and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." Let it here be recollected, that the barren fig-tree in this parable, is not threatened because it was there; for it is expressly said, that it was planted by the orders of the owner of the vineyard. "And a certain man had a fig-tree planted in his vineyard:" but threatened because planted and dug around, and dunged, it did not bring forth fruit. How opposite is this view of the design of the church, as given by God and his Son, to that view which Mr. C., and even some Pædobaptists, give us of it: and how opposite the conduct of Baptists in planting the church, to that of the husbandman, when he is about to plant an orchard or vineyard. The husbandman looks for young trees or plants of the fruit-bearing kind, that have not yet brought forth fruit, and plants, and digs about and dungs them, that they may bring forth fruit: but should they happen to find a tree of the fruit-bearing kind, bearing fruit in the wilderness, they root it up, and then plant it in the vineyard, or the church. How opposite, also, to what is said in the scriptures of Zion, or the church. "And of Zion it shall be said, this and that man was born in her." Psalm 87. And Jerusalem, (another epithet of the church) which is from above, and is free, is said to be "the mother of us all:" but according to their plan, the church is not the mother, but only the nurse of her children. To which I would add the declaration of the apostle respecting the good olive-tree, or the Jewish church, in the 11th chapter of his epistle to the Romans, already adduced. The Jews whom he styles natural branches, were broken off, he tells us, by unbelief; and the Gentiles by faith grafted in their stead. " Well; because of unbelief, they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear." Now it follows by fair consequence, that the faith by which the Jews stood, was a faith that could be, and was lost; but this is not the case with the faith of God's elect: and that the Gentiles were grafted into the good olive-tree, by the same kind of faith by which the Jews were once grafted in, and by which they stood, but which finally degenerated into what the apostle styles "unbelief." And when we look at the history of that nation, it perfectly comports with what the apostle says in that chapter. They fell into idolatry at various times; but as they still worshipped Jehovah in conjunction with their idol gods, and for which they were severely and justly punished, at different times, they were not broken off. Hence, then, we find Jehovah calling them his people, and a people in covenant with him; when at the same time he charges them with the basest idolatry. Hosea iv. 12. They trusted in the proImise of God that he would send them a Redeemer; but when that Redeemer came, "they received him not," but crucified him as an impostor; in consequence of which, with the exception of a small remnant," who received him," they were broken off from the good olive-tree, and the Gentiles grafted in their stead. Their rejecting Jesus as the promised Messiah, was the unbelief, on account of which they were broken off; and the Gentiles receiving him as such, was the faith on account of which they were grafted in, and by which they stand; and although this general faith is not of a saving kind, yet it is involved in it, and a saving faith cannot be, nor exist without it. To this it may be objected that the Mosaic dispensation being typical, and only a shadow of good things to come, was therefore comparatively obscure, and the qualifications of admittance into the church, more general and undefined: but the gospel dispensation being the substance of these shadows, the qualifications are more distinctly defined. Hence, then, faith and repentance, if not always, yet most frequently, are required as prerequisite qualifications of admittance into the church by baptism; and it has generally been admitted that this faith, and this repentance, mean a living faith, and evangelical repentance. I shall therefore now examine this point. The first passage which occurs on this point, is the memorable address of Peter to the Jews, on the day of Pentecost, already adduced for another purpose. "Repent, says he, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." divine impulse, had given the blessing of the birth-right to his brother Jacob, because Esau had sold it to him for a morsel of meat. Again: it is used to signify a sorrow for sin, as exposing to punishment. This, I presume, is its meaning in Mat. xii. 41, when it is said of the men of Nineveh, "that they repented at the preaching of the prophet Jonah." It is also used to signify a sorrow for sin, as not only exposing to deserved punishment; but as offensive to God, and defiling in itself, and which issues in a reformation of heart, and of life. In this sense it is used, 2 Cor. vii. 10. "Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, not to be repented of ;" and when used in this extensive sense, there is often some accompanying word, that fixes its meaning, as in this passage, and in Acts iii. 19. "Repent and be com verted, that your sins may be blotted out." I need scarcely observe to those who are acquainted with the Greek language, that the Greek noun, metanoia, and the verb metanoeo, which are uniformly translated in our Bibles "repentance," and "to repent," are used in the New Tes-verted, that tament in at least three different senses; or rather, that in some places they are used in a more extended sense than in others. This is the case in all languages, on account of the poverty of words; and it is from the drift and design of the writer or speaker, the character and circumstances of the hearers, and other considerations, that we are to ascertain in what sense the word is used. For instance, in Heb. xii. 17, the Greek noun metanoia which is translated repentance, sig-paring his character, with the cha nifies simply "a change of mind," and this is the first and primary meaning of the word. "Lest there be any fornicator or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birth-right. For ye know, that afterwards, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." I need scarcely observe, that the repentance mentioned in this passage, is not predicated of Esau, who is styled "a profane person;" but a change of mind in his father Isaac, who, by a With these remarks in view, let us now inquire from the design of the speaker, and the character and circumstances of the persons addressed, in which of these, senses, we are to understand the verb metanoeo, in the passage now under consideration. The Jews, shortly before had crucified Jesus as an impostor, because he affirmed that he was the Son of God, and their promised Messiah. Peter, by com racter given of the Messiah by the prophets, succeeded in convincing them, that he was really the promised Messiah, whom they expected. The guilt of crucifying as an impostor, their expected Messiah, "pricked" them to the heart; and they said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, " men and brethren, what shall we do." Peter says, Metanousate, change your minds with respect to this Jesus of Nazareth, whom you have considered as an impostor, and crucified as such: and, as an evidence that your change of mind is real, "be bap tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ," or submit to that ordinance which he hath appointed as the badge of discipleship to him. And to encourage them so to do, he adds, "this baptism is for the remission of sins," or a mean appointed by him, that you may rẻceive the remission of your sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost in his sanctifying influences: for, as I have already observed, there is no ground to conclude, from what is said of those who were baptized on this occasion, that they all received the gift of the Holy Ghost in his extraordinary influences in the gift of tongues. This, I think, is the plain, obvious and unsophisticated meaning of the passage, and of the words "for the remission of sins." And what now is the meaning which those who contend that the repentance here mentioned means an evangelical repentance, give to the words "for the remission of sins ?" This: that baptism would be to them a seal or evidence that their sins were remitted, and that they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost. I would ask such to produce any similar phraseology from the New Testament that conveys that idea; and further-do such think there is any person whose mind has not been perverted by a system, who would ever dream that the phrase for the remission of sins, means a seal or evidence of the "remission of sins." When the apostle Paul wished to tell us that "Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised," he uses the words but this surely is only an evidence of their being deeply convinced of sin, but not a scriptural evidence of an evangelical repentance; and the expressions are no stronger than those of Cain, when he said, "my punishment is greater than I can bear ;" or than those of Judas, when he said, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." It may be further objected, that in verses 41, 42, it is said of those persons" that they gladly received the word," and that after their baptism "they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." If from this it is argued, that they were true believers, (and I will not contest the point,) it rather strengthens than weakens my argument, as this is said of them after they were baptized, God, according to the words of Peter blessing his own ordinance for this important purpose. And if it is replied, that it is said of them "that they gladly received the word" previous to their being baptized; this is no stronger an expression than what is said of the stony-ground hearers, in the parable of the sower; nor is it strange that those who had crucified the Lord of life and of glory, as an impostor, would gladly receive the news of a mean for removing the guilt of such an atrocious act. There is another circumstance attending this remarkable event, which, when duly considered may go far in fixing the meaning of the word "repent." Peter, we are told, began his sermon at the sixth hour, or at nine o'clock of our reckoning. How long he preached we are not told, as we have only a skeleton of his sermon. Although there were one hundred and twenty disciples present, we are not told that any of them were clothed with the ministerial character, or had a right to baptize except the twelve apostles. Now, as an evidence of an evangelical repentance could be only obtain ed by conversing with those persons, I would ask, had the apostles time to converse with three thousand, so as to obtain a ground of hope that they were true penitents, and baptize them the same day in any mode : for let it be recollected, that the Jewish day began and ended at the setting of the sun. But as their saying to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" and their readiness to submit to an ordinance appointed by the despised Nazarene, was an evidence of their change of mind respecting Jesus of Nazareth, and that they were convinced sinners; the way was clear for baptizing them immediately, according to my view of the subject; and there was time enough for the twelve to do so by affusion, but surely not by immersion. If to this it is objected, that a profession of the religion of Jesus, was, in those troublous days, a strong evidence of an evangelical repentance; and that the apostles were more competent to decide on the character of men than their successors; I reply-that there was no persecution of the Christians at that time, nor until after the martyrdom of Stephen; and the apostles in such cases were not discerners of the spirits of others. Peter himself had it not in the case of Simon Magus; and only came to the knowledge, that he was in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity, by his offering the apostles money for the purchase of the spirit's extraordinary influences. Although it belongs not immediately to the subject in hand, nor affects my present argument; I would observe, before I dismiss the point, that the observations I have made on the foregoing passage may help to fix the meaning of the repentance connected with the baptism of John. It was a baptism "unto repentance," or designed to produce a change of mind in the Jews respecting the Messiah who was shortly to appear. They expected him as a magnificent conqueror who was to deliver them from the Roman yoke; and were accordingly scandalized at his poor and mean appearance. Besides, they supposed that their relation to Abraham was all that was necessary for salvation. Hence said John to the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to his baptism, "O! generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance," (or evidential of a change of mind in the important point that concerns your salvation) "and think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." should it be contended, that the repentance preached by John, as connected with his baptism was an evangelical repentance: this, however, must be granted, that it was a baptism" unto repentance," or designed to produce that grace in the heart-understand the word as you may, it affects not my argu ment. But Having thus ascertained the nature of the repentance required in order to baptism, I shall now in. quire into the nature of that faith, that is required for the same purpose. The first place we read of faith as a prerequisite for baptism is in the 8th chapter. We are told in verses 12 and 13, that when the Samaritans believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, they were baptized, both men and women. "Then Simon himself believed also, and was baptized." It may be sufficient for my purpose, here just to observe, that there is nothing said of the faith on account of which these persons were baptized that fixes it down to a living faith. The reverse is strongly implied; for the expression is, that "when they believed Philip preach ing the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," or when they professed an assent to the general doctrine, that Jesus of Nazareth was the only Saviour of sinners, "they were baptized both men and women." And indeed the character and conduct of Simon affords a strong presumption, that Philip had not required of him an evidence of a living faith; for can it be supposed, that a person possessed of this faith could suppose that the spirit's extraordinary influences could be purchased by money. But those who differ from me on this subject, no doubt, are now ready to say, there is a baptism recorded in this very chapter-that of the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia wherein the faith required is fixed in its meaning to a living faith, for Philip's words are "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Before I would make any remarks on this memorable transaction, it is necessary to observe, that the question is not, have true believers a right to baptism? for they have a right to all the ordinances of the dispensation of grace under which they live: and the ordinances which were appointed and designed for the conviction and conversion of sinners, were designed for building them up in holiness. I have as. signed my reasons why I consider the Jews who were baptized on the day of Pentecost, were sinners previous to their baptism. It is certain this was the character of Simon Magus; and more than probable, the character of the Samaritans; for it is said of them, "that they all gave heed to his sorceries, and said this man is the great power of God." But what now is the character which is given in this chapter to the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia. If not a Jew, he was a proselyte to the Jewish religion, and he travelled from Ethiopia to Jerusalem, for the purpose of wor shipping the true God according to his own appointments. How was he employed in his chariot on his return?-Reading the prophecy of Isaiah, one of the greatest of the Jewish prophets. What was his conduct, when Philip, a poor man, and probably in mean apparel, joined the chariot, and said, one would think rather abruptly, "understandest thou what thou readest?" Did he frown upon, and repulse him as an impertinent inquisitor? No: he candidly acknowledged his ignorance, and manifested the teachable disposition of a child of God, by desiring Philip to come up, and sit with him in the chariot, for the purpose of instructing him in the meaning of what he read. I have indeed frequently heard from the pulpit, of the conversion of this eunuch but for my own part, I can see the features of an humble and zealous worshipper of the true God, in the short history given of him: And if we must have the word, his 66 CONVERSION" was of the secondary kind: from the Jewish to the Christian dispensations of the grace of God. Whilst at Jerusalem, he had heard, no doubt, from the chief priest, that Jesus was a vile impostor, and was returning to his own country with that pernicious impression. God, in his good providence, sent Philip his way in a miraculous manner, to undeceive him,and preach Jesus to him as the Messiah that was now come. It is implied, in what follows, that Philip unfolded to him the nature and design of the ordinance of baptism, and the obligations on all who acknowledge Christ as Lord and Master, to be baptized into his name. "And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water, and the eunuch said, see, here is water-what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And now, what is there in this |