there is nothing in it to which this epithet can be properly applied. Yet this was not the case in the beginning. The New Testament was not then the directory for the administration of baptism, and for this plain reason, because it was not in existence. The order of things was this. The apostles and evangelists preached every where. When they made converts, they baptised them. Where there was opportunity, they formed them into churches, and ordained them elders, to whom they gave directions for their subsequent conduct. When absent from the churches, they wrote to them epistles, to confirm their faith, or correct their errors. As the churches multiplied, and the ministry of the apostles, and first witnesses of the facts of Christianity, could be less frequently enjoyed, persons were raised up and qualified to compose histories of the life, doctrines, and actions of their blessed Saviour. These we call the Gospels, and in process of time the churches interchanged with each other those Epistles and those Gospels, till at last each church had obtained the whole; and when they were collected together, they came to obtain the appellation of the writings of the new covenant. The next process was to translate them into various languages, for the use of other nations, and thus, in their original tongue, and in their different translations, they have been handed down to our times. follows, from this statement, that the ordinances of the Gospel must have preceded the Scriptures, and that before a word of these were written, and very long before they were collected into a volume, all the churches perfectly knew, from apostolic authority, who were the subjects, and what was the mode

It

of baptism; and they had not to look, and did not look to the New Testament as any directory in that respect, nor do these writings profess any such thing; wherever errors existed, they corrected them, and to those which existed in the Corinthian church, in their participation of the Lord's Supper, we are indebted for the principal scriptural information we have, on the design, mode, and perpetuity of that ordinance. With respect to baptism, it was otherwise. In that age, as there was one Lord, and one faith, so there was but one baptism. There were then no errors to correct, nor disputes to settle. And in consequence, we on whom the ends of the world are come, must search out the truth by a different process from that by which

the

first churches received it. Had tradition remained uncorrupt, that would have been our guide, as it was theirs. Had Scripture contained clear and direct evidence on the subject, that would have prevented all controversy. But as neither of these is the case, it remains our duty carefully to gather the incidental declarations contained in the New Testament, and to illustrate them, as far as we are able, by those rays of primitive tradition, which have. happily reached us across the darkness of popery.

Y.

ON AN ORNAMENTED PULPIT STYLE.

THERE is doubtless a style of language more fitted for the pulpit than any other, though a considerable diversity of opinion may prevail as to its prominent and characteristic qualities. Ought it to be anxiously cast in a classic mould, to be highly figurative and adorned, and nicely measured into harmonious sentences? I cannot but think, that for a minister of the Gospel to aspire after the praise

of literary excellency, in the addresses he delivers to his people, is very inconsistent with the claims and objects of his high and holy vocation. My reasons shall be given with brevity. 1. A solicitude for beauty and elegance of language, will necessarily tend to divert the mind of the preacher from the great end of the ministry, the salvation of souls. The value and importance of this end must be duly understood and felt, and kept constantly in view; for every thing else shrinks into littleness and insignificance compared with it. The conversion of a single soul prevents a mass of evil, and comprehends a measure of good, which neither man nor angel has power to calculate. Now it is of the highest consequence, that a minister of Christ should have the immortal welfare of his fellow men always vividly prominent before him; that to this every movement of his heart and mind, his tongue and his conduct, may directly contribute. But the training and discipline of an exquisite literary taste, is utterly at variance with such an intensity of feeling as is here supposed. Can he be expected to do much service under the Captain of Salvation, who spends more time in polishing and adorning, than in sharpening and using the weapons of his holy warfare? Or can he diligently cultivate the vineyard of the Lord, whose chief care and employment is to gather and arrange the flowers of Parnassus? All the inquiries and labours which occupy the critic and the orator, are trifles compared with the proper work of a minister of Christ; and it demands little acuteness to perceive that when the mind is plausibly amused with these trifles, things of infinite moment and worth are lost sight of, and almost forgotten; the rules and models of eloquence are studied, till a passion for the study is created, and then the at

tention due to the substance and matter of discourse is lavished on the form and garniture in which it is to be exhibited.

2. Solicitude about beauty and elegance of language, leads to a style and manner unsuited to the mixed assemblies which a preacher is usually called to address.

Considerable allowance must unquestionably be made for the difference in point of education, which obtains in different places; yet, I believe, a vast majority will be found in almost every congregation, who have neither time, nor taste, nor inclination, for the niceties and graces of rhetoric. The appearance of an assembly is not a sure index of mental habits; for many who dress their persons with a profusion of finery, are accustomed to clothe their ideas in none but plain and often coarse language. To such, a raised and refined diction is nearly unintelligible; it is not merely that single words are unknown, but their combinations are strange, having little or no affinity with ordinary colloquial intercourse. And how are persons of this character to be instructed, admonished, roused, and affected, by a sermon which neither descends to the level of their understanding, nor seizes the only avenues of access to their hearts? The souls of artisans and peasants are quite as precious as those of kings and courtiers. When a preacher, whose bowels yearn with tenderness and compassion, whose heart burns with love and zeal, looks around him upon the unlettered rustics, who form part of his audience, is it right, is it reasonable, is it possible that he should disregard their wants, and play the orator to please the fastidious few, who have some pretensions to literature and taste? No, he is a watchman on the walls of Zion, and must sound an alarm, in the way best fitted to arrest attention, and save his fellow men from NEW SERIES, No. 13.

destruction. Words nicely culled and combined may soothe the ear or the imagination, but it is his object to penetrate the heart, and awaken the conscience. Had Luther, Knox, Grimshaw, and Whitefield, balanced and polished their periods, like some modern sermonizers, the vehemence of their ardour and zeal would not have carried every thing before it like a torrent. Indeed, it seems the extreme of absurdity to imagine that a man who is disclosing to his fellow men the terrors of hell, and he glories of heaven, labouring in good earnest to break down all their fences of apathy and delusion, and conduct them to the only safe refuge, should have a thought to spare about the structure and embellishment of his style.

3. Solicitude respecting beauty and elegance of language, has usually the effect of attracting to the preacher, from individuals of congenial spirit, a high-wrought admiration, which borders on idolatry; he is, for a time at least, their oracle of taste, their theme of eulogy; the most wholesome truths are refused, as if unfit to touched by them, unless seasoned and served up by their favourite.,

be

I remember some years ago to have heard a young minister, who was settled in a small obscure town, preach a sermon at an association meeting, which was richly adorned with the graces of finished composition. He was afterward asked by a senior brother, whether he preached such sermons at home? and having answered in the affirmative, "And how many of your people," it was said, "do you think can understand them ?" "About five or six," he replied." The avowal produced, as might be expected, among men of piety and experience, a mixed emotion of grief and indignation. Nor can we conceive of a more gross and revolting inconsistency than that of a Christian pastor and teacher D