standing; because the being, and the binding authority of this covenant relation to God, did not at all depend upon any human consent or concurrence whatever. And it appears to be the same case in this cove enant transaction on the plains of Moab: no consent of the people was asked; and the covenant was extended to them that were not present, as well as to them that were. Moses here styles it, "This covenant and this oath," because there is no material difference between a divine covenant, and a divine oath. We find that such as were clothed with a divine commission, had power to lay a person under the solemn ties of an oath, without asking his consent. Such authority the Aaronical high priesthood was vested with, Hence, when our Lord Jesus Christ was brought before the Jewish high priest, he had a divine oath imposed upon him. Matthew xxvi. 63. "But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Here, the high priest acting in his office, imposed a sacred oath upon our Savior, to extort from him a confession of his own divine character and mission, that he might find matter of accusation against him. And then Christ answered him; although under all the questions put to him before, he held his peace; herein reverencing and submitting to the authority of a divine commission, although exercised by a person of a vile and infamous character, and with a very wicked design. Thus also Moses acting with divine authority in this covenant transaction on the plains of Moab, extended the bonds of this covenant, and this oath to them that were absent, as well as to those present, without asking any consent in the case. The instances of covenanting in the days of Joshua and Nehemiah also, are not to be considered as an entrance into a new covenant relation to God: but as a renewal and recognition of that covenant relation which before subsisted, for special reasons at that time proper. If we proceed in our inquiry, and survey the practice of the Apostles, we shall find no account of any verbal covenanting or promises made by such as they received as members of the church, under the gospel dispensation. The first instance of their admission, is recorded Acts ii. where we find three thousand taken into the church in one day. When they were pricked in their heart by the conviction set before them of their heinous crime of crucifying the Savior, they said unto Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, " "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter answers," Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." And we are told in the 41st verse, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand." We have not the least hint that the apostles first led them to make any promises, or to enter into any covenant engagements whatever, before they were baptized: but that by which they were added to the church, was their being baptized. All the vows, promises, or covenant engagements that could be spoken with tongue, would not have made them members of the church, or visible disciples of Christ: it was baptism, and that only that could do it. There was at that time no other way known or practised of uniting with the church, but by being baptized, as we have any the least hint of in the bible; which is the only rule we have to go by in this matter. And after they were baptized, it is said of them, "That they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." As soon as they were baptized, they were esteemed and treated as members of the church in complete standing, in fellowship with the apostles in all church privileges; even in the Lord's supper, which is here styled "breaking of bread," as well as other christian privileges. Another remarkable instance we have in Acts x. when Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius; while he was speaking, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. Upon this, Peter said, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Here also we find not the least hint of any previous covenanting, or any thing like it, before Peter commanded them to be baptized; nor any thing else required of them, in order to their enjoyment of all the privileges of the visible church. Audwe may here further observe, that the apostle Peter, acting with a divine commission, as Moses did on the plains of Moab, without asking any previous consent, enjoined the covenant upon them in commanding them to be baptized. To these we may add, the instances of Lydia and the jailor, Acts xvi. in which there appears nothing but baptism required of them. Having thus brought into view the principal texts that can discover to us what the practice of the apostles was, in their receiving people to the communion of the church; we may from thence collect an answer to the question under consideration, viz. What it is that makes a person a member of the visible church, and gives him a right to all the privileges of its communion in special ordinances? We must say, It is no verbal profession of the faith, nor any covenant engagements which we express with our mouths, that will do it there appears no other way of being added to the church, but by receiving that ordinance which God hath appointed to be the initiating seal of his covenant. Thus it was under the law of Moses, while circumcision was the instituted rite by which a person entered into covenant with God. There was no way of becoming a me.ber of the church at that time, but by circumcision. To this agrees the command of God to Moses, Exod. xii. 48. "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover unto the Lord let all his males be circumcised; and then let him come near and keep it," Here is no verbal covenanting directed to: but it was only by over. submitting to the rite of circumcision, that the stranger acquired a right to come near and keep the passAnd it is a like case under the gospel, where baptism succeeds in the room of circumcision. A person must be taken into covenant by baptism, before he can have a visible right to the privileges of the covenant: but when the stranger is baptized, he thereby acquires a visible right to come near, and partake at the Lord's table. Herein we see, that baptism is a significant ordinance; and the import of it is fixed by its divine author as a covenanting act. We thereby confirm, or enter into covenant with God, are laid under covenant bonds, and are entitled to covenant privileges; all which further appears from the institution of it.Matth. xxviii. 19, 20. "Go teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Here is contained the institution of christian baptism. Indeed, we read of baptizing before this. John the baptist did baptize; and so did the disciples of Christ, before his suffering: but the baptism of John was not christian baptism but quite another ordinance, instituted for another purpose, and had quite another meaning. Indeed, John used water in his baptism; and in that respect it had some resemblance of christian baptism; Lut in all other respects, it was quite different. Objection. Jesus himself was baptized by John. And was not that christian baptism? Christian Answer. Not at all the more for that. baptism is an ordinance appointed by Christ himself; by which, our relation to him, as his covenant-people is confirmed. But Christ's being baptized by John doth not in the least prove. John's baptism to be christian baptism. Nothing can be more evident than that John's baptism and christian baptism are two different things. John did not, by his baptism, bring people into a covenant relation to God; for : they were as much in covenant with God before as afterwards: He did not make them members of the visible church; for they were members of it before : His baptism could not be instituted by Christ; for he was before Christ; and therefore it could not be christian baptism. John's baptism referred to a Saviour to to come; but christian baptism refers to one already come. Christian baptism is administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost but John did not baptize in the name of the Son, because he had not then publicly appeared; nor did he baptize in the name of the Holy Ghost, for some that had received his baptism, had not so much as heard whether there was any Holy Ghost. See Acts, xix. 1, 5, "Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Haye ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, unto, John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptisin of repentance, saying unto the people, That they should believe on him which should come after him, this is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Je sus. From this text also it further appears, that some who had been baptized by John, were afterwards again baptized with Christ's baptism;* which unde *It is pleaded by many learned men that we must understand this fifth verse to be the words of the apostle Paul; and not the words of Luke (who is supposed to be the pen. man of the book of the Acts of the Apostles) in his recording this discourse between the apostles and the disciples of John; because the de in this verse, stands as a redditive to the men, expressed by Paul in the foregoing fourth verse. And it must be acknowledged that it is agreeable to the Greek language for the word men to be thus followed with de as a redditive to it: yea, perhaps this is always the case, unless in, such instances where there is an ellipsis in the discourse. But this notwithstanding, I am of the opinion |