tured, dispersed, is gone-gone into long continued banishment.

From Jerusalem they are gone; and scarce a relict is left to mark the place where the temple and the city stood. Yet, wonderful to tell, they are a people yet preserved and known as Jews, in all parts of the world: a nation scattered and peeled among all nations, a hissing, and a by-word; yet the remnant is not destroyed. Once they were a chosen people, they feared, worshipped and served the true and only Lord God. And God chose Jerusalem among all nations of the earth to set his name there. But the fashion of their obedience and their faithfulness passed away, and God gave them up to their enemies, and made the fashion of their city to cease.

Such are the ideas which arise and pass through my mind whilst I meditate, and whilst I write upon the words, The fashion of the world passeth away. Nor have the modern fashions of it been more stable than the ancient. The experience of every generation, from the beginning, and the history of the world in all ages, forces upon us the conviction that all things earthly are changing, and shall soon be gone for ever.

ISAAC REED,

Nicholasville, Ky. April 12, 1818.

FOR THE PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE.

Brief Review of a Debate on Christian Baptism, between Mr. John Walker, a Minister of the Secession, and Mr. Alexander Campbell, a Minister of the Baptist Church; in three Letters to a Friend.

LETTER I.

You ask my opinion of such public debates, and of this one in particular. I have never had but one opinion of such exercises; as it is victory, and not searching after truth, that is usually the object of VOL. I.

the combatants; and should any of them, at the beginning, found their argument on false principles, this will necessarily lead them to adopt other principles equally false, in defence of the original one; and thus the whole must end in worse than unprofitable and indecisive wrangling.

We have a striking example of this in the debate now under review. Mr. Walker assumed as his fundamental principle, that the covenant which God made with Abraham, recorded in the 17th chapter of Genesis, and of which circumcision was a sign and seal, was the covenant of grace: whence he argued the right of the infants of church members to be introduced into the church by baptism, as they had from the establishment of that covenant been introduced by circumcision: the former, under the present dispensation, coming in the place of the latter. Now, as circumcision was the seal which God himself affixed to that covenant, and as a seal the moment it is affixed, gives the person on whose behalf the covenant was made, all the advantages therein contained; it follows by inevitable consequence, that if that covenant was the covenant of grace, then every circumcised person must be saved: and if baptism is come in the room of circumcision, that every baptized person must be saved also a position, I am persuaded, which no Pædobaptist will defend. Some Pædobaptist writers, who, with Mr. W. have assumed that the covenant of circumcision, as the protomartyr Stephen emphatically calls it, was the covenant of grace, have endeavoured to free themselves from the above consequence, by saying that there is an external and internal relation to the covenant of grace; and that circumcision and baptism form the external relation only. But what is an external relation to a covenant? Is it not, in other words, to be out of a covenant. If the word has any meaning at all, 2 I

this it must be; but as circumcision was the seal which Jehovah himself affixed to that covenant, then, whatever that covenant was, it follows that the instant a proper subject was. circumcised, that moment he became interested in all its privileges and appurtenances.

You are now, no doubt, ready to ask, what was that covenant or dispensation, as it alters not the case, nor affects the argument by which of these names it may be called; and what were the advantages thereby. secured to the circumcised? I answer, it may be called an ecclesiastical covenant; or a covenant whereby Jehovah was pleased to bind himself by the SEAL of circumcision, to send a Redeemer of the family of Abraham into the world-to preserve in his family a visible church, until that Redeemer should come; and, as his infinite wisdom saw best, to appoint, from time to time, and continue with them such ordinances as would be the best medium of acceptable worship, and best calculated to interest them in the merits of this Redeemer; and when this Redeemer would come to ingraft the Gentile nations into this church, and consequently to bestow upon them those means equally with the Jews. In a word, it was a covenant or dispensation, graciously designed, and wisely calculated, as a inean to an end, to interest them in the blessings of the covenant of grace, consisting in pardon, sanctification, and eternal life.

Mr. Campbell, on the other hand, affirms again, and again, "that its promised blessings were temporalevery one temporal-that circumcision conveyed no spiritual blessings to the Jews. It guaranteed that they should be a numerous and powerful nation-that God would be their king, and that they would individually inherit the land of Ca

naan."

The apostle Paul, however, teaches otherwise in the third chapter of his epistle to the Romans, first verse.

As if he foresaw that in future days such bold and unscriptural assertions would be made for the purpose of supporting a favourite system, he proposes their objection in almost their own words, and then gives it an answer, which one would think would silence the objection for ever. "What advantage hath the Jew? and what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way, but chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." And what he meant by the oracles of God, he tells us in detail in the 9th chapter of the same epistle. "To them pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises: whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever." And as if this was not sufficient to prevent such bold and unscriptural assertions, the same apostle, in the 3d chapter of his epistle to the Galatians, quotes the principal provision of that covenant, and styles it the preaching of the gospel to Abraham. "And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel to Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed." From these quotations then it appears, that besides the promise of a Redeemer, that covenant sealed or confirmed to all the circumcised, all those ordinances, which infinite wisdom saw best calculated to interest them in the forgiveness of sins, to be purchased by his blood, together with the sanctification of their natures, or what is emphatically styled "the circumcision of the heart;" in allusion to which circumcision is called " a sign," as well as a seal."

I am aware that it will now be asked, was not the possession of the land of Canaan promised to Abraham in that covenant? and is it not expressly mentioned as one of its provisions? It is, indeed, recog

nised in that covenant, as what was secured to him and his seed in another and distinct covenant, recorded in the 15th chapter; but which Mr. C., for very prudential reasons, as respects his system, has entirely overlooked in that catalogue of the scripture covenants which he has given us in the appendix to his book. "And God said unto Abraham, I am the Lord which brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And Abraham said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it. And God said unto him, take me a heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon. And Abraham took unto him all these, and he divided them in the midst; and laid each one against another, but the birds divided he not. And it came to pass when the sun was down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace and a burning lamp that passed between these pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river Euphrates."

I am aware also, that Mr. C. may reply, all this affects not his system, for he denies that there was a visible church in the world until the day of Pentecost.

It is no doubt a matter of surprise to you, and to others who read your Bibles, that he should have the effrontery to contradict Stephen, who told the Jews "that Moses was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake unto him in Mount Sinai, and with their fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto them." Acts vii. 28. The secret is this-Peter Edwards, of England, had proved beyond all contradiction, by a plain and simple logical process, the right of infants to be admitted into the church by the ordinance of baptism; and as it had not been denied when he wrote,

that the Jewish nation was a visible church of God; and as it was undeniable that infants were introduced into that church by circumcision; and as their right was not repealed by Christ or his apostles, but recognised by both; and as baptism was now the right of initiation, he drew this fair and irresistible consequence, that infants ought to be baptized. It required no great degree of penetration to see that this simple and plain argument overturned the whole Baptist system respecting infants. Something must be done to prop the tottering fabric, and as nothing else could avail, the late David Jones, a Baptist minister, ventured on the bold expedient of denying that there was a church of God on earth, until the days of John the Baptist, which has been reechoed by Mr. C. with this difference, that Mr. C. dates his church from the day of Pentecost, or the first church at Jerusalem. The reason why Mr. Jones commenced his church with John the Baptist, probably was, to maintain the propriety of the name which Baptists have assumed: and perhaps the reason why Mr. C. differed from him was, that he saw the absurdity of dating the Christian church from a man who died before the Christian dispensation commenced.

When Mr. W. adduced the words of Stephen as a proof that there was a church in the wilderness, what is Mr. C.'s reply? That the Greek word ecclesia, which is translated church, signifies any kind of an assembly; and that it is used by the writers of the New Testament to signify a lawful and unlawful assembly, as well as the church of Christ: That it is by some accompanying epithet, or other circumstance, that we are to ascertain in which of these senses we are to understand the word; and that there is nothing in the passage adduced that can lead us to understand it in any other sense, than merely the multitude of the Jews assembled in the wilder

ness. At any rate, he tells us, "That it was an assembly or church of Jews, and not an assembly of Christians, or a church of Jesus Christ." p. 41, 42.

This last part of the reply which I have stated in his own words, is not only a quibble, but a sorry quibble; and similar to an objection that he brings against infant baptismthat baptism is not mentioned in the 17th chapter of Genesis. For, was it to be expected that the church of God would assume, or be called by the name of the church of Christ, until he should come into the world: or that an ordinance would be called by its name two thousand years before the dispensation of which it was a part, commenced, and when another ordinance that prefigured it, was just appointed?

With respect to the first part of the reply, there is that in the passage which in my opinion, fixes the meaning of the word "church" as the church of God. Stephen tells us that in this church in the wilderness, there was an angel, emphatically styled the angel who spake unto Moses in Mount Sinai, and delivered to him what he calls "the lively oracles," to be delivered to their fathers, or the ordinances respecting the worship of Jehovah. I expect that it will be admitted that this angel was none other than the Son of God; and the circumstance of his delivering to the Jews, by the hand of Moses, the lively oracles, is a proof that they were a church in the proper sense of the word: for what is à church of God, but a number of persons set apart for worshipping him agreeably to his own institutions?

That the principle I wish to establish may be the more clearly seen, and the merits of the debate now under review clearly seen also; it is necessary to make a few observations respecting the commencement, nature and design of the church of God. I agree with Mr. C. that the Greek ecclesia, which is

translated church, signifies a number of persons assembled for the purpose of worshipping God, and this implies in it their being possessed of ordinances of divine appointment, as the medium of acceptable worship, and means of grace; but I object, when he says that all these persons must be saints, "or called from darkness to God's marvellous light." Saints, or persons regenerated in the church, are indeed a component part of it; but it was designed to embrace others, whose duty and privilege it is to attend on the ordinances of divine appointment, that by the blessing of God on his own ordinances they may be regenerated. For this definition of the church I have the authority of Christ, who compares the kingdom of heaven, or the gospel church, to "a net cast into the sea, which gathered of every kind," and to "ten virgins, five of which were wise, and five foolish:” and farther proofs of the justness of this definition will be adduced in the course of these letters.

Now, that there was a church of this character from Adam to Abraham, is clearly intimated from what is said in the 5th chapter of Genesis, concerning Seth; "that to him was a son born, and he called his name Enos; then began men to call upon the name of the Lord," or as it is in the margin, " then men began to call themselves by the name of the Lord," probably in contradistinction to Cain, who is said to have gone out "from the presence of the Lord," or separated himself and descendants from his true worshippers. And hence, no doubt, the distinction between "the sons of God, and the daughters of men," the intermarriage of which was the cause of the universal deluge; the latter seducing the former into idolatry. The church at this period was indeed patriarchal, or confined to the families of the faithful; every head of a family being king and priest of the family,

who offered up sacrifice, the only mode of initiation, medium of wor'ship and mean of grace, that we read of at that time, both in his own behalf, and on behalf of his family. This did Abel-this did Noah, when he came out of the ark-and "this did Job continually." In the days of Abraham, polytheism and idolatry so far prevailed as to threaten the very existence of the church; whereupon God revealed himself to that distinguished personage, made the covenant with him already alluded to, and bound himself by the seal of circumcision "to be a God to him, and to his seed after him," to maintain a visible church in his family, or the means of grace, which he had appointed for the salvation of sinners. The privileges of the church were also enlarged at this time, by the appointment of circumcision as a mode of initiation for the males, infinite wisdom seeing that the ancient mode of sacrifice answered all the purpose to the females; fe

promised land, every male was required to appear thrice annually before the Lord in the temple of Jerusalem, for the purpose of offering those sacrifices which. the law required. Here then we have all the characteristics of a church of God— a people separated from the world, and furnished with ordinances for his service; and ordinances too, as I shall show in the proper place, that prefigured the positive institutions under the present dispensation. Hence, then, we find that people designated as a chosen nation"

a kingdom of priests, and a holy' nation"-" and a peculiar treasure" to God, above all people-epithets ascribed by the apostle Peter to the Christian church. "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, and a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." 1 Eph. ii. 9. Hence we read of "the congre

ted to eat of the sacrifices. And as an intimation that in due time the Gentiles would be taken into the church, Ishmael, and the servants of Abraham, “born in his house, or bought with his money from any stranger," were allowed to be circumcised, together with proselytes from the surrounding nations. In Egypt another ordinance was added

the ordinance of the passover, designed not only as a commemoration of the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage, but of a far greater deliverance the deliverance of guilty sinners by the sacrifice of the Son of God; for an inspired penman says, "Even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us." In the wilderness various sacrifices and ablutions were added: the former indicating the necessity of a vicarious sacrifice for sin, and the latter, like circumcision, signifying the necessity of purity of heart in order to salvation. When they entered the

of the Lord-the congregation of saints" and "the assembly of the saints," words of the same import

as.

"CHURCH;" and which might be read, the church of Israel-the church of the Lord-and the church of the saints: and hence, saith the Psalmist in the 3d psalm, "I will praise the Lord with my whole heart, in the assembly of the upright, and in the congregation." From all which the reader is left to judge, whether Stephen meant by "the church in the wilderness," the church of God, or the mere multitude of the Israelites, or an unlawful mob..

But not only is it evident from the foregoing passages, and numberless others that might be adduced, that the Jewish nation, in consequence of the covenant of circumcision, was a visible church of God; but the view I have given of it, exactly accords with what Jehovah himself says of it in 5th chapter of Isaiah, under the metaphor of