ny as came to the place, where Asahel was slain, stood still." This certainly gives us to understand, that some of the host did not come to that place and stand still. John 1, 11: “He (Christ) came unto his own, (the Jews) and his own received him not, but to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." This, again, certainly implies, that some of the Jews did not receive him. So when Paul preached to a congregation of Gentiles, Acts 13, 48, it is said, "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." This, again, clearly supposes that some, to whom he preached, were not ordained to eternal life, and did not believe. This mode of expression is familiar, and cannot easily be misunderstood. The before cited expressions, then, one concerning the church at Rome, and the other concerning the church at Galatia, do as clearly imply, that some of the members of these churches had never been baptized, as that the expression, just quoted from John, 1, 11, implies, that some of the Jews did not receive Christ; or, as the one from Acts, 13, 48, implies, that some of the congregation, to whom Paul preached, were not ordained to eternal life, and did not believe. In his epistles to these churches, the apostle does not say, as many of the world as have been baptized; but, "so many of us as were baptised," and "as many of you as have been baptized," have been baptized into Christ, have put on 'Christ as well as the circumcised.

Robert Hall, an open communion Baptist, and an able divine, in his treatise on open communion, speaking of the insufficiency of the Baptists' argument, to prove baptism to be a prerequisite for communion at the Lord's table, very candidly remarks, page 52, "When St. Paul says, as many of you, and so many of us, as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. His language seems to intimate, that there were a class of christians to whom this argument did not apply." Mr. Fuller, in his answer to Mr. Hall, does not reply to this understanding of these passages. Mr. Hall's idea was, as we shall soon see from further quotations, that a class of christians in the primitive church were received, not by baptism, but by circumcision.

The church at Corinth also, as well as most others in that region of the country, consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. In writing to this church, the apostle settles this controversy

in the most explicit manner, not only for them, but for all churches everywhere. 1st Cor. 7, 17, 18: "As the Lord hath called every man, so let him walk, and so ordain I in all churches. Is any man called, being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not become circumcised." Here was the same dispute, whether baptism alone was sufficient. And it could not have been settled in words plainer than these. Whatever reason there was, at the first preaching of the gospel, to baptise some who had been circumcised, that reason did not long continue. At this time, the Jew converted to christianity, having, in his infancy, received circumcision, might not be suffered to renounce it, consider it a nullity, and receive baptism. Neither, might the believing. Gentile be circumcised. This was now made a standing order or decree, not for this church alone, but for all churches. "So ordain I in all churches." This decree of the apostle is in perfect conformity to the decree of the council, Acts 15, 28; 16, 4, ◄ which we have noticed before. It has no reference to doctrine, but to practice alone, and is so plain as not to be misunderstood, either then or now. Here then is positive evidence, that circumcision, and circumcision alone, without baptism, was used in the churches as a seal of the covenant, and for no other end. The Jew, who was converted at an adult age, was by this decree, positively forbidden to renounce his circumcision, which he had received in his infancy, and was also forbidden to be baptized.

Now, the apostle neither condemns the one, nor the other seal, nor justifies the one, more than the other; but calls their attention to the spiritual meaning and intent of both. Verse 19: "Circumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God." Gal. 5, 6: "In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.' 6, 15: "But a new creature." Col. 3, 11: "But Christ is all in all." In these expressions, the apostle does not overlook the external seals, they are both alike good. They signify the same things. They verily profit, "if thou keep the law." Rom. 2, 25. That is, if thou live according to the great end of their appointment, feel their spiritual influence, conform to the covenant

Christ, obedience, and love to God, art holy in heart, and in life, according to what is signified and intended by these seals, then, whether you use the one, or the other, you have nothing to fear; but without this conformity, and devotedness to God, they will not avail you any thing, but will become a nullity.

Again: 1st Cor. 12, 5: "There are differences of administrations, but the same Lord." The most distinguishing difference was, in the administration of these different seals, and probably the apostle had reference to this wholly. And what if there was a difference externally? There was the same Lord-the same covenant privileges-the same grace exhibited the same grace enjoyed-the same glory promised. And, because circumcision was administered to some, and baptism to others, that was no cause why there should be a breach of fellowship. Indeed it does not appear, that the dispute was ever carried so far as to break, or materially interrupt their communion. Jews and Gentiles had the same Lord-the same altar-the same standing in the church. This was the foundation of their communion. They all partook of the same common blessings, and the same spiritual grace. In the same chapter, verse 13, he says again: "By one spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles." Here, we observe, he most emphatically says, all, yes, all. He does not now say as many as, but he says all. Spiritual baptism, that is, the operation of the spirit of God upon the heart, the thing signi fied by each of the external seals, was the same to all. Jews and Gentiles the same, perfectly the same.

To

We will now close this section with a few quotations, from eminent divines, shewing their opinion on this subject.

Mr. Hall, the open communion Baptist writer, whom we have noticed before, was certainly a man of clear and discriminating judgment and discernment. One paragraph, from his book, which we quoted a short time ago, we here repeat, and also add a few others.

Page 57: "It is natural to enquire who baptized the apostles, and the hundred and twenty disciples assembled with them, at the day of Pentecost? My deliberate opinion is, that, in the christian sense of the term, they were not baptized at all."

n

converted previous to the Lord's resurrection." Page 74 : "The sacrament, (Lord's Supper,) at first, was administered to persons who had not received baptism." He supposes they were received as members of the Jewish church, by circumcision, and not by baptism; because, he does not consider John's baptism to be a christian baptism, and there is no evidence of their having received that. Page 108: "Among the Jewish converts, very different sentiments were entertained on the subject of circumcision, which all appear to have observed." He thinks the Jewish converts all observed cir. cumcision with different sentiments, and higher views of it, than what they had of baptism. This is not denied by Fuller, his antagonist and strenuous opponent.

Dr. Lathrop "It is an undeniable fact, that circumcised believers were, frequently, if not generally, received to fellowship, in the christian church, without baptism; for all churches have fellowship with the church at Jerusalem, and Jewish and Gentile believers have communion in the same churches. That Christ's first disciples were baptized, we have no evidence. That the twelve partook of the first supper, before christian baptism was so much as instituted, is undeniable; for it is evident from Acts 19, 5, that John's baptism was not christian baptism.'

Dr. West: "These believing Jews were united in the same churches, with believing Gentiles who had received the ehristian baptism, though they were uncircumcised. Neither the circumcision of the Jews, nor the uncircumcision of the Gentiles, was made a term of christian communion and fellowship, on either side.” "The believing Jew, who was circumcised, united with the believing Gentile, who was uncircumcised. It was known, and conceded on both hands, that circumcision was not required, as it never had been of the Gentiles, and was not, as yet abolished, as to the Jews, of whom it had been required, even from the days of Abraham."

Again: "The zeal which these christian Jews had for infant circumcision, shews that they considered the administration of the seal of this gracious covenant, to be a duty, or a privilege, or both, and of indispensable importance. Possessed of these views, and justified in them by the Holy Ghost, it is hardly conceivable that they should unite in the same churches with Gentiles, who wholly neglected to apply the

appointed seal of their relation, to the same gracious cove nant and title to the promises and blessings of it, to their infant seed." This reasoning is not only conclusive, but its force is irresistible. It is wholly beyond conception, that Jews, so fond of applying the covenant seal to their children, could have been induced to unite with Gentiles, who did not do the same for their children. The just and unavoidable conclusion is, that the Gentiles, with unfailing punctuality, gave up their children to God by baptism, which was intended of the Holy Ghost, to succeed the former seal, and which had the same spiritual intent and signification.

SECTION XVIII.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.

Suffice it to say, that our opponents do freely acknowledge, that the practice of infant baptism prevailed in the church as early as the close of the second, or the beginning of the third century; but do not pretend to bring any evidence, from the history of the church, shewing the period when it first began, nor do they offer any satisfactory reasons, why it did universally prevail, as early as they themselves admit that it did. Nor do they shew any evidence that any church, or even individual christians, ever objected to the validity, or the lawfulness of infant baptism.

On this subject, we are very much indebted to the ingenious and learned Dr. Wall, whose critical researches into ancient ecclesiastical history, and candid relation of facts, have been such as render him good authority. This our opponents do not deny. We shall, therefore, make statements, either in his own language, or in conformity to the relations he has given. Concerning infant baptism, these are his words: "For the first four hundred years, there appears only one man, Tertullian, that advised the delay of infant baptism, in some cases; and one Gregory, that did practise such delay, in case of his children: But no society, so thinking, or so practising, nor any other man, saying that it was unlaw