it

goodly fruit"-and the Apostle reasons with a reference to this passage, when he speaks of the branches being broken off; for in the same verse the prophet saith," with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon (the olive tree) and the branches of it are broken." The olive tree, an emblem of beauty, of excellence, and of profit, was a fit emblem of the Jewish state in its glorious days. It was their relation to the Messiah, natural and federal, that obtained for them all the beauty and excellence that rendered them worthy of so beautiful an emblem. Jesus Christ was their relative according to the flesh-was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" he was federally, or by covenant, connected with them" In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed," was the covenant confirined before of God in Christ, 430 years previous to the law, and promised to Abraham-John tells us, "he came unto his own, (by nation) and his own received him not."

The natural and covenant relation that subsisted betwixt Christ and the Jews, was the source of all their beauty, of all their honor and glory. When they denied their own relative, kinsman, redeemer, their promised king and deliverer, ichabod was written upon them, "the glory is departed." Such of them, the remnant according to the election of grace, as received him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God. Whether Jews or Gentiles, they became "the sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty." The connection now formed betwixt them and Christ was not natural but spiritual; not according to a temporary, but an everlasting covenant; so that they became the "good olive tree," in consequence of their spiritual and eternal relation to Christ, the life-giving root, from whom springs all beauty and excellence. Now branches from the wild olive were grafted into this root; the natural branches, the Jews, were broken off, and such of them as were not rejected, received something, of which they were before destitute, viz. a spiritual and inseparable connection with the root and fatness of the good olive-and in the same manner, as the engrafted Gentiles received nourishment therefrom, and with them partaking of the root and fatness.

"Thou standest by faith," is the sole cause of union to the good olive, and the only means of participation in its root and fatness, assigned by the Apostle; and at one

stroke cuts off the whole system which my opponent endeavors to prove from this chapter. Infants are exclu ded from any visible participation in this good olive, sec-~ing that faith is required to any enjoyment of its root and fatness, and the only means of engrafting into it. In the Jewish state, they were naturally and in covenant connected with the Messiah, and derived their share of natural priviledge from him-but their growth was natural, not engrafted. Now that engrafting is necessary, and faith the sole means of it, they are necessarily excluded from any visible connection with the church of Christ, or good olive tree; consequently all attempts to prove the New Testament similar to the Old, or the church of Christ similar to the Jewish state, must fail of any support from this portion of scripture, to which Mr. W. appealed with so much confidence of success.

[In addition to the above, which fully expresses the substance of all that I said on this passage during the debate, I will now add a testimony from Ezekiel the prophet, further corrobative of the views which I have now presented. It is from chap. 16, verses 60 & 61.-These two verses I will transcribe- Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thine youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant. Then thou shalt remember thy ways and be ashamed, and thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger; and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant." This prophecy foreshews the bringing in of the Gentiles, and the establishment of the everlasting covenant, with a remnant of the Jews and of the Gentiles. But what is peculiarly striking in relation to this subject, is, that these Gentiles were to become daughters or members of the church, not by the covenant of the Jews-contrary to my opponent, for he maintains by the same covenant. The Lord saith, "not by thy covenant." testimony speaks a volume against the Pedo-baptists.]

This

But to return: Mr. W. in order to maintain his ground, and to shew that circumcision conferred spiritual blessings, again cites Rom. 4, 2-12. Here again I must take the libertylof stating that the Apostle's design in this chapter, and that of Mr. W. are very dissimilar. The Apostle's design was to shew, that a man is justified by faith, and that Abraham was justified by faith without circumcision, and partook of all that blessedness which

David described, independent of, and previous to, his circumcision. Mr. Walker's design is to shew that circumcision conveyed spiritual blessings. His design then, as I have before shewn, is not only dissimilar to the Apostle, but if Mr. W. can maintain his ground, he has completely confuted the Apostle. The Apostle reasoned to shew, that even Abraham received all spiritual blessings previous to circumcision; even that blessedness which David describeth as the lot of the righteous and happy. Mr. Walker reasons to shew that this was not the fact, but that Abraham did receive spiritual blessings in circumcision, which of course he did not previously possess. This conclusion must unavoidably follow every attempt to prove from the 4th to the Romans, that circumcision conveyed spiritual blessings. I wish that Mr. W. would for once choose such a portion of scripture, as will allow bim to have the same design with the penman, or with the spirit that indited it. This he has not yet done, as far as I can recollect.

To balance accounts with the Baptists, he has asked what spiritual blessings did Baptism seal or convey to Simon Magus? I answer-none. But was Simon Magus a believer? No. Was not this the cause why he received no benefit from Baptism? Yes. Therefore infants can receive no benefit from baptism, because they cannot "believe in him of whom they never heard." Simon Magus professed to believe, and therefore, as far as man could see, was a proper subject of baptism; at least Philip was justified in baptising him. The most that can be said of him as a candidate for baptism, is, that he was professedly but not really a proper subject of Baptism. The case of Simon Magus is a very convincing proof that none but proper subjects can receive the blessings resulting from obedience to any ordinance or commandment, But what would Mr. W. prove from this? Would he prove that Baptism is an empty ordinance to all believers, or to any? Surely not. Would he prove that we may be mistaken in the administration of it to some candidates? This needs no proof-we admit we cannot judge the heart-but on the same grounds that we would admit a candidate to the communion table, and on no other, would we baptise him. Or would he prove, that because we Baptists are sometimes mistaken in the receiving of candidates, that he may be always mistaken in

the character of the subjects to whom he administers it? I confess that his manner of proposing the question, though I hope contrary to his design, suggests that such is the meaning thereof.

In the last place, Mr. Walker tells us that infants may, if they are obedient to the divine law after they grow up, receive benefit from baptism. This is an honest, though I presume an unintentional confession, that they receive no benefit from it, either at the time of receiving it or im mediately after but if they be good sons and daughters, and keep the commandments, they may receive some benefit from their infant sprinkling. This, however, the best thing that could be said as to benefits communicated in infant sprinkling, is a novelty in ordinances and commandments. I never recollect to have heard of any thing ordained for the benefit of man, or any thing enjoined upon him, by divine authority, that had not some immediate advantage resulting to the subject who obeyed according to truth. So my onnanent has placed all the advantages of infant sprinkling upon a slippery perhaps upon a wonder working if. I confess in this he has shewn great ingenuity, for it is better that they should rest upon an if, than upon nothing at all.

But he has said that infants, in the act of baptism, are laid under an obligation to obedience-that the vows of God are upon them thenceforth.-Let me ask, how many years old are they when they recognize this obligation? Shall I say at 10 or 15 years after sprinklingI presume not sooner; and I think they must have a curious mind, if ever they can persuade themselves, that they are under obligations, in consequence of any thing their parents did for them in sprinkling. I have only to ask, what sort of an obligation is that, under which a subject lives 10 or 15 years totally unconscious of it, and which, as virility, makes its appearance at a certain age

?

Having now replied to every thing worthy of consideration, in the topics presented by Mr. W. I shall occupy the remaining minutes of my period in suggesting a few considerations, different from those hitherto introduced.

It has often been remarked, that all artificers have their own rules, by which they are regulated in their respective arts and callings. It is equally plain, that teachers of religion, who embrace different systems, have each

their own rules, in going to work to support their pecu liar tenets. This is strikingly manifest in the Baptist and Pedo-baptist mode of supporting their different views on the doctrine of Baptism. When an advocate for infant baptism begins to support his tenets, he leads you back to the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 2000 years before the institution of Baptism. He tells you of the covenant of works and of the covenant of grace, and persuades you to consider that the old musty covenant of circumcision, is just the same as the new covenant of grace. He labors hard to explain the items of this old covenant, and to make you believe that they are just the same with those of the new. After having led you by the hand through a dark and intricate labyrinth, explaining allegories, types, and metaphors; sometimes unfolding mysteries, at other times creating mysteries which never before existed, he arrives at the borders of the New Testament times.-As soon as he enters the New Testament, he has to go back to the Old Testament to explain it; thereby shewing you that the Old is plainer than the New! Telling you occasionally of Christ's blessing infants-of the promises given to them, and of the many households baptised. When he comes to any thing too hard for him to allegorize, mysticise or explain, he tells you it was a mistake of the translators, and should be rendered so and so. Sometimes he tells you of the poor, illiterate, misguided Baptists, who will not believe that in signifies at that much water signifies a few drops-that coming up out of the water signifies just coming from the edge of it, and that going down into the water, means no more than going to the shore.

In the greatness of their erudition, these and many other things unintelligible to an illiterate Baptist, appear plain and easy. Thus they explain washing by sprinkling, and can, by profound learning, convince you that it is a matter of indifference whether you sprinkle or immerse, and that believers are the proper subjects, and that infants are also equally proper subjects; yet, if their system prevailed, there would not be a believer to baptise in the world; all the human family would be baptised, before one of them knew the right hand from the left.— How often does the poor old grey-headed hearer, after 40 or 50 years reading the Bible, exclaim, after hearing one of these deep and learned divines expounding some text,