ber of this kingdom or church must be a personal act, and not by descent or proxy. No one can profess faith, put on Christ, obey God, or perform a duty which is enjoined as a public expression and avowal of any Christian principle for another.

This statement of the national covenant, made with the whole house of Israel, is abundantly confirmed by our Pedobaptist writers. They clearly distinguish it from the visible church, by calling it a carnal institution, composed of carnal worshippers in a worldly sanctuary, &c.; but they perplex the subject by calling it a Jewish church instead of congregation. The reader will attentively peruse the memorable words of the great and learned Dr. Owen; "The institutions of the law were, in their nature, carnal, as our apostle declares, Heb. 7: 16; 9: 10. The subject of them all, the means of their celebration, were carnal things beneath those pure, spiritual acts of the mind and soul, which are of a more noble nature. And as they were carnal, so they might be exactly performed by men of carnal minds, and were so for the most part. Regeneration is expressly required in the gospel to give a right and privilege unto an entrance into the church or kingdom of Christ; whereby that kingdom of his is distinguished from all other kingdoms in and of the world, unto an interest, wherein never any such thing was required; neither the church nor its privileges (being) continued and preserved, as of old, by carnal generation." On Heb. 7: 11. Nature of Gospel Church, pp. 3, 17. The judicious Dr. Jennings informs us that "the Jewish church was a divine establishment; and all persons born in the land of Israel, and of Jewish parents, being considered as members of it, were, therefore, bound to conform to its rites and worship but is there a divine establishment of any

national church under the gospel dispensation? If the New Testament gives us no other idea of the churches of Christ but their being voluntary societies, uniting under the laws of Christ for public worship and other purposes of religion, then is no man born a member of a church." Jewish Atiq., vol. 2, pp. 62, 63.

Mr. Arch. Hall: "The church is a spiritual society. Her ordinances and services are spiritual. This constitutes a grand and lasting distinction between the New Testament church and the church state of the Jews, whose ordinances were beggarly and their worship carnal and shadowy." Gospel Church, p. 18. Dr. Whitby : "No man is, indeed, a member of Christ's kingdom who is not truly regenerate." Note on John 3: 3. Dr. Watts's sentiment shall close this part of our subject: "The bulk and multitude of the visible nation of Israel, which was the visible church, were generally great sinners; and, with all their glorious titles of external and typical holiness and divine favour, they were inwardly wicked, and belonged really to the kingdom of Satan, and not to the invisible church of God." Jewish and Christian Churches, Discourse 5.

Having shown at length that the visible church had no real existence under the Old Testament, either in the Patriarchal, Abrahamic, or Mosaic dispensation, I might now point out the exact period of its commencement under the gospel dispensation. This, however, is not necessary at present. I perfectly agree with the learned Dr. Pierson, who fixes the day of Pentecost for its commencement. "Our Saviour," saith he, "first speaking of it, mentions it as that which then was not, but afterward was to be; as when he spake to the great apostle, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;' but when he ascended into heaven, and the

Holy Ghost came down-when Peter was made an instrument of the conversion of 3000 souls, which were added to the former disciples-then was there a church; for after that we read, 'the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."" On the Creed. Matt. 16: 18. Acts 1: 15; 2: 41, 47 ; 4:4 ; 8: 1.

The reader, I trust, will now perceive that the Christian church is not a continuation of a Jewish church, seeing there never was a Jewish church, but a mere congregation, composed of a mixture of hearers, all professing to be Israelites, i. e., not Gentiles, as our congregations profess to be Christians, and not Jews nor Mahomedans. Our brethren would be much nearer the truth if they should argue thus: All Christian congregations are but a continuation of the congregation of Israel ; but the Jewish children were members of the congregation of Israel, and entitled to all its privileges; therefore the Christian children are also members of the congregation, and entitled to its privileges. But this would not entitle infants to the sacred ordinance of baptism; for it is acknowledged on all hands, that baptism is only to be administered to persons spiritually qualified for membership in the visible church; but, from the description we have given of it, it is evident that infants do not possess the requisite qualifications for membership.

Fifthly. It is farther argued that infant baptism is an apostolical tradition; and, though the Scriptures are silent in the case, the uninterrupted tradition and usage of the church make up that defect. This argument of all others has the least weight with me. I dread it as a burned child dreads the fire. It was by the vain traditions received of the fathers that I was so long kept in ignorance of the truth as it is in Jesus. These traditions are considered by the Rabbins of greater authority

and utility than the Word of God itself. The former they compare to wine, the latter to water: and who knows not that the same principle has been adopted by the Roman hierarchs, as the sanction and authority of the innumerable errors in doctrine and practice so prevalent and so firmly believed in that denomination? Besides, it is abundantly acknowledged by all Protestants, (some Episcopalians excepted,) and was the ground of the reformation and non-conformity, that mere tradition, without divine precept or Scripture example, is no sufficient warrant either for doctrine or practice.

Again, the ground of this argument is as fallacious as the argument is weak. Tradition concerning infant baptism has never been traced as far back as the apostolic age. It has been proved, and, I believe, beyond the power of contradiction, that Origen, who flourished in the beginning of the third century, was the first who asserted infant baptism to be an apostolical tradition; and it is equally acknowledged that Origen embraced several dangerous errors, and that his writings, translated by Ruffinus, were so corrupted that the reader is very uncertain which is Origen's or Ruffinus'. See this subject fully discussed by Danverse on Baptism, pp. 133150. Booth, Pedob. Exam., vol. 2, pp. 97, 421.

:

Dear reader, we have now examined all the arguments of our Pedobaptist brethren in favour of infant baptism and I most sincerely confess that the more I examine this subject, the more I am convinced that there is no sanction for it in the Scriptures; and that, therefore, it must be displeasing in the sight of God. The objections against this Essay will be answered hereafter.

111

ESSAY IV.

Immersion the only Scriptural Mode of Baptism.

HAVING in the preceding Essays pointed out the proper subjects of baptism, I proceed now to show that immersion is the only Scriptural mode.

My first argument is drawn from the signification of the word used by the sacred writers to express the act of this ordinance. The reader will please to observe,

1. That in the Greek, as well as in other languages, there are distinct words to express the variety of uses to which water may be applied. Khantizo, (from rhaino) to sprinkle; ekcheo, to pour out; louo, to wash; baptizo, (from bapto,) to immerse or cover in water or any other fluid. The latter of these, with its derivatives, is invariably used through the New Testament in relation to this ordinance. If washing, pouring, or sprinkling had been sufficient, it is certainly worth our inquiry, Why did the inspired writers always use one and the same word, acknowledged by all to signify, primarily and constantly, to immerse? Now, as we never mean to sprinkle when we say to immerse, so when our blessed Lord said baptizantes, immersing them, he did not mean rhantizantes, sprinkling them.

As it is by the meaning of words we judge of the nature and design of a law, the primary meaning of the words used in that law must be taken in interpreting it. This is a universal maxim. Hence, we are told by the learned Mr. Ferguson, “If men may be permitted to forsake the natural and genuine sense of words where the matter is capable of it, they may, notwithstanding