P-*^ ■.-•K^ 
 
 
 m 
 
 ,V''*m7^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 2i« " }^J 
 
 
 1 
 
 ' BAP 
 
 if 51 5. 
 
 %^ 
 
 Co 
 
 ?1 1 
 
 

 
 1 
 
 
 <^ PRINCETON, N. J. <f^ 
 
 Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agiicic Coll. on Baptism, No. jSCZ-S^^C^ 
 
 
 
 
/? 
 
 # 
 
 I 
 
 -''^ 
 
 s. 
 
 
 AS 
 
I 
 
 t 
 
fXi^.^y^^ 
 
 c 
 
 
 at^* 
 

 Av;% 
 
 
 \^ 
 
 
V 
 Q 
 
 <? 
 
 i fuv, Ur>, <;v/ial3 (i.^l-Jte "f^; *^''^.ftY.^,' 
 
 jUti^ <tk^ .^f^ ^-.r-i^-. «^ . ^^ ^.tnr:^ 
 
 
•^'•tt. e.^^ 0^-^*^ ' f^; ,,U,fa^-^' t*" 
 
ANSWER 
 
 TO 
 
 Mr. JOSEPH MOORE, THE METHODIST; 
 
 <t^ITa A FEtIf 
 
 FRAGMENTS ON THE DOCTRIN0 
 
 DV 
 
 JUSTIFICATION, 
 
 By DAVID AenkFL, 
 ItottCT of the Evangelic Luthci an Chu- rh, t eniatng in lAncotn eitunfy, y. C. 
 
 NEW MAKKET, Va, 
 
 f&lIiTED IN 9. B£MCEl'» OFFicfij fiV 9. G. B£l^&EIri 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 A few years past, a treatise on holy baptism, en- 
 titled " Heavenly flood of regeneration, " written by 
 myself, was published. It contains some of the viewB 
 of Lutherans, on that subject, without once naming 
 the Methodist sect ; hence without intending any con- 
 troversy. Notwithstanding, one of their preachers .• 
 viz. Joseph Moore, with whom I have no personal 
 acquaintance, attacked said treatise in a series of 
 Strictures, in which he attempts to prove the doctrine^ 
 contained in my treatise, as erroneous and dangerous. 
 Mr. Moore, being the aggressor, no generous person, 
 it is hoped, will attach any blame to me, when I stand 
 
 in m^ PX^n dffep^^v\%\ v . » 
 
 . THE AUTHOE. 
 
 Writttn in Jefferson counftfi^ 
 KENTUCKY, 
 m the month of June, 1%VS, 
 
3 ^^^ ■ 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 Jtt i« ihewn how Mr. Moore attempts to impress the minds of the readt^ 
 with the idea, that I teach in my treatise, that baptism ia regeneration iV 
 self; but this statement is fa se. 
 
 Mr Joseph Moore in the preface to his strictures on my 
 treatise, sa^s, that " to every niiOrmed and unprejudiced mind 
 it carried us own con lemiiati;<n " It" this be correct, what 
 need had he, to misrepreseni thevioctrinis contained inh, tor 
 the purpose oi giving them a retutalioii ? A simpie review of 
 them, in their original cotours, v\ould have sufficed, to convince 
 informed minds oi their supposed luti'it} . He on the hi st page, 
 states, that I say, baptism is reaeneratiun ; and frequently as- 
 serts the same, in many other passages ; and vehemently la- 
 bours to prove that baptism cannot be regeneration ; which 
 tends to make my treatise a])p. ar ledicukms. But neither Mr, 
 M. nor any other person ever saw in it, unless it was in a be- 
 wildered imaginatj.n, that bap ism was regeneration He no 
 where pointed ut the page, where I call it so : tor this obvious 
 reason ; because he could not 1 call baptism, ihe ordinary 
 means of regeneration .• but who does not perceive the pa'pa» 
 ble dilierence, between the means of, and regeneration itsell ? 
 In order to give it the appeaiance,as if I taught, that baptism 
 was regeneration, he in a clandestine manner assert^, that I 
 say: *' baptism is regeneration, or a heavenly tiond ot regener- - 
 ation " Why is the expletive conjunction Ovj here introduced ? 
 This is to insinuate, that a heavenly flood ofregen« ration is the 
 same as regeneration itself This betrays either ignorance, or 
 else Wilful perversion. The rules of grammar ought to teach 
 any common eng ish scholar, that a flood of regeneration, is 
 not the same as regeneration itself. When I say, ** the mother 
 of a child," any person may know, that 1 do not mean, that 
 the mother is the child. " F'ood of regeneration," is a similar 
 phrase, is parsed in the same manner ; ad implies nothing 
 more than a flood, which as a means, is to effect regeneration. 
 Had I in any passage of my treatise, as Mr. M. erroneously 
 asserts, said, that baptism was regener.;tion, he could not only 
 have proved it unscriptural ; but also ludicrous A man who 
 is regenerated, is a new creature ; hence it would be absurd, to 
 call baptism the new ereatnre. With equal propriety it may be 
 said, that the Holy Ghost is not the new birth ; for the new 
 creature is not the Holy Ghost himself. But how congenial 
 to orthodoxy! when we say : the Holy Ghost is the cause, and 
 regeaeratioQ the e£fect» Or^ to make the order replete ; iht 
 
4 
 
 Holy Ghosf is the cause, baptism by which he operates the 
 means, and regciieiation the etiect. Correct reasonei s lu ver 
 blend the cause and eft'ect together, so as to make them the 
 same thing 
 
 As ludicrous as Mr. M. would have rendered my treatise, 
 provided, he could have pruven. that I taught baptism, was re- 
 generation, even so ahsui d i>- what he says, page 6 in his stric- 
 tures : " Thus we are born again tVoni above, by a spiritual 
 biith ; not of corruptible things; such as silver and gild (nor 
 by the natural water in baptism) but by the precious blood of 
 Christ— the word and spirit of God." I Pet 1. 18, 19, 2H- A- 
 greeable to this, we are born again by a spiritual birth, and in 
 the meanwhile, by the precious b'ood of Christ, the word and 
 spirit of G>>d ; which makes the spiritual bii ih, and the blood 
 of Christ, &e. the same thing. Now, who can believe, that 
 the blood of Christ, the word and spirit ot God, are the spiritu- 
 al birth ? Had Mr. M. reasoned correctly, he would not have 
 said, th.it we are born again by a spiritual birth — and then add : 
 by the precious blood o- Christ, the word and spirit of God, 
 thereby making the former and 'atter synonimous ; but like a 
 man of sound logick, he wou d have said : the blood of Christ 
 is the meritorious, and the spirit, the applying cause ; and 
 the spiritual birth the effect. Again, to be born, as Mr M. 
 says, by a spiritual birth is out oi the question ; for the spiritu- 
 al biith is the act of brhiging the spiritual child into life ; hence 
 to be born by a birth, is thi- same as to say, to be bom by be- 
 ing born; which is nonsense. Is it possible, that he does not 
 understand the rudiments of language better, than to say we are 
 born by a birth !! 
 
 It is not necessary to review all the arguments, Mr. M pro. 
 duces to prove, that baptism is not regeneration ; as 1 know of 
 no person, who pretends to assert the contrary ; and in partic- 
 ular nothing of the kind is to be found in my treatise ; hence he 
 labouring to prove, that baptism is not regeneration ; is a'l the 
 while, 'ike a war like hero, fightmg his own shadow. Why 
 does he attempt, to impress his readers, with the false idea, that 
 I teach baptism is rtgeneration ? Is he no scholar ? Does he 
 as a christian, and a Methodist minister, not venerate the truth ? 
 He must, in the very commencement, have despaired of his 
 pretended refutation ; otherwise he would not have taken his 
 reiuae to a glaring falsehood : by saying, that I teach, baptism 
 is regeneration J Did he think, that his readers, were so ig. 
 norant, that they could not perceive the difference, betwet^ik 
 the means of, and regeneration itself ? 
 
SECTION II. 
 
 Mr. Moere charges the doctiine of consubstantiatio« tipon the LuthejTDa 
 church ; an : asserts, that upon this ground 1 maintain mv views with res* 
 pect to baptism. All this is shown to be groundless. His argument 
 Icaiis to a denial of the influence ot the Hoi^ Spiiit, &.C. 
 
 Mr. Moore (page 21, 22| is very careful, tn shew his readers 
 the meaning o;' the word consubstantiatii.n. He defines ii ii cm 
 Jolinson's, Bailey's and Entu k's (lictionarifs, to be ot the same 
 substance, kind or nature ; existencs oi mote than < ne in th& 
 same substance, &c. He then procetds: " Ft on. the above 
 definitions it appears, that consub&tantiaticn is the ccrnecting 
 and un ting two natures, beings, or things together, so as to 
 form one ; or so a-^ to exist together as une. Hence Luther 
 taught, that the body and b'ood oi Christ vv^ere united to the 
 bread and Wine, in the eucharist, so as to b»:come one sub- 
 stance, or to exist together as one. Therefore when ihey par- 
 took of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, they actual- 
 ly ate and drank the body and blcod of Christ, This ditiers 
 but very litth from the papish doctrine of transubstantiat on.'^ 
 And then page 28, he says • '• This is ihe way that Air H. has 
 proven that water baptism is a heavenly flood ot reg( nt i ation, 
 1. e. by connecting and joining to it, the word, the spirit, and 
 the name of God ; which, he says, 's God himseil. lie there- 
 by makes water-baptism one with these, — possessing the same 
 properties and regenerating qualities that the VNor(i,ihe spiiit, 
 and that God himself posse'^ses. This certainly is const. bs«tan- 
 tiation. Because the water in baptism is made one vs ith all 
 these, and exist together as one, possessing the properties ajid 
 healing virtues that they possess. There ore whtn th vAatrr 
 in baptism is applied to the person, the graces oi the v\orc! and 
 spirit, and the communicable perlections ol God^arc eonve^ed 
 with it to the soul. And if this he the case, nd wonder that 
 water baptism should be a heavenly flood of regenerat on. or 
 the ordinary means by which people are regenerated.'' He 
 also quoted sundry passages from my tieatise, which speak of 
 a connection between the word of God, and the water in bap- 
 tism ; from which he very confidently in ersconsubsiantiaticn. 
 
 Answer: Mr. M. says: *' Hence Luther taught, that the bo- 
 dy and blood of Chri-t w ere united to the bread and wine, m 
 the eu'harist, so as to become one substance. &c." The v> oi d 
 hence, presupposes a reason. What is the reason, thnt Luther 
 taug'it this doctrine? Mr. M. assigns this as a reason ; that, 
 '^oonsubstantiation is the conuecting and uniting tw o natures, 
 
feeings or thing^s tosrether, so as to 'brm one, &c, ^'henct^ Lu- 
 ther t laght, &c This is no evidence, that Luther taught, ihe 
 <iocti-ai3 oi" consubstuutsation ; because it means the joining of 
 two things together, so as to become one I might uith as 
 mdch p -opri'ty argue; the word transabstantiation, signifies, 
 the hangeof one substance into another; hence Mr. M. leach- 
 es this doctrine. Bat the truth is, it does not matter what con- 
 Siibstantlation and transubstantiaton signify ; for it does not 
 prove that L i her taught the former, nor Mr. M. the latter* 
 If M •. M .V ml I p ove, that Luther taught consubstantiation, 
 he mast resort to better evidence, it there be any. He, by im. 
 poking the doctrine of consubstantiation, upon the Lutheran 
 ch ii-ch, and my treatise, has adopted the best method in his 
 po ver, to ren 1 r th tn both objects of ridicule ; and to obtain 
 a datum, on which to found his conelusions Consubstantia- 
 tion, relative to the sacraments of the church, is a glaring er- 
 ror: for if the Lor I's body atid blood are incorporated with 
 bi'ead an 1 wine, so as to becotne one with them ; then indeed^ 
 these elements would participate aU the divine perfections ofc' 
 the L)rd ; it wou d be similar to God's incarnation ; and they 
 woul 1 become obj els of worsliip. The same may be said 
 with respect to the Holy G";io-,t , and water in baptism. Now, 
 who among protestants, does not know, that such a doctrine is 
 fraught with idolatry ? 1 will not dispute the definition, he 
 has g ven of consubstantiation ; nor the affinity he speaks of, 
 t'lat it b -ars to transubstantiation. Although, in the nature of 
 things, there is a different^e. But, that Lu he. taught consub- 
 stantiation, and that the same idea is exhibited in my treatise, 
 leann >t forbear, but to say, is a positive falsehood, I know 
 tliat Ml'. Charles Buck, in his theological dictionary, asserts 
 that L'thr taught this dortrine ; which leads some honest 
 men into an error. Buck, in this instance shows himself, 'ike 
 a very ignorant man. The liUtheran doctrines, have been 
 liitherto, principary extant in the German language. In all 
 probability Buck, knew as much of the German, as Mr. M. 
 Th.^y b )th being extremely ignorant in this language, they 
 without hesitation, slander the Lutheran community ; and cause 
 other ign oranl p rsons to blaspheme, who like Paul, before his 
 conversion, think they are doing God a service. I shall here 
 tr msliite the lOlh artic'e of the Augustan confession, the creed 
 of Lutherans, which will shew for itself: viz 
 
 *'0*'the Lord's supper, we teach thus . that the true body 
 and blood of Christ, are truly present, administered, and re- 
 ceived in the Lord's supper, under the figure of bread ao^ 
 ■^ino wherefore tho contrary dectrine is rejected.'* 
 
There is a rnanifest difference, between the body and blood 
 of Christ being present, aiul adniiiiifetf rt(i ii.fUr the t gnu of 
 bread and wine ; and thi- bod) and bldod uniting to bicad and 
 wine, so as to become one with them, or to be incoipniated, 
 Wliere did Mr. M. fver see in the Lniheran creed, that Christ 
 became o/ze w ith bread and w inc ? Ot in n.y treatise, that the 
 Holy Ghost, was connected with I he water, so as to becone 
 one with the same ? It is true, I said, the} were con^iecied ; 
 but Mr. M. slyiy slips in, "So as to become one ;" as i^ to be 
 connected, and to becone one, were synoninious. W ho au- 
 thorised hin;, to add to n y wi rds, "So as to becon e one r''^ 
 There is a considerable difterence between, a thing, beir.gcon- 
 nected w ith another ; and becoming one w ith it; as, lor instance, 
 the ocean is coi nected with the ( ontinent; but is not beccnu one 
 th ng with it ; whereas the Son of Cod was made flesh, and is 
 thereby not simply connected w ith, but is also in reality beccme 
 one w ith the same. Lest any person should be at a loss to 
 know, what manner of connection i alluded to, I called w ater 
 in baptism, a vehicle of the command of Christ, and the nan e 
 of the holy Trinity. Mr. M. himself, informs U'-jO'i the signi- 
 fication of a vehicle ; viz. " a conduct, p pe, tube, gutter, &c. 
 by which water or any liquid is conveyed to any p ace. Also 
 any kind of carriage, or vessel for the purpose of con\ eying any 
 thing from place to place." page 16. I acknowledge the cor- 
 rectness of this definition. Now, I hope, he will understand, 
 that a vehicle is not consubstantiated, (nor is it become one) 
 with the thing it conveys. For instance, a man riding in his 
 coach, it is the vehicle to convey him ; but who would conclude; 
 because he is connected with the coach, that therefore, he has 
 become one substance with it? Or, that, because he rides in 
 it ; therefore it becomes rational, like himself ? Or, a chalice 
 contains wine ; hence its vehicle ; thet elore the chal.ce has be- 
 come one thing with the wine ? No man of a sound mind, 
 would diaw any such conclusions. Neither w ould he call the 
 coach, an emblem of the man ; but the coach is simply a 
 coach, no matter whosoever may ride in it Now, if water in 
 baptism, is a vehicle of the spirit ; then the water is no more 
 to the spirit, than the coach is to the man, who rides in it. E- 
 qually so, bread & wine, in the eucharist are vehicles of the bo- 
 dy and blood of Christ ; as the Augustan concession saith : they 
 are present, administered, and received under the figure 
 (not consubstantiated) of bread and wine. Where in all this, 
 is there any idea of consubstantiation ? 
 
 Moses informs us, " that the Lord appeared unto him in & 
 flame Oi fire out of the midst of a bubh," Exod. 2, 'i. Again 
 
8 
 
 be says: "the Lord descened in the cloud, and stood with 
 him tliere, &c." ch. 34, 5. Ii is a wender, that Mr >i. does 
 not also, impeach Moses with the doctrine o! consubstantiation; 
 and thus make him a half bi other to the p-.pe ; ior i:^ oses as- 
 serts, that the Lord appeared in a burning bush, and in a 
 cloud. He might easily convict Moses ot this doc"rine,by sly- 
 ly slipping in : '' the L/Ord has becoire one wi.h the burniiig 
 bush and the cloud " From these passages of scripture, it is 
 evident, that the Lord employed ihe burning bish unti the 
 cloud, as mediums, through which, to negociate with his ser- 
 vant Moses, without being consubstantiuted with thtm. The 
 Lord is also said to '^ make the clouds his chaiiot, and to 
 walk upon the wings of the wind." Ps. 104. 3. If the cUmds 
 be his chariot, they are also his vehicle. Could the inspired 
 writer with p opriety say, that the c ouds are the chariot, on 
 which the Lord rides, without involving the idea oi consub- 
 stantiation ; where can be the inconsistency when 1 call water 
 in baptism, and the elements in the euchar st, the blessed 
 clouds in which God descends to act and commune ^^ith sin- 
 ners? This is figuratively^ what I called literally, a vehicle 
 in my treatise. 
 
 Was it not sufficient, to inform Mr. M. that I meant no 
 consubstantiation, when I called water a vehicle o! God's name 
 and Spirit. This clue ought to have induced him, as an htn- 
 est and correct logician, to view all my expressions, relative 
 to the connection between the spirit and the water in the same 
 light. Hence it is not necessary, to examine all the passages 
 he has quoted from my treatise, to prove that I n)aintain con. 
 substantiation ; as all the phrases in it, relative to the C(*nn._c- 
 tion between the water and the spirit, are sufficiently qualified 
 in their meaning, by calling the former a vehicle ot the latter* 
 "Now, Mr. M can answer his own questions : " Whether 
 the water changes from its natural elementary state into the 
 spirit? Or whether the Holy Spirit changes fiom hi? pure 
 and spiritual, into the natural state of the elementaiy vater ?" 
 page 31. As the doctrine of consubstantiation is not to be 
 found in my treatise ; hence his questions are impertinent. 
 
 He also censures a phrase, which I quoted trom Duct. Lu« 
 ther's writings : viz. when Luther calls baptism " a divine, 
 blessed, fruitful, gracious water." I answer: This by no 
 means implies consubstantiation. A divine, bit ssed ^c wa- 
 ter, implies no more, than a divine cloud, or chariot, in w hich 
 the Lord descended, to proclaim his goodness, 'ongsufleting 
 and mercy, without any consubstant'ation. So I may also 
 say : an imperial throne ; beciiuse a roya' person sits on, Mid 
 not because he is cunsubstuntiated with it. 
 
St. Paul declares : "Ye are the temple of the I'ving GocI ; 
 ^s Gj I 'Ml h said, I will dwell in tlie.n, i.u,i wilk n lli m ; 
 and 1 will be the r God,&c. " 2 Cor. 6, 16. ''God hath s.ist 
 forth the spirit of his Son, n o your iieaits, ciyiiii.', Abbi., Fa- 
 ther." Gai. 1.6, Again — "But he that i^-j-iie' ut.to ihe 
 Lord is one spirit. — What ! know ye notihat \oii! bocl\ ist; e 
 ♦emple of the Holy Ghost which is in yrii. &:c. '' 1 • or. 6 17, 
 19. Accord ns: to Mr. M's logick Si. Paui tauiiht the tioc- 
 ti"i:e o: consnbstantiat;on ; because he bays, that God dwe Is 
 and walk- in the saints, and his spirit is in tb.eir heaits, and 
 their bofly is his te iple. The Apost'e ir.aniiest y speaks o, a 
 connexion, belween the Holy bpi-i and the Saints; J ut \i ho 
 wou'd concrhide ; be<'ause the spirt dwells in, and is ct nnett- 
 •d vvah thcin ; therefore he and the saints bi.vf becon e one 
 subsiance ; hence, they like the spi; it have become infinite and 
 almighty? It is ev dent, tha God may dweM in, anl operate 
 •n a saint ; and yet n^t become tuie substance. Hence, i: so, 
 why can the spi.it n >t be coniiected with the \\ater in baptism, 
 without being consubstantiated with the supm^: Ii Mr. M. rea- 
 sons consistently, he must also deny, that God dwells in the 
 sain s, or that they are intluenced by toe H- ly Spirit ; be. ause, 
 according to his statements, God and the saints would becon iC 
 cue substance ; for as much, as he conckides, that the spirit 
 could not be conne^tid with the water without consubstiintia- 
 kon being the infallible resu't. Saints have materia' bodies, 
 and so, is water a materia' substance. Now, if th' sp'rit an 
 dsvell in the b.idies of s jnts, as his temple, \> ithout leirj: (lie 
 substance, he m y eqiia' y, be connected with u ater. with ut 
 any other consequence. Whether Mr. M. f)rmaly denies the 
 ir'.fluence of the s[)irit, I do not asset Such as ari;ue against 
 Lutherans, impe ching them with the doctrine o eon-iubsian- 
 tiation b.^^ause they maintain, that the e'ements in the Lord's 
 Supper are connected wiiU the body and blood ; ;ind water in 
 "baptism with the spirit, perhaps do not know, th^it thpy are 
 laying th;* vcv foundation, for denying the d\\ eVini?" of God in 
 his Nuints. and theinflu nee of th-^ spirit. For whatever may be 
 •aid asra nst the one. eqiia'ly v\ ill apply to the other. I I s:ty : 
 Shou d the wa'ei- in bapism be connected 'Aith the spirit, lh(n 
 he i.; also eon-ubstantiated with it : hence the •>. ater possesses 
 a'l the heal ni an 1 '=anctif\ing influences rf the !=piiit, \ea it 
 becomes like the sp-rit. 'nfini e : nd omnipotent: T mfiy with 
 eqad proor'ety arg^ue : if the Ho'y Sn it d\% e'ls n a saint, 
 then he has b *eo'ne one sib-;tance withthi* spirit ; henc he pos- 
 S'^ss-s al' the h'^a'injr md •saneti V ng influence-, and yen like 
 ihe sprit has become infinite and omnipotent, and an object of 
 
Id 
 
 supreme adoration ! Now, Mr. M. must either deny llic ior. 
 flueiive ui ihe spiiit; oi" else must see, that his argument is a 
 ba elaced sopaism. If we are not influeneed by the spirit, 
 wuat have we to guide us, but our fallen reason and visiuuary 
 Piuntoiu> ? Tiiis is nothing short t'f Deism. 
 
 It 1 were a Deist, I would thank Mr M. for his argu- 
 ment ; as it v\ould serve me to prove how absurd it is, to be- 
 lieve that the Holy Ghost dwells in, or operates on any n.an; 
 hence I wou<d impeach all chrij^tians with superstition, or 
 maintaining the idea of eousubstantiation, in that they believey 
 G id dwells .n them ; which makes him and them one sub- 
 stance ; hence they all would become supreme Gods ! But 
 blessed be God / no such sophistry is sufficient to prove, that 
 God is not with, and does not operate upon h s saints. He 
 however, does not simply operate upon intelligent beings ; but 
 also upon ail his creatures: lor " he upholds all things by the 
 word of his power;" Heb. 1, § — "in him we live, move and 
 have our being ; " Acts 17, 28 — and where in all rreation can 
 any space be ibuiid where he is not present r Ps. 139 — and 
 yet, is he neither conioundtd, nor eonsubstantiuted with any 
 thing; neither excluded nor included. Now, what strange 
 thing have I said, in this, that the spirit of God was connec- 
 ted with water in baptism ; that it Was his vehicle ; or, to 
 speak figuiatively, his blessed cloud, or chariot, in which he 
 descends to treat with, and to shed abroad his influence upon 
 siimers ? I have said nothing absurd; unless we believe, 
 that Moses reconled an absurdity, when he Si.y^., that : " the 
 spirit of God moved upon the waters ; ' Gen 1, 2 — and un- 
 less, we believe it absurd, that God operates through m. tiy 
 mediums on his works, of which there are mar , exi^mples. 
 
 .Mr M. Says : (pag SO^i " It appears to r :, agreeable to 
 the doctrine of St. Paul, thai the preaching <'i ..-ie gospel is the 
 oi dinary means of regeneration ; or the means by w hich peo- 
 ple a-'e eniblefl to i)elieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, so as to 
 be saved. '' He also acknowledges, p. 24 — that the spirit is 
 connected with the word. Preaching is performed with the 
 lun.gs, and the organs of speech, with the assistance o' the air ; 
 an! the vord being connected with the spirit ; hence, the s|)ir- 
 it would as much he consubstantiated with the words, that 
 flow from the preacher's lips, as with the vAat«T in bapti-m. 
 Whit can be the ditYerence, whether I belii ve the spiri; is 
 connected with the words, that are formed by the organs of 
 8))eeoh and the air, or liiat he is connected with water If 
 one is eon-^ubstantiation tbeolheris the same. So that, in the 
 same manner, in which he impeaches me with this doctrine. 
 
u 
 
 Kie h.rlds it himself. But, to speak the truth, neither the preatii:. 
 iij^- nor tht uater is consubstaiitiaud \\\.h tli< ^pili^ ; but 
 they are mediums by which he o))erates. 
 
 I mu^t yet o!)seiTe, that although God is not consubstantia-. 
 ted with any thing in all creation ; yc-, the blessed and niys- 
 teiious incarnation ol' Christ is an only exception The Son. 
 o G.)d, does not only dwell in, and operate upon the human- 
 ity, he assumed ; but has be ome one with the same : lor "the 
 Worrl was made flesh. " John 1, U. Nevertheless, h. was 
 miule fleshy without any mixture or confusion ot the two na- 
 tores. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 3Ir M. confidently a=serts, that I make a little water in bantism equal to. 
 Goc! ; by which he attempts to convict me of an absindiiv. am, b!as« 
 phemy. But it is shevwi, that he has taken unfair means to do it, and 
 that his assertion is a calumny. 
 
 That Mr M has charged me w ith the doctrine of consub- 
 stantiatiun, was unfaii , and groundless ; ye , not so horrid, as 
 wh'n he confidently charges me, with making a little ■v^ iter 
 jn baptism, equal to God. If the charge ware ti ue, tiiere coidd 
 b>- no greater absurdity, and blasphemy ; and it vouUl be 
 ^iifhcient to render me the most lidiculous and odious charuc- 
 tei-. Mr. M. has really exhibited this charge, with its b.uS- 
 ph.Mnuus consequences. 
 
 Hi^ "^ays, " Mr. H., in section 8. caps the climax, where 
 he makes water baptism equal to God himself ; which I never 
 could have believed any man wouM have done, had I not secjj 
 it myse r. " page 26. And in his note, page §3. he says^ 
 ** Thus you may see that Mr. H ke^ ps up the idea that bap^ 
 tism is equal to God ; which seems to me to be almost hias- 
 phemy to make a little water in baptism equal to the eternal 
 God." This horrid charge, he attempts to establish by tlie 
 foMowing passages, which occur in my treatise ; and wh'fh 
 I sha'l here transcribe : viz " I 
 
 * Hoy baptism owes its value, dignity, and majesty, to the 
 Saviour's command, and the name oi the Holy Trinity, in 
 •which it is performed, ' 
 
 ' The cnmmand of Christ, and the name of the Holy Ttmir 
 ty, onstitutc the ground -work of baptism, and water i-^ t'leii* 
 vehicle* I^ow, as valu^bie^ as holy, as saving, and as ve^^i- 
 
<2 
 
 eWe, as the name or Go.l is, just so valuable, holy, saving and- 
 veiuTub e is buptisiii ; because that name is the giounu uirk 
 there..l ' 
 
 ~" ' G >d's na ne in the scr"ptures is frequently put for himself; 
 a- iur iti>tan^t', • I am the Loid : that is my name. " Isa. 4, 
 2, 8 Til • L nil is his name ; this name is the Lord " 
 
 ' Baplisn is vci y Holy, because God's name, w hich is 'n it, 
 is !i.ly.&". Ti»e six winged Seraphim, in their ieci|;rccal 
 ha: mony, L-rie I holy, ho'y, holy, is the liOrd God ot hosts ; 
 the whole earth is luh oT hi- gloiy. I^a 6. 2, 8 The heaV' ns 
 aie <;l,trious, and the angels .ue holy ; but v\hai are they in 
 c inpalsun to t'ie thrice holy Jehovah! They are ereated ; 
 hence noi the a ithors o* theii' gloiy and ho'iness, \Nhich they 
 p ;ssess on'.y n a limitt^d manner, by the wi 1 nl their creator. 
 B it G id is selt-oiiainal ; the oiig n ol hmse'^", is in himse • : 
 liis h-rliness, 'iki* hinisel'', is uii-^reated ; a love y beauty, and 
 excf ! enee, incomprehensible. «nsh: ined in light ina cessible. 
 Tils ho!ine-^s is jcined to water, and w ith it const tutes the 
 chii-t an baptism ; for God's name is in it. and this name is 
 thf same as himsp!r,the thrice holy God the n'ysterious gieat 
 I A?»I 'I'hus baptism is intin te'y moie holy than all the 
 %vii:gcd host"- of ungels, and more glorious thiiii the heavens; 
 \ e anse God's r a'^ e is in it. ' Heaven v flood ofregeneration, 
 paa[e 1-2, 18. 14, 15. 
 
 On the-;" pas-ages Mr. M. observes : '• Here you may see 
 that ' r. H makes water baptism equal to God. For 1st, 
 he -ays: 'G.^id's name is G uj hims-lf,' thireiure includes all 
 the periections that belong to the eternal Godhead. Now 
 says he 'a- valuible, as holy, as ^aving anrl veneiable, as the 
 rame of G d s, (which according to him, is God himself) ^ 
 j)st so valuable, holy, saving, and venerable is baptism;* 
 t!-e!eO!<-j water baptism is equal to God himself ; i. e p )s- 
 S'sses all t!iose valaab^e, holy, saving, and venerable prrjper- 
 ties ani qua'itie-, \\ hich belong to God l" Again he says, 
 *' T'l'.is it is evi lent, that Mr. H makes baptisu' equal to God 
 in gl M-y and holiness. This holiness, which as Mi' H. says, 
 '^ 's j ined to the *^ a^er, " is infinite ; therefore w aier baptism 
 is inhnite,henc , as he says," is infinitely more ho'y than alt the 
 vinged ho<ts olangtds^ and more glorious than the hea\en*,'* 
 TTow I miglit ask, what is infinilely more holy than all the 
 lusrs of ana:els? The answer is, God only. But Mr. H. i 
 
 6:i>'s, water baptism is : therefore, water baptism is equal to I 
 
 G)d in holness. '' page 27. 
 
 To al t'lis I answer, that none of those passasres, whiek 
 jyir, M, has quoted from my treutiscj say the least thing about 
 
 ^'\ 
 
 An 
 
IS 
 
 "water bein^ as holy, or in any other respect cc[nal to €lo<3+ 
 He is chailetjgid to produce a singic expression, uliiciibays 
 that water in bapiism iS ttjia! to laid. 
 
 In order to avert the idea iVom the reader's mind, ihafe 
 water was as hoiy or equal to Go.', I \\as partieular m sub- 
 5"iiiino; a 'ew passages i"r tin Doct. Luther's writings The 
 same I shall insert here: viz. 
 
 •• Thus (so says thf pas^age inserted in my treatise) it i^ not 
 mere wat;'r. but a water conm etcd v\itb. ard sanciifitni b\ tl;c 
 word o' G k1 ; njt ^hat it is better in itseh than oiher waier, 
 but berau^e tlie word anrl com; and o G d are added theie- 
 unto It is therefore not'iin^ but the viiiainy and nioikerN of 
 the devil, that now our newfangled spirits biasj>lietve bapti.^m, 
 and exeiitde Gotl's word and order, and view it as iioili ng 
 more than wat r dip^ied out of a louiitain ; and then vaiMii, 
 what can a handful of water help the sou; r But ah, n y 
 friend, who do s not know that water is water, v\htnitis 
 separated? But how daie yru thu^ interfere v%iih the onler 
 of G » I, and seperate th.- best treasure, with v h:ch he busei n- 
 neete I and incorporated it, and will not have it separiitei: ? 
 F "r this is the essi nee in the water — God's word, or eonimand, 
 and na ne ; whieh is a greater and nobler t. lasure than heav- 
 en and ear h." Heav.nly flood, p g - 20. 
 
 N >vv, if water in baptism is in itseli" no better than other 
 water, and if w at^er is water ; and il the essence in the w ater 
 is God's word and name, i- it not evident, that I lould not 
 pjssibly mean, that water was ••qual to God? A thungh, I 
 nave b-'en Ccireful to inform the reader v\i(h Luther's words, 
 that water in bapiism was but water; yet. Mi*. M. with all 
 this before h s eyes, he without ^ham or renmrse te 's his lea- 
 ders, that 1 make a !it e water eq.ia! t ' God! It seems he 
 cou d find no better foundation, on w hii h o budd his leiV^ta- 
 tion : th^refiire he air^nn, takes his reiiii^e toadowniight fa'-^e- 
 hood. Where Mr. M ore* where ean yon find a siptd-- ex- 
 pressitm. that says : a litt'e w ater in baptism is equal to G;>d ? 
 ' You have eonfidently assM'ted it ; yet p^)5itive'y, it is y.air 
 O n 'abiie&tion 
 
 It is trw^, I have said baptism is very holy ; that a"? va'na- 
 b'e, as h )'y, as -avinsr, and v nei-iible, as the name oT God is ; 
 jn-t S(» valuable, holy, &e is baptism ; and that th:- nne; ated 
 holiness o' G d was joined to the water in baptism: bnt 
 wh'^f^ is there a word h re, that says, water is a* va'rable, as 
 holy. &c. as God? When 1 sry, byptisn-, I do nr.t al'iid* to 
 w *ter as the es-enee of this institution ; but ('i 'y in so 'ar.asjt 
 ts a vehicle thereof ♦ For thttt reason 1 dcfinecl 1% thus ; the 
 
u 
 
 command of Christ and the na ne of the Holy Trinity, consti- 
 tute L'le g!':)jnl-vVo;-k ')f baptism, uul waie: is iheii 'chicle. 
 I( (!!_' command of Cm-ist, and the name of the Ho'y Trinity 
 can-.tiiute tht.' g oand-work af, it is evident, that water as such 
 dj;;s n >t constitute baptism ; but as already defined is the ve- 
 hii^le of this blessed essence. But it seems when Mr. M. 
 speaks of baptism, he has nothing n view but simple water ; 
 ©■ :ijr vise he woiid not have conckided, that I make a little 
 w iter eqaai to G » 1. It is to be recollected, that 1 never ^^aid : 
 as valaable.ho'y, saving, &c. as the name ol God is ; so valua- 
 ble holy, saving, &c. is water : but baptism, according to the de- 
 unit: m I gave of it. According to this discription, bcptism und 
 sin j1 * vyater ar^^ not synonymous. The word baptise originally 
 signifies to immerse, or to wash; but wdien it is applied to 
 th Oi'"istian mstitulion, it does not siiinify as'.mple washing; 
 boc a Wis'iing in th" nunc of the Holy Trinity. Hence my 
 araj imen i^ .• the Christian baptism is a divine performance j 
 because it i- G') I's own institution, its foundation is his glori- 
 ous name, an, I water its me hum ; therefore baptism tlius dis- 
 cribeijis as holy, as venerable and saving as the name of 
 G.) i is. Wiio would ffeny, that ^he name of God is as holy 
 as it is itself? Now, when this name is used in baptism^ it is 
 ]us* as ho'y and saving there, as when it is use! otherwise. 
 B »t all this is far from saying, water is equal to God; because 
 that is the m^'ve vehicle ; and therefore infinitely tar from the 
 C'S nee in the Christian baptism. The only question to be de- 
 fin'd. to decide this, is whether the name of God is as holy, or 
 w'leiher it is himself ? Mr. M. answers this in the negative. 
 I shall make my reply to this in another section. Whenever 
 lie proves, tha^ neither the command nor name of God cim- 
 stitutc: the essence of baptism, and that the name oi God is 
 11)^ G)d himself; then only shall I surrender as desperate^ 
 the cause I have hitherto maintained* 
 
 It is in v-ain for iMr. M to cjn« lurle, that because the holy 
 name of Gid is ioined to; therefore the water must become e- 
 qa.iliy infinitely holy. This is already elucidated in the pie- 
 ce;! ;ig section ; but I win yet add. that Mr M. hiniseh in- 
 sifts on ^he neces>^»ty of being baptised with the Holy Ghost; 
 if so. would he conclude, that the man wh) receives this spir- 
 it- ta' baptism, would thereby become as holy, yea equal to 
 the Hidy Ghost? By no means. Now, what is the differ- 
 en'e v-. it respects the point in question : whether I believe 
 the Hnly Ghost is joined to a man, or to water, for if that 
 woul ? malv'e ^hf water as holy, yea equal to God. it would 
 mjike the man the very s^rae* Mr* M. says, page ?§^ "And 
 
15 
 
 also, when this holy and glorious haptifiin-is poured en ns, ii© 
 marvel that as he sa}fe, ' Giui's lum f (ulvxh h Got! himself,) 
 is poured on us, end v\ e thereby becon t G« ds!' A\ic, i: it 
 does not make us supreme Gods, yet as it ' i^ iiifiuitei) more 
 hoiy than the angels, and more gicricus than tie heavtns, ' it 
 must 01 couise, niake us higher arc ncre g (rioiis ibai; all ihe 
 angehc busts ! " Answer. Mr. M. speaks of a spiiitral 
 baptism, seperate and distinct inm watei, ai;d irsisis en n as 
 necessary, p. 4.1 !No\\ I wondu. ^^httl^er when a n j i; is 
 baptised with the Holy Spirit, without any v, atei . it dees rot 
 make him as much a God, and higher anrt n ore gloricus d an 
 all the angelic hosts ; as when iGod's name iwhich is God 
 himself,) is poured on us. in the baptism I have descriled? 
 If it be nonsense to believe, that the nan e oi God can be pou- 
 red on us in baptism with water; becaust it would n.fckt us 
 super-angelic Gods; it must equally be nonsense, to belit ve 
 with Mr. M that we must receive the baptisn' ol the spirit 
 without water ; for the same spirit would nevertheless, be 
 poured on us; and that according to Mr. M's logick would 
 make us super-cherubic Gods I Mr. M. aruuing that il G"(''s 
 name was poured onus in baptism with v^ater, that it wtuld 
 make us super-angelic, which he o coursi pronounces non- 
 sense ; is all the while, producing all the premises that an- ne- 
 cessary, for denying the blessed eflus on of the Hoiy Ghost, 
 with or without water, or in any oiher way : lor if the spirit 
 poui-ed on us, in one way, would make us s;,|)er-angeiic Gods, 
 it would do the very same in any other. W hy dot she as- a 
 consistent logician, not at once tell us, that he does notbeiieve, 
 the Holy Ghost is at all poured out upon any man : for no 
 matter in what way, v^ ith or without water, it would make 
 the man a super-angelic God. He has no just reason !or his 
 sarcasm, in consequence of my calling Christians Gods. Does 
 he not know that the expression is scriptural ? " I have said 
 ve are Gods, and a'l of you are children of the most high, '^ 
 Ps 82,6. John 10,84. §5 
 
 In page 16, 17, he ridicules the idea of water in baptism, 
 being a vehicle. He says, " But certainly it must be V'ry 
 absurd to suppose, that all that fullness of grace, all that pow er 
 and energy of the almii^hty spirit, which are necessary to re- 
 generate and renew th'^ soul in the image of God, and there- 
 by free it from sin, and prepare it for heaven'y bliss, are con- 
 tained in, and conveyed to it by water baptism. Yes just as 
 absurfl as to say, that when th' husbandman plough'^, plants, 
 an;l cnliivates. that the snn-bcams and shr.wers o' rjiin ;ire 
 c;ontaincd in, and conveyed along the means of ploughing^ 
 
pliintlng*, cultivating, &c. Answer. By what has he ]B»q» 
 ved. rhat it is absunl, to believe tha God opeiatts through 
 mediums? He merely saying so, is no evitience What he 
 assij^ns as a proof is insuiiicient. Does he not know that 
 \vhen the ground is plv)Ui;hed. the rain is contained in the inr- 
 rows,and the sun lieams operate through thi ploughed ground 
 on the seeds, and with the motsture contained therein, pro- 
 mote their growth to perfection 1 
 
 SECTION IV* 
 
 >Ii', Tvl. \;u(3ertake3 to prove by my own words, that baptism is not regene- 
 ration, nor the ordinary means. This is examined. Il is shewn that he 
 admits the word of God to be spirit and life ; from which I argue, that 
 baptism must be the means ; because the woi"d is connected with it. H6 
 accuses me for not proving, that baptism is an incorruptible flood of re- 
 generation — the piootis exhibited. 
 
 Mr. M» says, page 11, "I was in the third place to shew" 
 S-om Mr. Ilenke-'s own words, that water baptism is nt»t re-' 
 generation. This I could do from several places in h s piecej 
 but I w 11 confine myse!f to one or two places. " Answer. 
 Ho had no need to prove by my own v\ ords, that baptism r^ 
 not regeneration, as I nowhere said, it was. But as he also, 
 attempts to prove by the same, that it is not the ordinaiy 
 means, I shall examine his statements. To prove th s, he 
 quoted the following from my treatise, which is also, here 
 inserted : viz. 
 
 ' When the word of God is purely preached, it penetrateis 
 ik\c hearts of a 1 who attend to it. Such as do not persist in re- 
 sisting, will obtain the fruits of salvation. The unbeliever is 
 likewise ca'led, convicted, atnd diav\n, but he violently resists 
 the Holy Ghost, &c. ' Heavenly flood, page 9. On th.s 
 Mr. M ob-icrves : •' That water baptism is not re.venerat.on. 
 For he (alludins to ut ,) says, < The word of God prn ly 
 pi-eiiched. penetrates the hi arts of all who attend to it : anr' if 
 not resisted, brings them to obtain the fruits o* sabatif n. 
 Water baptism is not tho wor 1 preached, neither is it vi/n- 
 nected with it, \Ahen it is prea' bed. Therei' re. it is Mi- word 
 preached, and not wa!er baptism, that penetralcs the h( livts of 
 those who :;ttend to :t, and brint'S ihem to fbtain the fruits of 
 salvation. This oversets ijis doctrine, and proves that water 
 
17 
 
 baptism is wok regeneration* According to Mr. H's doctriBCj 
 
 tile ar:;um' nt woul 1 have to stand thus — Bapiism is a heav- 
 enly tlood, or ordinary means oi reg-neration — lor the woid of 
 God purely preached, penetrates the iiearts oJ all those who 
 attend to it, and brings tliem to obtain the traits ot salvation — 
 thereiore baptism is a heavenly flood, &c. Now you ii-ay see 
 it is a glaring sophism, and of course oversets Mr. H's do«. 
 trine ; for if it is the word of God, purely preached, that pena- 
 fa-ates the heart, and brings it to obtain the t'ruits of salvation, 
 it is not water baptism that does it. And page 12, he says^ 
 " Further he (a luding to rae,) says : The unbeliever is like- 
 w se .-aMed, convicted and draw-n, but he violently resists the 
 H)ty Ghost. An-iwer : if water baptism is regeneration, or 
 the ordinary means by which men are regenerated ; those 
 who are baptised are re reneratrd ; therefore, not among the 
 unbelievers. And also, if the Holy Ghost is connected with 
 the water in baptism, and conveyed to the sou' by it, as the 
 ordinary means, how can a person resist the Holy Gliost ia 
 the preaching of the word? It appears to me he could not; 
 bu! upon Mr. H's plan, would have to resist water baptism, 
 in order to resist the iioly Ghost. So I think this oversets his- 
 doctrine, and proves that water baptism is not regenerat.OD, 
 nor the ordinary means. " 
 
 He in like manner, qtioted sundry other passages from my 
 treatise, which prove, that the spirit s administered by the 
 preaching of the gospel ; from which he draws the same con- 
 elusions Thus we have Mr. M's assertions, together w'Xh 
 the evidences, wh ch he supposes will prove them, before us. 
 
 Answer. Where did Mr. M in any part of my treatise see, 
 that baptism is the word of God preached ? or, because, the 
 word of God purely preached, penetrates the hearts o! ail who 
 attend to it ; therefore, water baptism is the ordinary means of 
 regeneration He no vvhei-e saw any such logick. and the 
 passages he has quoted say no such thing. I have truly said, 
 baptism is not simple water only ; but with it the word oi God 
 is connected. See Heavenly flood, p 7,8 Here is nothing 
 about the word preached ; nor because the word preached pen- 
 etrates the heart ; that therefore, baptism is the ordinaiy means. 
 Mr. M. in a clandestine manner attempts to make his readers 
 bel'.eve, that I brought this argument on purpose to prove, that 
 biiptism was a flood of regeneration, and then in a foui triumph 
 attributes an absurdity to my logi. k. The quotation he has 
 ma.f> from my t eatis'*. "that v\ ht n the word of God is purely 
 preached, it oeni^trates the hearts, &c " were not u rittf-n -a ith 
 a view, to prove that baptism \\ as a ftfofll of regeneration j buft 
 
u 
 
 'So shew the divine energy of the word, as it manifests itself 
 when i; is preached. B . proving that the word possesses t-ucli 
 ahetjergVr-wiienpreach.'d , it wua d loiiow. that tins word waa 
 inseparably connected with the spirit ; hence, a word maniles. 
 t ng su h an energy, in one instance, it may just y be conclu* 
 ded,that it possesses the same, when otherwise applied, as in 
 baptism. To repeat it — ii' the word possesses such a divine 
 eneigy w')en it is preached, and as this principle is insepara- 
 ble ; even so the word possesses the saiiie wWn used in bap- 
 tism. To this end I produced those passages in my treatise, 
 whi; h their Cv*ntext p!a n'y indicates. 
 
 B ;t is Mr. M's. leas jiiing c >rrcct ? ^o. Does it follow, 
 because tlie word when it is preached, is a means oi regenera- 
 tion ; tor that reason, ii is not a means, when it is conntcted 
 v-'ith Water in baptism? Al it does prove, is that a man may,- 
 a;so be regenerated by hearing the wortl preached ; but does 
 not deny, that baptism is a means, or the ordinary means. Mr. 
 IV}, says, p. 19, *• that God otten used different means to ettect 
 the same thing — and thai he is not contined to any particular 
 mean. " Now, if this be correct, how could he with any 
 consistency, cone ude tliat, because the word when preached, 
 is the means ; thereiure baptism cannot ? Herf he seems to 
 insinnate, as if preaching was the only means to the exclusion 
 o baptism ; yet. otherv ise contends tor it, that Ged often uses 
 d d rent meansy&e. Why does he not upon his broatl bas€ 
 admit, that both may be means? 
 
 Hts other objection sha ! be answered in another section 
 I shall now inquire : whe.her the gospel-v\ ord is insepai ably 
 connected with the spirit; so that it may properly be called 
 spirit and U e r Mr M. has ;'u nished the answer p. 24, v^ here 
 he says, he never denied, tht. he soirit was connected with the 
 word ; and that it possesses quickening and regenerating vir- 
 tues. Very weM ! herein we agree But the next question- 
 is this word of God, possessing those blessed qualities, con- 
 nected with water in bapti-m ? Will he ans\ver in the afiir- 
 fnative, or neaative? Oh this he ventured nothing positive, 
 SXe says,*^' Thus you may see how Mr. H. proves his doc- 
 trinp.— By conn cting the \Aord with the water, and theieby 
 makrtg it one '.vith tiie word, possessingthe same regenerating^ 
 vir'ue ibat the g (spel word possesses. This certidnly is the 
 doetr ne of consubstantiation . and v his pirmises are true, his 
 in-'cenfe hs correct : i. e. if the water does become one with 
 fhc gospel v^ord, and possesses all those quickening^ rcgeoeit*. 
 
ting vJi-tucs that the gospel word possesses, it would then \)ei> 
 ricii ri )od of g:-a •••, by winch s 'uls were regeiuruied. But 
 his pi'ctnises iue iaise for the w vier possesses no such proper- 
 ties. " p. 2io, 24. By this he does not positively deny al the 
 connection .f the W()r(i uad the water; nor does he own any, 
 B^it he in the most unfair manner, perverts the conn-^ctiv.n I 
 cpeak o', into consu.>stantiation, and denies that the water pv;s. 
 sesses regenerating virtues; and then concludes, ii the uater 
 became one with the word ; so as to jiossess regenerating v.r- 
 lucs ; then he would admit, that baptism was a llood oi rej.,en- 
 €ration. Why ail this? I no v. here suiH,that tho word be- 
 came one niih the wator, nor that it Itseif, posscssci aiiy re- 
 g nerating virtues. But is the word of G'kI cunntcteil with 
 water .^ I do not a=k svtirtlier the word aiid ;.he water have 
 beome one tiiinjj? nor whether th«' water has such vhti.;e> in 
 itself? R' laiive to this argiupcnt, it docs not matter, wheti.er 
 the water its, -If received any such virtues; for it is sulticient, 
 if the word has such, with which it is connected Baptism 
 is as much a flood of regeneration, when the water itselt pos- 
 sesses no ^uch virtues ; asif ii di ! ; t)eeause the otlur part, tiie 
 word of God, which is the essence or baptism,, possesses ail 
 such : so that n itwithstanding, the word which is spint and ii'e 
 is thereby administ -red, vvhicli amply supplies the natcrai de- 
 ficiency of water. Hence sa^ certa n as baptism is administe- 
 red, so certain is the word o! G!>d adnimistered ; because tliat 
 is the essence of the instirution: if so, the spirit is also admin- 
 istered. Should Mr M d ny, that the word o God is etn- 
 nected with the water, I would be glad to know, how he, or 
 any of his brethren perform baptism? Does he, or they bap- 
 tise without any words? If so ; then it would be a silent bap- 
 tism, a mere sprink ing of wat; r, like that of hcly water, in a 
 Roman Catholick cathedral without words. Surely. the Meth- 
 odist pre.ichers use words w hen they baptise ; but \v hctlu r Mr 
 M. does, IS more than I know wiihin my "wn knowledge; 
 yet, I suppose he does. But although, they use words ; yet 
 the question is, are they t'leir own, or the words of God ? If 
 they are their own, then the baptism they per'brm, is ci a do. 
 mest ck manu*acture ; consequently not the Christian bapti-m, 
 S'irely n;iher Mr. M. nor any of his breth.ren, wou'd as ra- 
 tional men, admit that the words they use, were their ov n 
 mmufaeture ; for if they did. they would at on<e, render them- 
 selves infamous in the sight of all Christians A'l christian 
 chu"ch»s in the x^orld, when they baptise, u-e the word of 
 ^Q<L Tile scriptoi'es also speak of this ; — '' Husbands loiT* 
 
20 
 
 your wives^even as Christ also loved the churcli,& gave hiiit- 
 selffoi- it ; that '.i:. iiiig itsancti y and cleanse it with the v^ ash- 
 ing of water by the word." Eph. 5 25, 26. ^ov , vs hen 
 St Paul attributes the sanctification and cleansing o\ the 
 chuich, to the washing oi the water, by the word, what does 
 he otherwise, but connect both togeth< r, lor this blessed pur- 
 pose. H »vv was it possible for Mr. M. with such a testiino- 
 ny before him, not to see the connexion of the water and the 
 'Wi)Y(\ in baptism, and consequently discover it to be a neans 
 ol r 'generation ? Whai il" God sanctifies & cleanses his chui ch 
 w th the washing of water by the word? and still no connex- 
 ion between water and the word and no regeneration resul- 
 ting from it? This is vei-y strange. Surely IVSr. M. cannot 
 deny that the word of God is cormected with water ; for evea 
 it he should not believe St. Paul ; yet, the practice of the Meth- 
 odist church, of w hich he is a conspicuous member, is suflicienfe 
 tfo convince him ; for baptism by that community is peiforned 
 with the 'vord and water. Since the word ol God. which Mr. 
 M acknowledges to be spirit and life, and possessing regene- 
 rating virtues, with water constitutes baptism, it undeniably 
 fo lows, that it is a means oi regeneration ; because the viord 
 of God is the essence thereof. Now. he must either deny, that 
 th? water has any connexion with the word ; or that the va ord 
 possesses any regenerating virtues ; or else own, that baptism is 
 a means of regenei-ation. The first he cannot deny, without 
 beinic charged with having a silent and self-invented baptisu! ; 
 nor the second ; for he has already acknowledged, that the 
 word possesses regenerating virtues: hence, whether he wi'A 
 or liot, he has no alternative, but to confess the last, or bid de- 
 fiance to conviction. 
 
 I sliall now proceed te examine the charge he brings, page 
 25 He says, " If Mr. H. had produced the words of Pe- 
 ter, or any of the inspired writers, to prove Ihat water bap- 
 tism was ever called an incorruptible holy flood, &c. then he 
 Avould have had some ground for his dogmatical assertion, i. e. 
 that we " roundly contradict the apostle. " But as we only 
 hav' his bare assertion 'or it, there is no arguing against it ; 
 bi-eause it is not required of us to prove a negat ve. — But un- 
 til Mr. H. can pr -fluce divine authority, to shew that water 
 in baptism is made equal to the word of God, and also, shew 
 us where it is called an incorruptible holy flood, &e. " 
 
 \nswcr. I confess, that I have not produced the v^ords of 
 any inspired writer, whch precisely call baptism im incoirup- 
 tib' ■ holy (loofl of regeneration ; neither do I know o'" vny 
 pa«9ages, which do. But is every phrase^ that caiiB©^ be hmf^. 
 
-^fcrbatim in the Bible, there'ore unscHptural, and without au.- 
 «i.)rity ? Not only what is verbatim in tlie scriptures ; but aU 
 so .1 , that may be proved i hereby, is true, and good authori- 
 ty'. But whatsoever is repugnant to the scriptures is positive^ 
 ]y fii se. Should nothing be true, relative to this matter, but 
 what is verbatim in the Bible ; rhen it must be evident, tliat^ 
 the greatest part of Mr. M's pamphlet, cannot be true ; be- 
 cause it abounds with expressions, that are not verbatini in the 
 B ble. VV^ould he admit such logick r The Unitarians ar- 
 gue; that the word Trinity, \s not to be iound in the scrip- 
 tures ; hence conclude, that this doctrine is false. I suppose Mr. 
 M. as a Methodist, professes himself a Trintarian. In wha(t^ 
 manner would he reply to the Unitarians ? He no doubt, ike 
 al correct logician^, would answer : — we know that the pre- 
 cise word Trinity, s not to be found ; but we can produce sun- 
 dry sacred texts, which prove, that there is the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost; and they all equally possess ih© 
 div'rte perfections, and thus are one ; which involves the very 
 idea of a Trinity, i e. the unity ot the three Is ii not suffi- 
 cient, to satisfy every honest min', when I prove, that the 
 very idea o; an incorruptible flood of regeneration, is ounded 
 in, ml can be proved by the scriptures ; although it be not 
 found verbatim ? In the fourth section of my treatise, I pro- 
 duced my authority, for givingbaptism this venerable appelia- 
 lion. But Mr. M has not noticed it in his strictures. I shall 
 now nroduce, the lestmony in behalf of its justification- St» 
 Paul, n his epistle to Titus, saith chap. 8. 5, 6. — *' ISot by 
 works of righteousn^'ss which we have done, but according to 
 his mercy he saved us bv the loashing of regeneration, and 
 renewing o"'the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly 
 through Jesus Christ our Saviour." In this text thi apostU- in^ 
 fo ms us, that God saved us, by a loashing of regeneration. 
 There can be no washing without a liquid, I mean without wa- 
 ter/ In the original it is — Icutrou paliggenesias — loutron, 
 derived from louo. I wash, signifies a bath, or a washing 
 place ; and baptism, derived from baptize, I immerse or 
 wash ; also signifies a washing. Hence washing and bapti- 
 zing ai'C synonymous. Also a washing of regeneration and 
 a baptism of regpneration are the same. As washmg is the 
 samf as baptizing ; does it not undeniably follo\'\ , tha* the a- 
 postle told us, that God saved us by baptism, (it being the 
 sa -le thing as washing And as there is no othei- ceremony, 
 in the ehurch, which is performed with water, but only the 
 Christian baptism, the allusir>n in this text, must c'ther be t» 
 ftrc same ; or else t« Bothipg. W feat can b« the difi'er«nco be- 
 
Hgveen a washing and a flood of regeneration? Either eoo* 
 sists of w.iter ; hence are the same. St. Paa , djds nut s.m», 
 ply call it a washing; bat a washing oi reg -ncration ; hence 
 someihiiig, by which one may be regenLiated. But we are 
 n^t regen 'rated by corruptible' thing'^, which Mr, M aln. ts ; 
 an<l yet ; are regenerated by a washing, or flood ; htnce it 
 must be an in orrnpt ble washin;?, not becaus-- ol" the me e 
 wa!er ; but because "t'the ineoriuptible word, with which it i& 
 coniiei'ted, and which liveth and abi-Jeih forever, >oone 
 will dispute, but what we are born again hvm above ; hence 
 this washing by which we are regeneiated, is .tiso heavenly; 
 all this amounts to an inv^orrnptible, heavenly rlood efvegene. 
 ration. It inust hence, be a n^eans ot aiiministet T.p. the spi. 
 rit ; for without that n5 regeneration can ''C etfected The A- 
 post'e ad Is — " and the renewing i»f the H dy Gh<>st " Where 
 there is a renewing a previous gift is p esupposed • for what 
 has never been criv<.'n cannot be renewed. If the Holy Ghosfe 
 is renewed he .vas previous'y aHministeied b}^^ the w .slung of 
 regeneation. As b.«ptism also, seals God's covenant ; so as 
 be las oice a'i:n":nistered the spiiit by virtue or the same : so 
 also he renews the -ame gi'.'t. Now, who with pioprieiy can 
 charge nie, with having invented the idea of *' a heavenly in- 
 o-irruptibie fl )0 1 of regeneration ; " when St Paul hir.-self 
 speaks of a washing of regeneration ? 
 
 M>'. M. in a sarcastical manner page 9, and SB, calls wa* 
 ter baptism Henkei's heavenly tiood ; an<! h s hi;!y bapti^m. 
 D les he suppose that I am the author ot baptism? or :hat I 
 have been describing any o her, but such as all • hr stians ; 
 yea even the M' thodi ts themselves use : i e. a baptism per- 
 formed hi the name of the holy Trinity with v\ater ? How 
 shocking it is to think, that Mr. Joseph Moore, who is estee- 
 med a zealous M'thodist preacher, could deliberately write, 
 an:l publish to the world, in a 'anafua'^e ve;y vulgar : that bap- 
 tism, which Christ himself in-^titutcd was Henkt'Fs h avenly 
 flood ; his holy baptism ! O ! if there be the least shani< in 
 hm, let him blush ! It is crucifyiniithe blessed Jt^sus a rcsh; 
 andputtingr him to an open shame, to ca*l iiis ow n holy institu. 
 tion, Henkel's heavenly flood ! Who is H nke! ? A mere mor« 
 tal man, with Adam's corrup ion. O horrid beyond degree^ 
 to pl.ice a morial in (he roo;n of almighty God ! Mr. 
 IVIoore ! w^ho n do you vili'y, by calling: bantism, Henk- Ps 
 heav'nly flood? Do you not yourself baptise? and do not 
 your Methodi-t brethren the same ? And yet, you can d<''ib- 
 era^^e'v an! "n ^hr most Tie'arious langu:^ge call baptism, Hrn- 
 kcVs heavenly flood I At the fir*t view, it eeeme somewhat 
 
m 
 
 sirange, why so many preachers, particularly arronp the Me- 
 thovlis » speak si; con cnipul)ie oi baptitni ; aixi yet, hupti^c all 
 wh<-» make applica. on ; not\\ithsta. ciing, ii n;ay n ea^uleal•Iy 
 bo accountL^iJ :or ; — ihey ki'OW God oioained. unci ChriM ans 
 revere it, an I they would not be countenanced, as a pan of 
 Christ's criurch, with> ut it ; and thus ih. y make this biesfecd 
 insutution. per'ormcd in the most sacred nanic, their pan. er^ 
 by whim they impose themselves uj)on the Christian ccnimu- 
 nity ; Wiien in th,* mean-wiiie. tieir hearts are filled \Aith 
 rancour agauist it so th>:t their mouttts car.not rehain, from 
 calling it, a mere outward thing, a littie water, wiihort anj 
 vi'tue ; or ike Mr VI , to elevate the blasphf^mrus ciiinax, 
 call it HLemcel's heaven y flood, or his ho!y baptitm. 
 
 M '. M says, pag;* 6, •* V iiter baptism, or a;- Mr. Hen- 
 kel calls it, ■' Ho'y Baptism.' is not regeneration, &c " Ficra 
 this it appears, as ii only I cal!ed it ho y ; hence ISh. M. does 
 not ; and if it bo my heavenly flood, of course it cannot be 
 b:> y. I was also, f-redibly inforn.eii by some respectable per- 
 eo'is, hit one of Mr* M's brethren, announced from the 
 pulpit, that baptisiii was not holy. II it is not holy then if 
 mast be common. Th^y must also conclude, that the name 
 of G )d in which it is per on > ed, is not ho y ; although the.y 
 •a'l u, ion it. in heir puMick worship. I will leave the rea- 
 der to make his own conclusions. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 ^r. M in «rd«r to invalidate t)ne of my principal premises, ftttempto t* 
 pio' e, that the name of God, is not the same as bimsel!. His argiimente 
 ai e investigated ; and it is shewn that God's name is the same as himself. 
 
 In the third section of my treatise, I said that the name of 
 God was the same as himself; and then, because baptism is 
 
 Performed in it ; it wa- the gro-mrlwork thereof. Mr. M ju- 
 iciously anticipated^ that if this proposition %\as true, he could 
 find no room V> oppose my ecnelusions. For it God's name 
 is the same as himseli, and as this napie. as must be confes- 
 sed by all, is the ground-work of baptism ; it wou'id incontes- 
 libly o'low, that it is a divine performance, that we are bap- 
 tised, by God himsel ; thouj-'h he df-es it through agents : be- 
 cause God's name which is hin sell is in it; that it is holy for 
 the 6a me reason ; and that it can as little be an embkin, or a 
 
S4 
 
 ehaclow, as he himself is ati emb'em or a shadow; because 
 Ilis name which is himself is in it;&c. Foi- this good reason 
 he labours to prove, that the name of God, is not God him- 
 se f: knowing ii he can succeed, no matter what the conse- 
 qaences might otherwise be, my superstructm'e would be pros- 
 to-atcd. 
 
 Mr. M. says, page 33, 34 — "This seems very strange to 
 me, for I nad always understood that names & things were 
 different — that the name was one hina,, and the being or 
 thing it represents was another. — But Mr. H. unites them to- 
 gether, and makes them one and the same ; which is contrary 
 to fact. Names are given to beings and things by general 
 consent, in order to distinguish one from another, for the ben- 
 efit of society and convenience of conversation. And also, 
 when a name is given by general consent, it points out that 
 being or thing to which it is applied. But altliough the name 
 distinguishes and poinds out the being or thing to v\hich it is 
 applied, yet the name is n'^t the being or the tiling iiseif ; nei- 
 )ther does it possess the nature and properties which the being 
 or thing itself possesses. Hence difterent names are some- 
 times given to the same being : and also the same name is of- 
 ten given to different beings, without altering the nature of 
 th >se beings, or changing one into the other by the different 
 app ications of the same name. Thus the supreme being a- 
 niong as, is railed God, Lord, Jahovah,&c ; among the Jews, 
 I AM or Jehovah ; anong the Greeks Theos ; among the 
 Latins Dous, &c. But these names are not the supreme be- 
 iug himself; ii they were, there would be as many supreme 
 beings as there are names given. — Hence the absurdity of the 
 idea that God's name is God himself. 
 
 Further. The same naoic is often given to different be- 
 ings, without altering their nature, or changing them into other 
 beings. Thus the numes God and Lord, are often applied to 
 in n, to angels, &c. as Paul says; — There are God*; many, 
 anfl Lords many. But certainly this does not alter the nature 
 of those men and angels, and make supreme beings of them: 
 Tio ; th''y remain men and angels just as they were " 
 
 Answer. It is true, a man or a thing, may have a name, 
 iand yet, not possess the nature, or properties, which it origi 
 iially indicatt^s. and in this respect is not the name itself But. 
 this does not applv to God. This argument is not agreeab'e 
 to the rules of 'ogic^k ; tor it has more in the conclusion, thau 
 what i'^ contained in the ps-emi^es. Mr. M. attempts to shew, 
 that God's name is not G»d himsell ; and as a reason he as- 
 ^gns : that names arc given by general consent, in order tt. 
 
•listinguish one 'Vom another ; and that the name is not the bs? 
 rng, f)r tiling itsei ; no: possesses the same nature and propep- 
 ^cs ; an>l Liiat diiterent names are sometimes given to the same 
 ll.'.ng; and also the sam na ne is often given to ditieient be- 
 ings, without alti ring the nature oi' those beings, &c. 
 
 Now if a I this be aihiiitted ; yet is itn^t proper to apply the 
 sameti' God. Things and beings in general, constitute his pre- 
 mises, and God, s\ h > bi.'a^-s no analogy to any thing is brought 
 into the conclusion; vvhc!» al amounts to a sophism The 
 Unit u'ians can frame as good an argument as this is, against 
 the T. imtarians. 
 
 Tiey can with equal propriety say : three men or beings, 
 cannot be one man, or being ; therefore three divine persons, 
 cannot be one God VVoul'!not every judicious Trinirarian 
 say : this is a sophism ; for what ana ogy is there between men 
 an 1 God ? what have men to do in the premises, and God in 
 ih<'. conclusion ? It is not true, that God ha'^ derived his nanie 
 by common consent, like men do ; for he has revealed his t>vvn 
 proper name to Moses, railing himse!f I AM that I AM. 
 Exod. 3, I '. Again, aUhough, men may have names, * and 
 Bot possess the nature, and properti<"s, which those names ;m- 
 p'y ; yet this is not the case \v h God ; for he in reality pos- 
 sesses all, his name implies. His name implic- divine perfec- 
 tions ; but Nvho dare tleny,that he possesses al^ such? It is 
 a'so admitted, that some men and a:ige!s. bear the nan-e of 
 G '(i. Nvhen in reality they are not God ; but this is no rea on, 
 that God bears the same name and is not uhat the nane im- 
 p!i< s. This would be an odd conclusion. Men and Angels, 
 on'y in a metaphoi-ical sense, bear the name oi G d ; because 
 th v fa ntly imitate him, in consequence of their offices and dig- 
 nities ; hence Lord and God, are not their proper and peculi- 
 ar names Whenevei- Mr. M shall prove, that the names 
 L>rd, and God. are th" pi'oper and original names, for men and 
 angels ; then only can he use this argument to some advan- 
 tage. 
 
 *I mast also reply to Mr. M. when he says " the supreme 
 being among us is called God, Lord, Jehovah; &c. aniong 
 th' jews I AM or Jehovah ; among the Greeks Theos ; a- 
 mon;! the Litins Deu-.&c. But these names are not ihe su- 
 preme being himself; if they uere, there ^^ould be as many 
 supreme beings as there are names given him. '' If this argu- 
 ment be analyzed it will stand thus : li all those names ^^ ere 
 G id himself ; then there a onld be an English God, who ia 
 ca'ledGod and Lord ; a Hebre\A God, I AM, or Jehovah; 
 a Greek. God, Theos ; and a Latin God, Deus, &c. But does 
 
 D 
 
not Mr. M. plainly sep, that it is the same narne, only in dif. 
 ferent laM2:uiiges r Hi' m ght as we i argue: a man in Eng- 
 lish, is man ; .n Laiin, Vir ; in Gi-efk A.neer ; therefore it 
 cannot be the sail • man, B it no matter how many names, 
 Gjtl m ly h.^Av in ihe same lan2:uage, they only inc ude his 
 sev^eral perfections ; and as a'l his perfections do not constituie 
 several G >;ls neither do several names. 
 
 Althougli. men may not possess the natures and properties, 
 which the r nai^^es imp^y ; yet, a man's nim^ , by an arbitrary 
 denomin.ition, bocomes his proper name, and peiuhar to his 
 person, no matter, what it mi^y have ori'inally signified. When 
 a man's n \me, 's >alled in a court oi justice, it is evident that 
 his person is called. When the judgi- passes the sentence of 
 death, against any culprit, he do s it by naming him ; but not 
 on'y the' representation of the eu'prit ; but his person is to be 
 executed. This shews, that a man's name in law, is the same 
 as his person. According to Mr. M. the name is only a r p- 
 rf^entation of a man or boino; ; for he says, " the name is one 
 thing, nnd i]vi being or thing it represents another. " The 
 verb " to represent, ^^ .'dignifies, to exhibit, or to show ; and its 
 substantive '' representation, " signifies an image, or iikeness. 
 If names are to represent men,ov course they must shew us 
 their sta*ures and comnex'ons ; otherwise they could repre- 
 sent nothins: ; for a man without any shape or colour, would be 
 nithing. If so ; thsn we have according to this theory, seen 
 
 * Vo':e. Mr. >T. says, paoje 34, «• OiT-e more. The term Henkel in 
 Dutch, nr'an-^ a chicken ; hnr I reckon that we could hardlv iret theau'-hor 
 of the heavenh' fl jod lo helieve iha he is a chicken, herau e he bears that 
 natrp. Thas yo i -^ee (he g eat absu div oi' the idea that God's name is 
 God himse'i'. " An-wet. If] had the very same natu'e as a chicken, I 
 wo lid '-e'-tainlv he whut the name chicken iniplies; hence thenime 
 
 Bi' it is very i 111)6 tineni to a. jjly this to God. or hi- name; for Mr. M. 
 da'c no' 'env but what all ihe ' ei fections. which the name of God i:nplies, 
 God al-o posse- -es ; &. i.s 'he; e''b:e him-elf. Hi- German criticism is very 
 polished indeed ! ilenkeli- no chicken. Ui> tiue. some .-Vmei ican Ger- 
 mans, call thai f>\v! h'nre ; hut not Ae«' e/. The proper name is Att^n ; and 
 in the plual, hiehne>- If I knew no mo'e o^ the Geiman langua-^e than 
 Wr .M f vvoi'd he ashamed to make any criticism. He ought lo blu-h, 
 for int odticrng -^uch a piie.ile thing, when ti eating on a sacred sulject. 
 Jji L a- im ecile is, whUhesays in the sentence before " The name of 
 So'oTion wa- given lo the son of David, kmg of Israel ; but the name w.is 
 not the man him-el', because the e arenumbe.s that bear that name in our 
 day , bat they are not .Solomons, i e not sons of David, nor kings o! Is- 
 rae' no*- possess the wi-dom he pos'-e-'^ed. " Answer. We know that aU 
 tb" SoloTjon"^ in the \vo' Id .t e not the Solomon who was the son of David. 
 Btit what hi- fc!ii> 10 do with God? He posse&aes all his name iaipUes;aQd 
 ilUierefoie himself. 
 
27 
 
 fcke \m&3;e or representation, of every man, and wom^n . wiiose 
 name vv.; have ever seen in print, or in writ ug-, or ever leai d 
 p:-nijunced ; though we cannot te!l what size, or shape they 
 weri? ; whether dwarfs or giants ; whether comely or de o,m« 
 ed. 
 
 Hen^e the aSsurdity of na;nes being representations of men. 
 
 Bi!; n) in ui's na^ne, is so p 'c diarly himself, as God's mime 
 is G ) i hiinsi'lt"; because a man's name becomes his ov n. dy 
 an arbitrary denomination ; but God originally posstsses in 
 biaiself, what his name implies, God is called in 
 
 HEBREW — IN ENGLISH — 
 
 Jehov ih asher Jehovah. I am that I am. 
 
 Adonai. Thf. Lord of' all things. 
 
 Aleim or Elohim. IVho i^ to be icor^h/pped. 
 
 Zebaolh. Of hosts 
 
 lah Who shall he and was* 
 
 El Soon. Sup'^eme God 
 
 Amen* In everlasting truth* 
 
 IN GREEK — IN ENGLISH — 
 
 Kurios* Lord* 
 
 Theos* God* 
 
 Would Mr. M. venture to deny, that God 'S real'y I am 
 that £ am ; that is immutual, eternal ; thai he is Lord otall 
 things, &c. as the above ti les imp'y ? I suppose not ; for if 
 he did, he would at on-e, deny God's perfecti' ns, and reduce 
 htm to a nominal [dol. But if, as it nmst be adn;itted, God 
 possesses all the perfections, \\hich the above na'^ e- include ; 
 now can it ot'ierwise be, but those names must be God him- 
 s^dt"? Now M". M- must e ther deny, that t'-e name of God 
 includes the divine per'ections ; or that God pos'^e se>; su -h ; 
 or else admit, that the name of God iS himself. He cannot 
 with truth, deny the first ; because the name^ a-- a 'ready ex- 
 hibited, declare divine perTections ; and to say that God does 
 not possess a'l such, is blasphemy. T!ius the name of God, 
 includiog all divine perfcf^tions ; and God him«el*' possessmg 
 such, it follows irrefragubly, that the name of God is God 
 himself. 
 
 An 1 to the question, * What is the name of Jems?' I an- 
 swer, it ishmse'.f; what he real'y is, Wonder'n', -Vl'ghty God, 
 Gil with us Isa c. 9, 6— c. 7, 1 1. His tit'es as Saviour, 
 P-ophet, Priest and Kin<r : his nc'e'tions, and deity : his me- 
 ^atorial character^ his righteousness and merits are included 
 
iahis Tiaroe^ Bat according to my oppOBent, this rja.»ie i? 
 Bathing iiiire, than an image, or representauoii, made oi the 
 letre."S, tUat compose the wo. d Jesu?, exc usive oi his nature 
 an I per actions. Bat to i:he spiricual \v\>i shipper the name of 
 Je-^as in<-lu ling h:s -livine perfections and m. diatorial charac- 
 fei- presents to his mi id me most heautital object and excites 
 in ais soul the most lapturous em )ti ^ns. 
 
 If according to tiy opp -nent, the name of God is not God^ 
 and names only represent pe s ns o: be ngs ; then God's name^ 
 represen s God ; heiue it must siiCA us his shape, and ike- 
 Tiess ; eidier by the letters which compose it, or the sound of 
 it, when pronounced ; or else, it cou'd not represent him. 
 Bd G 'd's nature is incomprehensib'e, cannot be represented 
 by any simi'itule; but what is ca culaied to degrade him; 
 to eng^ender and foster erronious notions o. him ; and to imi- 
 tate the pagans, who changed the glory of the incorrupt. b e 
 Gil into an image made like to coriu|jtible man. &c. It is 
 assigned as a reas n why Israe' shou'd make no iniage 
 O^ God.; '* 6rcaM>e they saw no mnnntr of .similitude, 
 ivhen he spake to them n Horeh. out of the mid^t of the 
 fire ;'* and it is added, " /e.si ye corrupt yourselves, 8fC. ^ 
 D^uu 4, 15, 16. But to worship Go I's name, \Ahich accor- 
 ding to Mr. M. is not God himsel , but on^y his representa- 
 feon, would according to this notion, be idolatry : for assured- 
 ly^an image used in worship, is a teacher ol lies ; it repre- 
 sents to u>, that the et'M'na! God is s'nii ar to something that 
 isCreated •' To whom will ye liken God? O what likeness 
 \\\\\ ye compare unto hi >' ? " Isa. iO. 18. When Mr. M. 
 prays, docs he not cail on the name oi God? Hence as he 
 gays, th s name is not Go ' hims' f ; he consequendy does not 
 in his prayer, ca'l on God himself; but omy on !ns represen- 
 tation ; hence hi- worship is idolatry. If I was a Roman Cath- 
 olick Bishop, I would pi'csent him with a golden meda; ; 'or 
 the CK^raoi'dina'T service*; he rendered to my cause. As a 
 B-Tnan, I wouid worship G )d through images ; noi that I hc- 
 lies'ed they were G )d ; bu' on'y his representatives, like the 
 Israelites, who did not believe, the golden calf was Jehovah ; 
 bnt only the representative, through wh ch to worship h^m ; 
 even so would I vorshi i the Saviour through a crucifix. If 
 any of the pritestants would impeach me \^ ith ido'atry . I \n ould 
 appea . to the tiibunal of Mr. Josepii Moore, who pa'^ses for 
 a protestant himse'f, and a foe to the Rnmim cause ;yet u oud 
 ^, 'Tr\ost eonfidently an'icipate, his verdict in my 'avour : in as 
 tnuch, a": he has ah-eady manifested the most favourab e symp- 
 toms ; in that, he has undertaken to prove agamst David B^'- 
 
m 
 
 £;!, that f be name of€rod, which a'l protestants worship, is 
 nn G» 1 himseii; bu is on y to i-epieseiu him ; so that, ;. Gud 
 ma) be voishipped ihr )ugh ihis rop.-oscntatiun ; couseqiuMitly 
 Romans may worsh p God through or by oJier embiems ; 
 911 h as the crucifix, &c. 
 
 Mr. M havi ng de lied, thai the naiie of G)d. is God him- 
 sell, he liad no other chance le't, bit to say, names represent 
 beings and things ; and thus has unhappily ninde the name of 
 G >d a repi-es^ntation. N >vv, let us compare his logiek >.. ith 
 Mie scriptures ; and see whether it be consistent : The reatler 
 is requested, in cadingthe tollowingtexts of sci-ipture, where 
 the name of God or Christ occurs, to substitute the word, 
 •■* representation " tor the word " name ; " by which he w 11 
 p^rc -ive tlie impropriety of Mr. M's theory more strikingly. 
 To assist the reader in this, I shall every time p'ace the word 
 '' representation " betvveen a parenthesis ( ). 
 
 " For whosoever shall eall up'>n the name ( representation ) 
 of God sha! be saved " R)n. 10, J3 — " But to as many 
 as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons 
 of God, even to them that believe - n his name. " ( lepre.-ena- 
 tion) John 1, 12 — '• Wherefore God also hath highly exal- 
 ted him, and given him a name ( rep esentation ) which is a- 
 bove every name ; ( representation ) ; that at the name ( rep- 
 resentation ) of Jesus every knee should bow, &c. Phil. 
 3, 9 — " A.nd thou sha't cal' his name ( representation ) Jesus ; 
 for he shall save his people " Matth. 1. 21 — '' AnM in his name 
 (representation) shall the Gentiles trust, "ch. I'i, 21 — '* Where 
 two or three are gathered together in my name, (repres^nta- 
 tion) there am I in the midst of them." Matth. 18, 20—" Go 
 ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
 {representation) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Ho y Ghost ; &c. " Matth. 28, 19— •< Our Father which art 
 in heaven, Hallowed be thy name (representation ) " Luk.-.ll 
 2 — '* Thou shalt not take the name (representation ) of llie 
 Liord thy God in vain : for the Lord will not hold him gi-ilt- 
 less that taketh his name ( represent jtion ) in vain. " Kxofl. 20, 
 ■7 — " N'^ither is there sfdvation in any other, for thei-e i- no 
 ©ther name ( representation ) under heaven given among men, 
 "whereby we must be saved " Acts. 4, 12. 
 
 The Ike impertinency and nons. nse will be seen in the ap- 
 plication of this g'oss, to all those passages, which have the 
 name o' God or Jesus. 
 
 \ll this is •sufficient to prove tliat the name of God is God 
 ^im-e'.f. This being established the argument with re-peet io 
 kp.ptism assumes a very majestic and invineible appeaiaucp. 
 
•Fhis name being the ground-work of It, it Is evident, that there 
 can be id sa,)erijr baptism • for wbat can h.' supeno; to God's 
 na m^ w i :ii s hiiiiie f ? H )\v is it p )s-.ible tor baptihiii to he 
 a n^.-e emMim, or a repr^'Neii arrin, when God's \iamc is the 
 grjuiKl-work th-.-reot"? O' ho v lamentabl' is it ! ^hat thou- 
 sands will not see life, and salvation, Dt'fered in it ; nor even 
 estee^n the b essed nain.^ of G » 1 ; but g;ize (o heaven'lor a su- 
 p:;riar baptisii; as if ihey coal! .'iet s:)m 'thing superior to 
 G > I's n ;. n-i, vvi e'l is h .nse'f. O h )vv th \y despise nis hles- 
 6 'd >M n • ill this institation ! T-h>ucrii the scriptures, so 'irequeet- 
 \y incd! :a e, that we should believe in, and call upOn this 
 Hain^. Why n3t also believe in this name when we si e it in 
 baptism ? 
 
 The 6113 n'es to this do^^trin*, who are constantly preaching 
 Hp shaiows an I eiible ns, in oi-der to reinove th:' substance, 
 have but t-.vo wavs to fi^iht against this blessed truth : they 
 mast either, wil "ul'y and contrary to the scriptures deny, that 
 flie nam^ of G) I co isritutes the essence of baptism ; oi- e'se 
 betake h^'n-elves to this piti ul re'uge. that the name of God 
 is n )t God himself; bat only a representation, and thus intio- 
 dlaee an ido'atrous worsh.p : and construe all the texts, which 
 speak of believ'nsi; in, and ca ling on God'*; name, to mean 
 fh.il we shoal 1 b;»,':ieve in, & cal' on a r^pr'*sent;it on ; v\ hich 
 shocks comm in sense, and is abominable in tlie sight ol the 
 spiritual worshipper. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 Mr M attempts to shew, that my reasoning is not conclusive, when I say, 
 that God effect^ g eat things by simple means; because the instances | 
 produced, only re^er to hi- extraordinary woikins &c. But it is shewn, 
 that God also works ordinarily by apparent simple means. He undertakes 
 to prove, becau^e theie are different means, to obtain the same end; that 
 therefore, baotism cannot be the means, &c. This is investigated. He ar- 
 gues, that sometimes all the means fail This is shewn to be inconect. 
 l^astly, it is shewn, that if some of his arguments be true, that the neces- 
 sity of a Wcitten revelation is superseded. 
 
 ^ In my tr'^atise I had stated, that God effects great thing-shy 
 simole m'^ans; from which 1 concluded, that aUhouih, bap- 
 tism appears si'nnle in itself; notwith'^tandins^ bv it. great 
 things may be etTected. To elucidate this, sundry instanc«sof 
 
SI 
 
 the kind are produced: such as, wl.cn Mo?es brd Fir'ttcn the 
 rock, to snpp'y the Israelites \v;ih \Naici : vhtr 'hej were 
 cured by looking" on a bri.zon seipnit. am: ^nar an hy wa^h- 
 inghimselt sevtiuinifs ir Joiciun Crtl^sJSi. ^. cbseives, 
 p, 18 — *' To show the absuidi'j ot Bvi. B's ita^cnii j> on this 
 subject, I would obscive, thai he cail^ ll;}tI^n the CKiiiaiy 
 niean^-- ot resreneratit li, and cne ai^rntnt he brings to piove 
 it is, '< that God etieots gieat ti'irg^ by ^n alln tans," as stated 
 in the above quoted p aces. Bnt 1 tli k diit^ wi'lpicve agtirst 
 his dn'trine, instead of tor it. Ft r ah those pUees an not the 
 ordinary method o?' God's working, liut are extraordinaiy cases, 
 whert^in GoH dispayed his niraciilous pov, er cut ot his (cm- 
 mon and ordinary method of uorking. Thereto:e to biing 
 thvn to prove God's ordinary method, is certainly foreign Inm 
 the point. The argument put into a syUogistical forn^, v^culd 
 stand thus: — B «ptism is God's ordinary means of regcneiating 
 the son! — because God in certain extraordinary cases, e^erl9 
 his miracul'Uts and wonder uorking power, whereby be efiVetS 
 great things by -imall.O'itot' his common and ordinal y method; 
 Thercfort', baptism is God's ordin;u•^ r cans, &c, Jscw yofli 
 may see the absurdity of the argximent !! " 
 
 Answer. This statement is incouevt. I did not produce 
 thn-e extraordinary cases, with a view to prove, that traptism 
 is the means ot regeneration : but only to shew, that if God 
 could and did effect great things by simp'e means in extraor- 
 dinary case«, 'hat it was not absurd, to believe that he cftecteS 
 regi^neration by a means rqua'ly simp'e. This is evident 
 from whnt I said ; viz "Now if God connected so great a 
 virtue whh a rod and a rock, w hy n ay he nol also connect bis 
 srraee with water in baptism? See Heavenly fioc d, p 5, 
 There is a great difference between saying : that ii God ccold 
 effect great th'ngs by litile n^eans. in extraordinaiy eases, that 
 he could do the same in regenerating a soul : and sa} ing^ 
 that because he performs gieat things by sin-pie nieans, in ttu- 
 raculous cases ; that thcrelbre. bap'i^m is the nieans o' re- 
 g»*neration The foriner, and not the latter, I affirmed, va h^ck 
 Mr M. palms on me unjustly, to n^ake my argument apprar 
 ridiculous. But will he, or any other man deny, that ii God 
 coil'd and did perform great things by simple means, in extra- 
 ordinary cases, that it is congenial to reason, to believe that 
 he does the same in his ordinary method ? Mr M. himself 
 ai'n^'ts, ''that the preaching of the gospel is the ordinary 
 meatus of reg -neration ' p. 20 What wouid he call the 
 pr 'achins: of the gospel ? a great and lofty ; or, a simple a! d 
 ai^parently a foolish means ? St. Paul answers the latter in the 
 
82 
 
 aSfirmative, when he says, "he was sent t« preach the gospel ; 
 n»t \^ :th vvisdum of \\ord>, lest the cross oi Gh.ist ^houl(t be 
 ma'ie oi none eflect For the preaching oi the cioss is to them 
 th-.t perish ;uo'ishiie<s ; but unto us v\hich aie saved ii i;- the 
 p )\N er oV God." 1 Cror 1.17.18. According to this, preach- 
 ing ;) the gospel is cai ed loclis-hness ; or so it appnns ri the 
 STglii o. the \A0;ld : because it is treqoently done by n en^, 
 \\\v so persons ap| ear ct nttn"pt ble, and nhose demeancr. is 
 n- 1 like that o! a polite dancing master : and whose ^tyle is 
 not fraught with prmpous, theatrical diction to phase the ear^ 
 with ut touching the heart ; yet, gieat things are efleded by 
 this ordinary method ; or sinners are saved and the wisdc ta 
 of the vvorUI confounded. As 'oolish. as the preaching (-f t};e 
 g>-i)e'. ap|iears in the sight of the world ; equally so bnptisn^ 
 as the means of roeeneration. appears in the sij^ht of ^'i . M. 
 and of many thousands, \\hopio'ess the Christian Religion. 
 P'rhaps the little 'Aatci. and the hw words, which constitute 
 bajitism, reflcc' 'ike upon an ob!ique mirror, foolishness upoa 
 his lo;ty imagination so that h,s intel'ects cannoi discover ia 
 it <livine \\isdom That he has Ireqnently rf presented the 
 d '-tiine of bapti<^m. a.^^ taught h\ me, as absurd, unreii^tna- 
 bl ■ ; ht^nce foohsh ; that it might have done in the dark ages 
 O; MOpery : that it s suipiij-mg. tha' any man shou'd bt lu ve^ 
 and advance it. in oui- en igl lened day ; ai^d that such as de- 
 pend on it. !e.;n on a broken staft ; al' amounts to no valid ob- 
 jection. \^ hilst he c;:n pi-oc'uce no better test n cny, tbaa 
 meie'y. because baptism is party an outvA ard thing ; heice 
 ap^'avent'y wrak. and base ; I glory in having espoused ibis 
 foolish canst. God who is the author of the foo'ishn<ss of 
 p.\ ac!'ing th'' gosp'l ; is also the author of this foolish baptism. 
 St Pan! saith — '' But GofI hath chosen the foo'ish thini's of 
 tlie world to con'^ound the wise; and God hath chosen the 
 W'ak thirgs of the \\ orld to contouru! the th ngs which are 
 mighty ; and base thirgs of the uorld. and things vvliich are 
 despised, hath God chosen, yea i<nd things >\ hich are not. (o 
 br iig to nouijlit things that are ; that no ^esh shou'd g'ory 
 in his presence. " 1 Cor. 1, 27, 2H. Whilst. Mr. M. atteippt- 
 cd to represent b;iptism. ;;s a mere out\^ ard. vseak th ng ; and 
 the doctrine, '.vhich ascribe? to it, legeneiaiing virtues, as tool- 
 ishncss, has unauires. establisbc<I it as true ; lor the text here 
 q' ted ronfirms. that God las chosen weak. base, foolish, and 
 despised thinszs. tn coi 'oord things th;it are mighty. As bi.p- 
 tis- is instUuted bv God himsel', and Mr M. representirv it, 
 as a V enk, ^ut\^a'd ih'rg, I u'ust conclude with the apost'e, 
 that God has chosen such a despised thing, for a vei-y great 
 purpose,. 
 
This foolishness in chosing such weak and despised mearts j 
 is nothing but wisdom witii God. Weak, mortal men, are 
 eonstrained to make such preparations, and employ such 
 means, that are adequate to the end, they intend to obtain : but 
 God, because lie is omnipotent, and alhvise, has no need lor 
 all this ; but the most contemptible means, answers hinj ; and 
 when his purposes are achieved, they cannot be ascribed to 
 the magnitude of the means ; and thus his own tinger is ren- 
 dered conspicuous. Such base means, when great ihings are 
 efifected by them, are also well calculated, to moriify the pride 
 of the great men of the world ; without which they cannot 
 be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, How it morti- 
 fies proud, corrupted reason to be confounded and made a fool, 
 by the foolish preaching ,f Christ, and him crucified ; and to 
 be convinced, that such a base and weak thing, as water bap- 
 tism should be a means of salvation ! We hear the self-wise, 
 among all sects exclaim, with vehement warmth and confi- 
 dence : it is foolishness to believe, that so weak a thing, as an 
 outward baptism, should be a means of regeneration ; it is no- 
 thing but a mere representation of a better baptism 1 Ah ! 
 my friend, I know, that baptism in your sight, appears weak, 
 base, and despised ; so that your unhallowed reason, environ- 
 ed with pride, and degrading passions, tells you that it cannot 
 be the means of regeneration ; though God be the author of 
 it : but remember, he has chosen even such weak things to 
 confound your wisdom, that you may not glory iuhis pres- 
 ence. 
 
 Mr. M. says, p. 14 " Different means may be used, that 
 will lead to the same end. For instance, the husbanc'man, 
 
 E loughs, plants, cultivates, &c. in order to raise a support for 
 imselt and family ; but how many are there, who follow 
 other means in order to obtain the same end ? Such as the 
 means of merchandizing, mechanical business, or some pro- 
 fession ; as doctors, lawyers, teachers, &c — All or kny of 
 these ditferent means well followed, with the blessing of God, 
 will bring us to the attainment of the same end. So \^ ere we 
 to grant that water baptism is a means, yet is it not regenera- 
 tion itself, nor the ordinary and only means, because there are 
 other means that will bring us to the same end " 
 
 Answer. That there are several means, by which a man 
 may support himself, does not prove, that baptism is not the 
 means of regeneration. And though, there should be many 
 means, by which souls might be regenerated, yet it would not 
 prove, that baptism was not the means ; for if there be seve- 
 ral means, why may not baptism be one ? I no where said, 
 
 E 
 
iiiat baptism was the only means ; but the ordinary ; which 
 two words are not of a synonymous signification. In the 
 same way, that Mr. M. proves tliat baptism is not the means ; 
 even so I can prove, that the preaching ot the gospel is not ; 
 which he says is the means. Fi»r if, because there ar^ dif- 
 ferent means, baptism cannot be the means, it equally fol- 
 lows, that preachmg cannot be the means, for the very same 
 reason. Would he admi such reasonuig ? 
 
 He also says p. l4, 15 — '" Hence means often fail and do 
 not bring us to the attainment of th.! desired end. How of- 
 ten do men plough, piant, and cultivate, and yet fail to obtain 
 asu^cient crop? How ofien do those who foliow other 
 means for a support, fail to obtain the desired object ? This 
 indubitably proves, that the blessing is not in, nor proceeds 
 from the means ; lor ii this were the cusCj we never should 
 fail, (whenever we used the means) to obta n the desired end. 
 
 Thei'eforc, water baptism is not rcgeneiation ; neither is it 
 the heavenly flood, nor ordinary means by which men are re- 
 generated. Because the grace which regenerates the soul,ig 
 neither contained in, connected with, nor proceeds from the 
 water ; but immediately from the grace and mercy of God. 
 Hence many who have been baptised with water, remain un- 
 regenerate in heart, and are as much the servants and chil- 
 dren of wickedness as th.se who never were baptised, &c. " 
 Again he says, p 29 — " If baptism is a means at all, it is 
 not the ordinary means, (as we have ulready shown) because 
 there are other means, such as preaching the gospel, &c. that 
 commonly bring us to obta-n the same end ; and sometimes 
 all the means fail, and the new birth is never eftected in the 
 hearts of many." 
 
 Answer. It is admitted, that the husbandman may some- 
 times plant, and cultivate, and yet not obtain a crop. But it 
 Is erroneous to affirm, that such means as are immediately em- 
 ployed by providence, ever fai'. Planting, ploughing, &c, are 
 means which farmers themselves follow in agriculture, to place 
 the seeds, and plants, into a proper situation, and to re- 
 wovc a'l obstructions ; so that the means of providence may 
 operate unimpeded But the means, unmediately employed 
 by providence, are set ds, dews, rains, air, earth, and sun- 
 beams ; which when they all concur, with the agricu'tural la- 
 bours, never did, nor never shall fail. whereas a grain of 
 sand though planted in the richest soil, produces nothing ; be- 
 cause the blessing of propegation is not attached to it. It would 
 l|>e the climax of nonsense, to assert, that only sometimes the 
 divine blessing was in the seed to procreate their kinds ; that 
 
35 
 
 only sometimes the nuns, and suii-bearns, possessed vegetatin| 
 properties ; and that therefore, IVequentI} all n.ust fail. The 
 experience ot" nearly six thousand years, ever since creation, 
 verifies, that neither seeds, nor dews, nor rains, nor sun- 
 beams, ever failed in their operations, when they were sim- 
 ultaneous : and when the in lustrious husbandman gets no 
 crop, .t is only because providence, for wise reasons withholds 
 those means ; and not because of ;heir inofticacy. 
 
 As it is manifest, that the m ans of providence, in nature 
 never fai ; it is eq la'lj' true, that the divine means of regene- 
 ration can never be inettic!acious. And though, the former 
 should fail ; yet would it be no evidence, that ihe latter should ; 
 for they have the divine promises. Tiie means of grace here 
 in qaestion, are the word of the gospel, and baptism I 
 would ask Mr. M. are these Go i's own means, or the inven- 
 tions of men ? If he answers, they are the invention of 
 men ; then he b^^trays himself as a deist ; tor a deist denies 
 the gospel word to be divine. But if he acknowledge them 
 as divine, 1 then would afk, is the gospel word fallible or in- 
 fallible ? He has confidently asserted, that sometimes all the 
 means fail, an 1 as the word is one of the principal means, it 
 is evident, th:it he considers it fa lible ; hence no better than 
 the words of an erring man. , Elsewhere he admits, that the 
 word possesses regenerating virtues ; which he here, and as 
 shall further be sh:)wn, roundly contradicts, by asserting, that 
 sometimes all the means fail. The word ol God never fails; 
 for thus saith the prophet — " For as the raih cometh down, 
 and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but wa- 
 tereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may 
 give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater ; so shall my 
 word be that goeth forth out of my mouth : it shall not re turn 
 unto me void ; but it shall accompMsh that which I please, 
 and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. " Isa. 55. 
 10. 11. See 2 Pet. 1, 19. 
 
 That ail men who use the means, are not regenerated is no 
 evidence that they ever fa'l. When a criminal absconds him- 
 self in a subterranious vault, and freezes, it does not prove, 
 that the sun is not a warmins: luminary. Or, would any one 
 suppose, that when the jews resi'^ted the Holy flhost. Acts 7, 
 51 and thus were not regenerated, that therefore the Holy 
 Ghost was a fallible being ? No man can regenerate him- 
 seU'jbut it is evident, that he may violently resist the operations 
 of the spirit through the means ; yet neither the spirit nor hie 
 means are vain, nor fallible ; for men are left without an ex- 
 dQse, and God's goodness, and impartiality : notwithstanding 
 
their opositiOB, shall be magnified. When God has done eve- 
 ry thing, which is necessary, to save a sinner, is it rational 
 that he should yet violently I'orce him to receive this favour ? 
 What happiness can we enjoy in that, which is forced on us ? 
 This argument is beauti uliy illustrated by the prophet : "What 
 could have been done more to my vinyard, that I have not 
 done in it ? Wherefore, when I looked that it shi>uid bring 
 forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes ? " Isa. 6, 4. Sec 
 also V 5 — 7 
 
 Mr. M. says p. 14. " It is the blessing of God upon the 
 means, that makes them effectual ; without it, means will be 
 used in vam, and all our indeavours will prove ab.»rtive. And 
 also the blessing is not contained in the means, neither does it 
 proceed from them ; but is an act of iree grace and unmerited 
 favour, bestowed upon the creature, in the use of such means 
 which he has appointed ; and is not contained in, nor proceeds 
 from the means, but immediate'y from God himself." 
 
 Answer. It is admitted, that without God's blessings, means 
 are inefficacious ; but the question is, has he put his divine 
 blessings upon the means, so that they ate always inseparably 
 connected with the s;i me ? Mr. M. says, that the blessings 
 are not contained in the means, but immediately proceed from 
 God, it is evident, that he denies these blessings to be in them. 
 I5 the divine blessmg be not contained in the gospel word ; 
 then it is not spirit and life, but only an empty word without 
 any thing divine in it. To say that God at certain times, 
 when he converts a sinner, instuntaniously adds his spirit to 
 the ontward gospel word ; so as to make it effectual, is in re- 
 ality denying the divine authenticity of the holy scriptures ; 
 for if the word must first receive this blessing, it then is not 
 already the word of God ; but has yet to be made such, by^ 
 the addition of a blessing, of which it is destitute, and 
 which is ess<^ntial, to constitute its peculiar charactcristick. 
 Accoiding to this theorj', vvc have no word of God in our 
 Bibles ; for the divine blessing, which alone distinguishes it 
 from the word of a mere man, and characterises it as divine, 
 js not contained in it. Such a Mord is nothing but an empty 
 sound Mr. M. denying, that the divine blessing is contained 
 in the m'^ans, he plucks from the word, that which only 
 makes it divine. 
 
 According to this plan, what opportunities can sinners have 
 to be saved ? For if the divine blessing be not contained in 
 the word, they must ♦ither hear it in vain, or else be excused 
 for not believing it. This is ore of the life strings of the doc- 
 trine of unconditional election and rcprobatiofi. Only one Qf 
 fth^e three plans can be correct : 
 
87 
 
 1st, Either that, it is not the will of God, that &]} xnen 
 should be saved; because of a secret decree of unconditional 
 wrath, befc*re the reprobates were in existence, and as he has 
 not insepcrably connected his spirit with the word, and the 
 other means ; hence although thoy use them, yet can tney not 
 be saved. Or, 2d that, the sinner can merit the favour of 
 God by his works of righteousness, without receivmg any 
 unmeritfd gifts by the means Or, 3d, that there is an in- 
 seperable divine blessing contained in the word, and the other 
 meaas ; so that all wiio attend to them, and do not too lar re- 
 sist such blessing will be saved. And as these means are 
 Gad's own gits, the sinner in the use of them, v^'ithout any 
 legal merits is saved by grace ; and yet, if he be lost, it is 
 not because of any partial decree, to withhold this blessing ; 
 but because the sinner, either d'^spises the means, or resists 
 the divine operations ; for where can there a medicine be 
 found, to cure the rejection of all medicine ? 
 
 Whereas Mr. M. denies the divine blessing to be in the 
 means, he of course rejects the last mt^ntioned plan. As a 
 Methodist he cannat consistently maintain the first, which is 
 that of the Galvinistic ua^iondirional predestination; hence I 
 cannot otherwise conclude, than that he must believe, that a 
 sinner can m-«rit salvation by legal woi-ks. The Calvinists 
 believe, that God has two calls, the common and the effectual. 
 They say, the common is the outward gospel word, which in- 
 deed all may hear ; but there is no divine blessing in it, sufifi- 
 oient to regenerate a sinner ; but the effectual is an infallible 
 ca'l of the spirit, not always in the word, but only designed 
 for the elect. Since th-^y make the preaching of the word an 
 outward thing, destitute of regenerating virtues ; unless it 
 be by an Instantanious concurrence of the spirit, when it rea- 
 ches the elect, it may readily be accounted for, why they make 
 nothing but emblems of the sacraments ; for if the word, 
 which is the principle thing in them, be an ineffectual word, 
 or a mere common call, it would follow, that they were no- 
 thing but shadows without a substance. This sets aside the 
 authenticity of the word in the Bible ; because it is but a com- 
 mon call ; hence destitute of that blessinff. which only char- 
 acterizes it as divine. Although, Mr. M. as a Methodist, 
 would reject the doctrine ot unconditional predestination ; yet 
 has he furnished his Calvinistic opponents with the most fa- 
 vourite argument ; when he denies the divine blessing in the 
 means ; and which as clearly as can be, expresses the idea of 
 common and effectual calling. Thus he must, either be a 
 strict predestinarian ; or else, plead up that most absurd doc- 
 trine, that a sinner can merit salvation by legal works. 
 
St. Paul saith, " God also hath made us able mhiisters of 
 Ihe new testament ; not of the letter but of the sprit : lor the 
 letter kiileth, but the spirit giveth lite. " 2 Cor 3, 6. "This 
 only would I learn of you, received ye, the spirit by the 
 works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?" Gul. 3, 2. 
 And V. 5 — '' Hi tlierefore that ministereth to you the spirit, 
 and worketh miracles among you, do'h he it by the works 
 of the !aw, or bv the hearing of laith. " These texts shew, 
 thai the H uy Spirit is ad.ninistered by preachers of the gos- 
 pel* Bat how could ^ny mm adm nister the spirit, by preach- 
 ing thi gospel, if the spirit was not inseparably connected 
 With the wjrd ? If the word which is preached, be oniy an 
 outward w )rd, or a mere coaim m call ; then the spirit is not 
 administered, which contradicts the aposde. A man, who 
 does not adm"nister the spirit to his tiearers, but only an out- 
 ward call ; his preaehing is no better than reverberating the 
 air, making some noise, which would even not be as agree- 
 able as sounding brass, or a w^ell tuned orgm. Though mi- 
 racalous gifts may not now be administered ; yet the gospel 
 mast always administer the spirit, that gives life to the soul ; 
 it must be the po ver of God unto salvation, to every one 
 that believes. M*. M. with thousands of others denying 
 that the blessing is contained in the means, at once shew, 
 that they are m lintaining a useless ministry ; which is for- 
 eign from that of the new testament dispensation ; which is 
 a ministry of the spirit ; hence not of an outward sound and 
 shadow, St* Paul also saith, '' If we have sown unto you 
 spiritual things, is it a great thmg if we shall reap your car- 
 nal things ? " 1 Cor. 9, 11. These words shew, that minis- 
 ters are not to be supported by mere acts of charity ; but be- 
 cause the hearers justly owe this support. This is very ration- 
 al, for wh) ought not to give something, for something which 
 is worth more ? A man who sows spiritual gifts, ought to 
 I'eceive temporal gifts in exchange. But is it just, that we 
 should be in duty bound, to give som'thing for nothing, or 
 that which is worth nothing ; unless it be lor the sake of char- 
 ity ? Where is the least shadow of justice, ii> paying men for 
 delivering an outward gospe', in which there is no divine bles- 
 sing, and sacraments, which have no virtue ; so that we must 
 still gaze to heaven, and wait who knows how long, for this 
 secret supernatural call ; or weary ourselves with legal works, 
 and finally remain un'^ertain of the divine favour. In VHin 
 the clergy, with the garb of sanctity, who maintain this opin- 
 ion, exhort their people, to contribute for the purpose of edu- 
 Mting young men for tiie ministry, and sending them out as 
 
S9 
 
 missionaries ; and extort extravagant salaries, to support theni'- 
 selvcs and their families ; not unirequently in the luxuries of 
 high lite ? when they administer nothing but an outward inef- 
 iicacious gospel, and saeraments without a substance ; so that 
 the poor people, notwithstanding all this pious parade, must 
 yet with agonizing suspense, wait for this secret efiectual call- 
 ing, which their priests tell them without a blush, is not to be 
 had in such outward things, as the gospel word & sacraments, 
 which they administer. Such a minestry is a pest to, and a 
 most gross imposition on society ; for it is robbing the people 
 of their temporal substance ; when in exchange they receive 
 no spiritual gifts, unless it be rarely one of the favourite elect, 
 who receives a secret call, or one, who has by his works me- 
 rited heaven ; whereas all the rest, for the want of this super- 
 natural something must be damned for ever. Christ said to 
 his disciples, *'He that heareth you, heareth me ; &c " Luke 
 10, 16. When Christ speaks, his words are spirit and life ; 
 but when such men preach, it seems agreeable to their own 
 confession, that Christ does not at all times speak through 
 them ; for they only administer such outw ard means, in which 
 especially as Mr. M.says, the grace is not contained, but im- 
 mediately proceeds from God. Poor, miserable ministry ! 
 How unlike to that, which the servants of Christ bear, w hich 
 administers spirit and life ; joy'ul news, and glad tidings to 
 all sinners ! Thus we have no need to wait for an other eall^ 
 or view our salvation at a great distance ; for " the word is 
 nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy htart .* that is, the 
 woj-d of faith wh'ch we preach ; that if thou shalt confess 
 with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart 
 that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.'^ 
 Rom. 10, 8, 9. If this grace be not contained in the means, " 
 but immediately proceeds from God ; then those who receive 
 it, must like the ancient prophets and apostles, be inspired. 
 But it is strange, that they like them, cannot perlorm the same 
 miracles. Aaain, if every one, who is to be saved must be 
 taught by im nediate inspiration ; then the necessity of a writ- 
 ten revelat oti is superseded, and all the preachers are like bu- 
 sy men without employment. 
 
 Many of those, who believe that the Holy Spirit is not in- 
 separably connected with the word, have also adopted an 
 opinion, which is consonant to, and calculated to complete 
 this system. They say, the word is neither to be understood, 
 nor explained as it reads ; but it must be spiritualized, or re- 
 ceive some other mysterious interpretation. The popes of 
 Rome forbade the laity, to read the scriptures ; because they 
 
40 
 
 supposed the laity did not know the proper interpretation, 
 and would thus be led astray. The pope considered himself 
 as inspired, and thus inrallibie, to give the proper interpreta- 
 tion. Had the Papists believed, that the spirit was connected 
 with the word, they would not have neglected to read it ; as 
 this blessed spirit would not have guided them astray. No- 
 thing gave the pope and his prelates, such an ascendency over 
 the consciences of people, as when they deprived them of the 
 scriptures ; hence also of their judgment. For they had to 
 lie at the feet of mercy of the proud pontiffs, for their spirit- 
 ual guidance. From the anguage of many, styled protes- 
 tants, it seems useless for the laity to read the scriptures ; for 
 if some private interpretation is necessaiy, then they must 
 look to a miraculous source for light. Upon the currency of 
 this opinion, many filthy dreamers elevate themselves, who 
 affect to have heard supernatural voices, and beheld visions ; 
 and thus inspired, they can with ease spiritualize every sa- 
 cred text, to whose visionary pretensions, their votaries bow 
 with adoration ; & whom they enhance as spiritual Lords ; be- 
 cause they have a superior illumination to those, who only as 
 they maliciously call it, have the outward gospel. Such also, 
 in their imposition, have fortified themselves against all detec- 
 tion ; for when they are closely pursued with the scriptures, 
 their subterfuge is, they do not mean as they read, but must 
 be spiritualized ; and by this satanic act, can turn any posi- 
 tive proof, into any thing they please at the expense of com- 
 mon sense, and all grammatical accuracy. It is almost in 
 vain, to attempt to convince such deluded people by the scrip- 
 tures ; for if a truth be proven ever so clear by positive text, 
 they in the face of all this, vvill still reply : perhaps these texts, 
 do not mean as they read ; and if we had our minister here, 
 he' could give the proper spiritual meaning, or perhaps other 
 texts may be found, to contradict these ; as if the Bible was 
 full of contradictions. To such a hoard of fanaticks, the Bi- 
 ble is of no more use, than it is to the papists ; and as they 
 put their trust in the pope ; so do these poor dreamers in their 
 inspired preachers ; who are constantly exclaiming : the out- 
 ward letter ! the dead letter ! the letter I the letter ! ! whilsi 
 they themselves speak and write words, that are composed of 
 letters. Although many among the protestants are diligently 
 employed, in circulating the scriptures ; yet, what will it a- 
 .45, vail, when they make the people believe, that they must be 
 
 >.' spiritualized, or that another private interpretation is necessa- 
 
 ry ? When I have a written revelation, what does it profit, 
 when I cannot rely upon it ; so that I must have another to 
 explain it ? 
 
41 
 
 Oar blessed Saviour salth, "the words that I speak unto you,- 
 they are spirit and they are lite. " John 6, 68 Ilow can a 
 man spiiituahze the spirit ? He nigh' as Vvell undeitakr to 
 kill the dead. And St Peter sajth, " Kncuiiig this first, 
 that no prophecy of the sciiptine is ot yny piivate iiiteipieta- 
 tion. Foi- the piopheey cane rot in old time by the will of 
 man ; but ho'y men of God spake as they were noved liy the 
 Holy Ghost." SJ Pet. 1,20,^^:1. I; no prophecy be oi any- 
 private interpretation, how dare any n^an, spir tua'izt by his 
 private inspiiaiion ; or invent mistc ritus meanings, ^^hich aie 
 not already contained in the word ? l! ihey are no private 
 interp etation ; then we are to understand titm as ihey read, 
 and only explain scripture, by sciiptuie. The scriptures ire 
 no man's private cpirion, but the pioducticn of the Holy 
 Ghost ; heme to explain sciipture, by scripture, is no pri\ate 
 interpretation. Some ii>deed, n uy (bject and say, what will 
 you do with the parables and metaphors, v\hi(h occur in the 
 Bible ? I Answer, whatsoever reads as a parable, or nietaphor, 
 understand, and explain as such ; and whatsoever is literal, 
 do not turn into parables and figures. Let th(^ obscure t* xts be 
 elucidated, by comparing them with others that aie p ain and 
 analogous. Let the si-uification of parables, and metaphors 
 be sought for. in the context ; and i; you can; ot get the sense 
 immediately by such means, rather be contentefl or the pres- 
 ent ; than to invent a m* aring, which you conceive as ration- 
 al, or with which you suppose to be inspired. Ey frequent 
 searching, the light will incre;ise : and give understandrg to 
 Ihe simple. Ps. 119. 1§0. Let him w ho would a\ ish to be- 
 come an able expositor, become a fool in his own sirht ; and 
 whilst he is reading, lift his eyes to God, and say : Open tbou 
 mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. 
 
 SECTION VIL 
 
 'v opponent attempts to p^ove, that baptism cannot be the means of rcffc- 
 neration, because water 1:= a natural thing. The weakness thereof is 
 shewn. A reply to what he says, with respect to the m<-ny who have 
 been bapti'^ed ; and vet, remained unreseneiated. He argues, that be- 
 cause we get remission for sins by repentance ; thai therefore, baptibm is 
 not the means o; regeneration This is also examined. Lastly a reply 
 to his criticism on 1 Cor. 1, 14- 17. 
 
 In this section I shall consider some of Mr, M's argtt- 
 
 F 
 
42 
 
 Ertents, which he alleges as positive objections, to prove that 
 baptism is not ihe means of regeneration. 
 
 1. Hesuys, p 6. " Regeneration is a spiritual bi;th, «hich 
 takes place in tho soul or spirit ot man ; th> refore, that \\ hich 
 is natu a! cannot b ^get and produce that which is spiritual : 
 every thing mast beget and produce its like. Water is a na- 
 kirai tiling, therefore cunnot produce a spiritual birth. " 
 
 Answer, No one denies, that water is a natural things 
 and as sucli it cannot produce a sjoiritual biith. But what is it 
 to prove ? — that baptism is not the means of regeneration ? 
 It ajjpears, to have been introduced for this purpose. Water 
 is a natural thing, and as such cannot produce that which is 
 sp ritual ; thereiore, baptism cannot be the means of regenera- 
 tion ! Such logick is tulse. Baptism does no; consist of mere 
 water, it is the mj.-it insignificant part thereof ; for its sub- 
 stance is God's name, and command. Now, to give a tair 
 statement, the argument ought to stand thus ; God's name^ 
 and command are spiritual, and they are the substance oi bap- 
 tism ; therefore, as every th.ng begets and produces its like, 
 baptism must produce the spiritual birth. But it appear*, by 
 some misiortune, my opponent got a film over his eyes ; that 
 although, h s own brethren, when they baptise, use the name 
 of God ; (and peihaps also he does it himself) yet, he can 
 see nothing but \^ ater ! 
 
 2. He says, p. 8, 9, *' After the Christian religion became 
 established by civil authority, men of corrupt minds came in- 
 to the ministry for the sake of gain ; then it w as that this o- 
 pinion, among other errors, crept into the church, viz : th^ 
 water baptism was regeneration. Hence scores, and hun- 
 dreds, became Christians, joined the church, and got regen- 
 erated in this way. But w ere they any bettei , alter they 
 were thus regenerated, and became Christians, than they 
 were before ? Not a' whit. For the most of them w ere as- 
 wicked as tliey were while in a stated heathenism. Hence 
 that persecuting spirit that crept into the church ; and men, 
 under the sacred nam?; of Christians, would persecute, tor- 
 ment, kill and distroy their fellow men, just as bad as the 
 heathens. And a'l this, for the crime of a little difference of 
 op'nion in some points of doctrine, & mode of external worship. 
 Hence also the institution of the holy inquisition, which v as 
 a scandal to civil society, and a disgrace to human nature. 
 These were some of the good fruits which those Christians 
 l>rought forth, who were regenerated by Mr. H's '^heavenly 
 flood." And as like causes always produce like efiects, we 
 ravay be at liberty to think, that if he and his adherents geium- 
 
A3 
 
 belter regeneration than what he talks about, that although 
 he calls ihem Gods in his piece, page 15, yei their Iruit w 11 
 be no great deal better than those lorner y were. " 
 
 Answer. There is no consistency in asseiting, that because 
 many of the Papists abused the baptismal grace ; that therefore, 
 the doctrine I niamlam is lalse. Ti.is is ihe argunjt nt, v\ hich 
 deists employ, to oppose the Christian religion, i hey say, 
 many of ttie bishops and priests were tyrants, and that Chi is- 
 tianity has been the cause of many evils, and bloody wms ; 
 hence, conclude that it i« nohing bu'. priest-craft. Provided 
 my opponent is not a deist, what would he answer to such 
 an objection ? Would he not sny, what have prelacy, and 
 tyranny to do with Christianity ? — tloes the abuse o» a tlung, 
 prove ihat the thing itself 'S bad ? Relgitn is not the cause 
 of wars, nor other evils ; but corrupted men, who under its 
 sacred garb ; notwithstanding, its benign precepts aie gover- 
 ned by their evil passions. As little as Re igion is the cause 
 of wars, among those who profess it ; just so little is the doc- 
 trine of baptism, here in question, of the abominations which 
 Mr. M. mentions. That many of the Papists made baptism, 
 and other holy things, their pi.nder!-, is no proof at all of their 
 invalidity. My opponent exhorts his readers, to pray, that 
 they might obtain the knowledge of the pardon of their sins, 
 &c. and the Methodists practise fasting. Who pi a} ed and 
 fasted more than the Papists ? But would he concude, that 
 all those persons, who fast, and pray, will have no better 
 fruits than such Papists, who hoisted the bloody flag of per- 
 secution ? If it be a proo^", that because the Papists were 
 baptised, believing it to be the means of regeneration, and yet 
 continued wicked, that such a doctrine is false ; it equally fol. 
 lows, that praying with a view to obtain pardon for sins, 
 must be fa'se ; because the Papists prayed for this purpose, 
 and continued wicked. 
 
 That he say«;, if I and my adherents get no better regen- 
 eration, our fruits will be n > better than those of the Papists, 
 who tormonted, and killed their fellow men, as bad as the 
 heathens, is cas'ing the most clandestine persona' reflections* 
 Why did he not point out, wherein I and my adherents ma- 
 nifested such bloody persecuting works, 'ike unto the inquisi.- 
 tors among the P.ipists ; so that we might have defended our- 
 selves ? It is beneath the dignity of a gentleman, to make 
 amy criminal insinuations. It betrays a cowardly spirit, who 
 wishes to injure another's good reputation with impunity. If 
 h? know such conduct, let him specify the charges, and thee 
 he may ha\e an opportunity of proving them. By my ad^ 
 
iierewts, I do not know, v,'hom he can mean ; except they be 
 my Lutheran brethren, who believe this doctrine. J disclaim 
 this pa/tial honour. I am neither the first, nor the only man, 
 wh) maintains this doctrine. Luther the great Rel'ormer dil- 
 igently inculcated it. So did the apostles, and mauy ot the 
 primitive G iristians. It "S readiiy admitteii, that all Luther- 
 ans are sinners ; ahhough, some of them are also saints ; and 
 they rt-j )ice, that they knaw it ; for as such they have a Sa- 
 vioar : but tor a trial, to ascertain whether they have no bet- 
 ter truits than so *h Papists, who persecute and kill their feK 
 Jew m' n, I appeal in thi'ir and my beha'-', rom iV^r Moore's 
 tribunal, to an impartial pubtick. But are Mr. M. and his 
 M^-th )dist brethren nj sinneis ?— that so many o; them ex- 
 claim, with ifnperious langu-gc : thmv are many wicked 
 Lutheran , who are utter strangers to the inward work, and 
 ^re n>t going an unto perfei tion ! O my Methodi^^t ft'iends ! 
 whereas I perceive, that many of ynu are almost ready, to 
 thank Go 1, that you are not such sinners iis the Lutherans, 
 who depend so nueh upon the divine promises, made to them 
 in b iptis n, I indeed pity you, that you are no such sinners in 
 your own view ; for sintiors only can have an interest in 
 Christj who is the S iviour of the lost ; the righteousness of 
 the ungodly, to ju'^tiiy them ; and the resurrection, and lil'e of 
 |;he dead ; '"or t'ley that be whole need not the physician. 
 
 Mr. M also says. p. 10. ^' The case of Smi.)n the sor- 
 .cerer, rivorded Acts 8. 18, 2-3, will fully establish tliis point. 
 It is said Simon hims'/lialso believed, and was baptised, v. 13, 
 i. e. he believed the doctrine which Philip preached, and in 
 |that faith \va$ baptised : but he was not regenerated, for Pe- 
 ter said to him, I pereeive that thou art still in the gall of bit- 
 terness and bond of iniquity. " Hence he had never been re- 
 generated* Therefore, water baptism is not regeneration, &c." 
 
 Answer. Mv opponent has said, that the pr -aching of the 
 gospel is the ordinary means of reaeneration. INovv, Simon 
 also beared the gospel preached, and was not regenerated ; 
 ^hn'e'ore, preaching of the aospel cannot l)e the means : so 
 th9.t, if thii? prove any thing against baptism, it does the same 
 jagainst preaching o''the gospel ; and if it be against r-e, \t is 
 ^qaal'y as'i^Hist himself. To say, if baptism weie a n-eans of 
 regmeration, there would not be '^o many wi' kcd people, that 
 ,are baptised- ^s they would all be regenerated, has become 
 ^ yulgar cant, and passes for ia good argoment ; whereas in 
 jpea'ity it is only ral, ulated tnoverthnwcvcMy thing that is sa- 
 ^jre'l. For if this hp a good reason, that baptism is not a means 
 0f |iregei)cr9-tion, because there aie wicked people, who air. 
 
45 
 
 baptised ; tlien I may argue with equal propriety and plausi- 
 bility : prayer is a useless exercise ; because there are many, 
 who pray, and yetontinue hypocrites — there is not the least 
 virtue in preachmo' the g.)spel ; because there are many whp 
 hear it, and yet frequint un uwiu asrembl es — the holy scrip- 
 tures are not the word of G > J ; because there are many, wh^ 
 reaH them, yet are and remain infidels — the Holy Ghost him- 
 self, cannor be a divine enerjjfv ; because the Jews, and many 
 thousan Is beside, with whom hestrov->, were not tuined, nor 
 regenerated ! Neither a deist, nor an atheist, could have inven- 
 ted a more diabohcal objection, to overthrow the Christian re- 
 hgion, than the one alleged by my opponent, against the doe- 
 trine oT baprism, here m qu stion. Man> people possess such 
 crud', and barbarous minds, that they, imagine, if baptism is 
 to do any good, it must be like som*- carnel medicine, which 
 if only applied, will operate physically, without any mental ac- 
 quiescence ; and when they cannot perceive a sudden, sensi- 
 ble a'teration, they conclude, that it is nothing, but a shadow ; 
 and then in the most savage ike manner, blaspheme this 
 blessed nstitution. The mind of a man, is not like a weath- 
 ercock on a spike, which is moved by the violence of the 
 winds, without being capable of making any resistance ; so 
 that we are not to conclude, that i: baptism poi^sess regenera- 
 ting virtues, it must infal' b!y, and irresistibly regenerate eve- 
 ry one, to whom it is administere 1. Baptism is a spiritual 
 means ; h^nce, the design of its operations is not physical, bujt 
 spiritual ; it therefore, can only prove salutary, where it does 
 not meet with too much opposition. It must alas ! be admit- 
 ted, that many of the baptised do not v^alk in newness of Tfej 
 j^et, this is no evidence of the deficiency of baptism ; but only, 
 that they stifle its blessed operations 
 
 8. Mr. M. says p 10, 11, " Oar Lord declares, ^except 
 ye repent, ye sha'l all likewise perish.' Luke 13, 3, 5. And 
 St. Piu' savs, ^G)d commands ail men every vvht're to re- 
 pent.' Acts 17 — And a'so to the elders of the church at E- 
 phesus. he said, 'that he had kept ba k nothing that was prof- 
 itable unto you ; but shewed publickly from house to house, 
 testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repen. 
 tance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ/ 
 Acts 20, 20,21. Wherefore, says he, 'I take you to record, 
 that I am pure from the blood of a' I men, for I have not 
 shunned to declare the whole counsel of God.' verses 26, 27. 
 Those scriptures undeniably prove- that water baptism is not 
 regeneration, nor the ordinary means ; because it is by repen^ 
 tance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
 
we obtala this blessing. Now, baptism is neither repentance 
 Bor faith ; because m my have been baptiseH, who never re- 
 pented nor believei ; and many have repented and believed, 
 so as to bi regenerated an i born again, whj never had been 
 baptised. Therefore, water baptism is not regeneration, nor 
 the ordinary m-'ans. 
 
 Peter say, ^Rjpent ye, therefore, and be converted, that 
 your sins miy be blotted oat, when the times of reireshmg 
 snail com^ from th'3 presence of the Lord ' Acts 3, 19. 
 Here note, we have to repent and be converted, in order to 
 be regenerated ; then it is that all our sins are blotted out, 
 and the refreshing showers of divine grace come into our 
 souls, not from water baptism, but from the presence of the 
 liOrd. From the above quoted passages of scr pture, it is ev- 
 ident that water baptism is not regeneration, neith-^r a heav- 
 enly flood o**, nor ordiniry means by which we obtain this 
 blessing ; but we have to rep mt, and believe on the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ, with the heai't unto rig'iteousness, in order to be 
 reeenerated, and born again by a spiritua' birth. Without 
 which we shall likewise perish, whether baptised or not bap- 
 tised with water. " 
 
 Answer. No man I presume denies, that faith and repen- 
 tance arc necessary for the remission of sins ; and idso, the 
 most superficial mind perceives, th it neither of them is bap- 
 tism. Has not my opponent asserted, that the pnachmfi of 
 the gispel is the means of regeneration ? now in the same 
 manner he proves, that baptism is not the means, so I can 
 prove, that preaching the gospel is not ; for who does not 
 know, that faith, ani repen"an ;e are not preaching the gospel? 
 In the same manner, I may a'so prove, that we cannot be sa- 
 ved by Christ ; for we are to b<^ regenerated by fath and re- 
 pentance .* now Ci'ist is n »t fa';th, no • repentance ; therefore, 
 we are not save 1 by O irist ! Mo 4 horrid !ogi'*k ! It does 
 not stop here ; T miy d^-rv it further, viz : we cannot be re- 
 generated by the H >1y G'lost ; because it is by repentance, 
 and aith ; but the Holy Gho^t is neither ; therefore, we can- 
 not be regenerated by him It is not necessary to prove, that 
 baptism is faith and repentance, to establish the point in ques- 
 tion. It is suTie'ent if it be proven, that baptism is the means, 
 by wh'ch the spirit operates on a sinner, to produce repen- 
 tance, by which we olitain pardon 'or sin : now that which is 
 a means to produce repentanc\', is certainly the means of re- 
 generation Tile same may be said of Ch-ist, the Holy Ghost, 
 and the preaching of the gospel. Christ sends the spirit ; the 
 4^irit operates through the gospel, to produce repentance ; and 
 
47 
 
 by repentance we obtain the remission for sins : and fhas a}. 
 though, the scriptures a^cribt it to repentance ; yet, it is easi- 
 ly perceived, that this does rot exc ure causes, i'.r(' n cans to 
 produce repentance. Had my opponent proved, tlat baptism 
 is no means, by which the spirit cpeiates, then trU cf u'd he 
 have proved that it was not a means of regeneration. But as 
 be has not done this, liis aigument is a baieiaced 'cphism, by 
 which hciloesnot on y, exclude bt.ptism as the m.eans ; bet 
 also, Christ, the spirit, and the preachir g of the gospel. That 
 baptism is the means has already bed) paitly established, and 
 shall yet further be illustrated and cenfirn ed. 
 
 \n this place I deem it expedient, and my duly, to leply to 
 a false representation made by many, especially anorg the 
 Methodists, against the Lutheran doctrines, and community. 
 Such represent Lutherans as poor, ignorant, carnal people, 
 without any knowledge of the inward work of the spirit ; and 
 that the most o*^ their preachers, assert il cne cnly be baptised 
 with a little water, catechised, and receive the Lord's Srpper, 
 one shall in'allibly be saved, without any repentjince. They 
 then like Mr M. quote sundry passages of scripture, to prove 
 the necessity of repentance ; and vAhen this is done, they im- 
 agine, they proved away the importance of baptism ; and to 
 finish tht- r declamation, add, il Lutherans do not repent, and 
 experience the pardon or sins, they wiii all go to hell ; not- 
 withstancine, their \^ater baptism ! It is atlmitted, that there 
 are too many unrcirenerated sinners, who are called Luther- 
 ans, the 5a:ne as there are, too many subtile Inpocrites, a- 
 mong the Methodists : but I deny, that all the Lutheran!- are 
 strangers to the new life in Christ ; and 1 declare it as slan- 
 der, that their confession bo )ks ; or, that their ministers teacb; 
 or, that it is an opinion, which is generally received among 
 them ; that if the smner only be baptised, &c. that without 
 repentance he shall be saved. Our symbolical books, many 
 other treatises, written in our church, and our sermons insist 
 on repentance ; although, we teach that baptism is the means 
 of regeneration. The spirit by baptism as a m.eans operates 
 ©n the sinner, to effect repentance ; hence, the remission for 
 sins ; this is the de«iizn for which we administer it ; and if 
 
 ftroperly applied ,^ and the operations thereof, be not too vio- 
 ently, and incessantly resisted, will produce these blessings. 
 Would not those Methodists consider us unfair, and censori- 
 ous, if we would conclude, that beeause they preach and pray, 
 and have sundry other exercises, that therefore, they deny the 
 inward work of the spirit ; and if we would tell them, if yoo 
 do not repent,, you will go to hell, with all your preachings 
 
4S 
 
 praying and exercises ? Would they not reply : we very 
 well know, without being told, that repentance is necessary, 
 and for this reason we pi-each. pray. &c. to produce it. As 
 this nnd lubtedly would be treating them in an unlair , and un- 
 godly manner ; equally so unfair, such treat the Lutherans, 
 by pa ming it on tUem, as if they denied the inward work of 
 the spirit, \vhen this is the very design, for which tliey admin- 
 ister bap! ism. 
 
 4. Mr. M. says p. 8. 9, 10, " The first passage I v\ill 
 call your attention to, is in 1st Cor. 1^ li, 17, v. here Paul 
 said, 'I thank God, that 1 liap^ised none of you, but Crispus 
 and Gains ; and al'-o the housthold of SiephanuJ ; — For 
 Christ sen me not to baj tise, but :o preach tlie j^ospl.' Now 
 if water baptism is regeneration, or as Mr H calls it, a 
 *'Heavenly flood of ixg( neraJ ion," is it ntt surprising that St. 
 Paul thanked God thiit he had regenera'ed so iew of them ? 
 Or, that he bad applied the "heavenly flood" by which they 
 were to be regenerated, to so few ? To me, it would be ve- 
 ry surprising indeed ! That the inspired apostle, uhose fla- 
 ming zeal for the glory oi God, and the sa vation ol immor- 
 tal souls, had led him to sa rifice evfty wor'dly conadei alien, 
 and give himself wholly to the work of the ministiy, that if 
 by any means he might save some ; yet, that he shcJuid thark 
 GofI that he had been the means of regenerating so few, 
 would be very strange and surprising ! This undeniably 
 proves that St P.iul did not believe that water baptism w as 
 a heavenly flood, by which men are regenerated and born of 
 the spirit. If that had been his opinion, instead of thiinking 
 God that he had baptsed so few, he would have been very 
 sorry, that he had not baptised a great many more. But St. 
 Paul knew, that if they had no better conversion and regene^ 
 ration than water baptism could con er upon them, they v\ ould 
 be as much the servants oi wickedness after, as before they 
 were baptised. And. if they had been baptised by him 
 with water, this might have led them to depend npori what 
 he had done for salvation. — There^bre, he thanks God that 
 h-^ had done nothing, that would give them any ground to 
 build a false, hope upon. " 
 
 '- Again, St. Paul says ; — " Christ sent me not to baptise, 
 but to preach the gospel, " &•• Now if baptism is regenera- 
 tion, or a h 'avenly flo')rl' by which people aie regenerated, 
 this wouhl prove that St. Paul was not sent to be a means of 
 rcffcnerat'ng Hie peop'e, 1 ut only to tea. h them ; w hieh is con- 
 trary to his own words — ?ee Acts 26, 17, 18 : — -Delivering 
 thee from the people, and fron- the Gentiles to whom T now^ 
 send thee j to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to 
 
49 
 
 light, and from the power of Satan unto Gorf, that they may 
 receive torgivt-ness of sins, and an inheritance among them 
 which are sanctirted.' Here St, Paul states what Christ sent 
 him to do, (not to baptise with water) but to regenerate the 
 people ; or, which is the same, *to open their eyes, to turn 
 them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to 
 God ; that they, thereby might nceive forgiveness of sin, 
 and be partakers of those great blessings which alone belong 
 to those who are sanctified.* This certainly is the work of 
 regeneration, by which the soul is begotten and born again 
 by a spiiitual birth. " 
 
 '' In 1st Cor. 4, 15, St. Paul says : — 'Though ye have ten 
 thousand instructers in Christ, yet ye have not many lathers ; 
 for in Christ Jesus, I have begotten you through the gospe I 
 This undeniably proves, that water baptism is not regenera- 
 tion, neither is it the *heaven!y flood,' nor the ordinary means 
 by which men are regenerated. Because Paul said, he had 
 baptised none of them, except Crispus and Gains, and the 
 household of Stephanus ; yet, 'in Christ Jesus he had begot- 
 ten them [including the whole church] through the gosptl,' 
 and not through water baptism, even as a means. Therefore, 
 according to Paul, water baptism is not regeneration. " 
 
 Answer. My opponent and his brethren baptise, but why 
 do they t, when Paul 'hanked God, that he baptised but a 
 few ? Suppose according to Mr. M's theory, baptism is on- 
 ly an emblem ; then Paul thanked God, that he administered 
 this emblem to but few ? So, if this text prove any thing a- 
 gainst the doctrine contained in my treatise, it equally proves 
 against the doctrine, of baptism being an embiem. My op- 
 ponent by this gloss, is led to deny the use of all baptism, 
 performed with water ; and thus makes Paul contradict 
 Christ, who commanded to baptise all nations. In this same 
 manner, the Q.uakers handle this text, for the purpose of de- 
 nying the use of baptism, as performed with v ater They do 
 it with equal propriety ; for if Paul thanked God, for having 
 baptised but a few, what use is there for us to perform it, 
 whether we consider it, as a mere emblem, or any thing else ? 
 Mr. M. must either acknowledge himself a Quaker, and deny 
 the use of baptism ; or else own his gloss to be a sophism. 
 
 Not because baptism is not the means of regeneration, is 
 the reason why St. Paul thanked God, that he had baptised 
 but few of the Corinthians. There were some disagreeable 
 divisions among them, which is indicated by the context :— 
 '• Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, 
 and I of AooUoSj and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. I? 
 
 G 
 
so 
 
 Cfhrist divided ? was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye bap- 
 tised in the nameot* Paul }■ " v. 12, 13. Tiiese verses shew, 
 that some ol" the Corinthians were about to coBMder Paul, 
 soine Ap'> los, ai>d others Cephas, as the head of their party* 
 Ha I St. Paul baptised a goodly number oi them, they might 
 have considered themselves more justifiable, in preferring him 
 before all the oiher apostles as their head ; ancl as he himself 
 statesj some might have said, that h:; had baptised them in his 
 own namf^, v. 15 : — and thus prostituted this blessed institution 
 to a c unal purpose. But as Paul had on'y baptised a tew, 
 they were bereft of the opportunity of establishing a parly, on 
 this ground ; and as divisions are injurious to Christianity, it 
 was very rational^ that he should be thankful, that this abuse 
 of baptism had been ptevf-nted. There v^onld have been no 
 danger, that any of the Corinthians would have constituted 
 Paul, the head of their party, because he had baptised them ; 
 provided, baptism was so insignificant a thing ; lor what soci- 
 ety of peop e, would crown a man their head, and a'most de- 
 ity him. for having according to ^ r. M's notion, poured on 
 them a little water? Had St. Paul, 'ike Mr. M. cousklered 
 bapti&m a mere emblem, he would have inculcated the same 
 into the minds of the Coiiiithians ; if so, they would have had 
 no cause, on that grounil^to drity him, whetl er he baptised 
 few, or many ; and what rt-ason, would he thtn, have had, to 
 thank God, or having baptised but a lew ? But we wil sup- 
 poseyhaptim to be tiie means of regeneration, and the Corin- 
 thians b>>ing taught so by the apostle ; would not this have 
 magnified their ven< ration for him ; provided, he had baptised 
 them ; and held out stronger inducements, to constitute him 
 the head of their party ? for the greater the ministry, and the 
 more valuable the things, that are thereby administered, 'he 
 more the person, who sustains it, is esteemed. Had my op- 
 ponent, instead of St Paul, laboured among the Corinthians, 
 thi-y would not have said, "lam Joseph Moore / " alth ugh, 
 he had baptised ever so many - for had he represented bap- 
 tism as mean, and insignificant, in their sight, as he f.as m his 
 pamphlet, there wou'd not have been the least danger, thai 
 they, on that account would have deified, and constituted him 
 the head of their party ; and thus he would have had no rea- 
 son at a 1, like St Paul had, to thank God, for only having 
 baptised a tew. 
 
 When the apostle asks : ''^was Paul crucified for you ? " he 
 coiuiects \^ ith being cruiified : "or were ye baptised in the 
 name of Paul ?" The one that was cinicified for (hem, is 
 fthtir Saviour y hence if Paul had been erucified for them, they 
 
Si 
 
 ^Mg^ht to have deified him ; hence also, being baptised in his 
 name, being conneetod with being emeiHed, givi s baptism a 
 great inipoitance. But this is mapp'icable to Fuul ; }et it lul- 
 ly applies to Ciiiist. To be b |)ti^ed in Christ's luinie, in- 
 volves also, being baptised into his death, as diustiated by St 
 Paid Rom. 6, o 5 
 
 Notwithstanfling, Panl baptised but a few of the Corinthi- 
 ans ; yet does it provi , that they w« re not baptised r No — 
 f.),- if they weiv not, uliy \v> uld he ask them, were ye bapti- 
 sed in the name of Paul ? This presupijoses tin m al!, as be- 
 in^ baptised. Although, the apustles in many insianees, did 
 nut themselves p'rform bap Msm ; yet they eauscd, (sr ordeied 
 others to do it. Thus St. P 'ter commandec! the G- ntile con- 
 gi-egation, in the house (.f C>)rnelius. to be baptised Acts 10, 
 iti, 48. Paul tither baptise<l,oror('ered Lydiaand her ht use- 
 hold, to be haptsed. Acts 16, 15. Either Paul, or Silas 
 baptised the Jailor, an I his househo d v. 33. It does dot re- 
 quire as much ski' I to baptise, as to teach, und preach ; hence 
 it was very expedient, ;oi the divinciy inspired apostles^ to de- 
 volve the office of baptising upon the deacons ; so that they 
 might acquiie moi-e time, 'or the purpo'-e of enhancinsi their o- 
 ther labours. That the dearon^* baptised, is evident from 
 Acts ch. 8. The hou-ehoid of Stephanus it is said, v^as the 
 first fruits of Achaid, i Cor. 16, 15 ; h.n e, then as jet, there 
 was no congregation organized ; consequent!) no deacons ap- 
 pointed -, so that Paid hl-ns'lf peribrnied baptism. This also 
 appli'^s in some other in-^tances. 
 
 That St. Paul was not sent to baptise, is no evidence, that 
 baptism is not the means of regeneration ; although, he was 
 appointed as a means to regenerate sinners. Fur if he did 
 not himself baptise ; yet he instructed the people with respect 
 to ihe nature, and design of baptism ; so that, if he was not 
 sent to baptise ; yet he wa<= sent to preach the doctrine of bap- 
 tism. Now what is the difierenee, as to the point in question ; 
 whether Paul was sent to baptise, or whether he was sent, to 
 preach th* doctrine of baptism ; ior he that preaches baptism, 
 thereby causes peop'c to be baptised by other instruments. 
 
 When Pau' pieached repentance, he thereby caused people 
 to repent ; equal'y so, when he preached ! aptism, he caused 
 them to receive baptism. Will my opponent deny, that Paul 
 preache 1 the doctrin" o'.' baptism ? The fol owing text'-, wdl 
 shew, that Paul dilig^^ntly inculcated the importani e of bap- 
 tism : *'Know' ye not that so many of us as were baptised 
 into Je-us Christ w ere baptised into his d* ath ? Therefore 
 we ^re buried with him by baptism into det^th ; that like ^,s- 
 
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Fa* 
 ther, even so we also should walk in newness of life,*' 
 Rom 6, 3, 4. ''For as many of you as have been baptised 
 into Chiist have put on Christ." Gal. 8, 27. Who e*se 
 was it, that taught the Jailor to be baptised, but Paul and Si- 
 las. See also Eph. 5, 25, 26. Tit. 3, 5, These texts de- 
 Sfribe the design ot baptism, and all are St. Paul's writings. 
 Since Mr. M. cannot prove, that Paul did not teach the peo- 
 pie, to be baptised his argument amounts to nothing. 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 fo this ■cction it i« shewn, 1st, that my opponent attempts to prove, that 
 because regeQeration is the effect of the almighty power of God / that 
 therefore, baptism cannot be the mean? This is examined . 2d, An in- 
 vestigation of his criticism on John 3, 5. 3d, An investigation of the 
 analogy h« speaks of bet\v£ep % natural and the spiritual birth. 
 
 1, Mr. M, says p. 5, 6, ^'From the above, [having just be- 
 fore quoted a lew passages ot scripture which speak ot regen- 
 eration] it appears, that regeneration is an internal, radical 
 change of' the soul, whereby it receives a new birth from the 
 death of sin, into the life of righteousness — anew creation 
 from that corrupt and unholy state, in which we are by sin 
 and transgression, into the holy and righteous image of our 
 blessed Redeemer — a translation from the power of darkness, 
 in which we are, previous to such a change, and are brought 
 into the light and liberty of God's dear children. We there- 
 by obtain the rorgiveness of ail our sins, are transformed, by 
 the renewing oi'our minds, into the image of God, and are en- 
 abled to know and do what God's will is concerning us. Now 
 is it not evident, that if regeneration implies such a deep and 
 radical change of hea't, that water baptism, nor any thing ex- 
 tern 1 can effect ? Can any thing, short of the mighty power 
 orG>d, or operative energies of that almighty spirit, which 
 jraisel she body of Christ from the dead, and breathed into 
 thp nostrils of the first man, and he became a living soul, ef- 
 Jeci such a change ? such a death to sin, ^nd new birth unto 
 righteousness ? I think it is evident that it cannot. " 
 
 Answer. It is admitted, that nothing short of omnipotence 
 sen etfe^t regeneration. But i« this a reason, that baptism can- 
 |50fc be the means ? No» My opponent might with e<jual 
 
6S 
 
 propriety say, it requires the almighty power of God to pro.- 
 duce a man ; tor that reason he cannot he born oi a mother* 
 Or, it requires the almighty power of God, to produce a corn- 
 stalk ; therefore, the planting of the seed, the earth, rain, and 
 sun-beams, cannot be the means of its production. What man 
 of sound principles would argue in such a manner ? In the 
 same way he proves, that baptism cannot be the means of re- 
 generation, viz : because it requires the omnipotence of God to 
 effect it, f could also prove, tU^t a'l means in nature are use- 
 less, to produce any thing ; because nothing can be produced 
 without omnipotence. 
 
 Mr. M not on y denies, that regeneration is effected by 
 baptism ; but also says, that nothing external can effect it. 
 If nothing external as means, which here is the point in ques- 
 tion, can effieet regeneration ; then it is evident, that the ho- 
 ly scriptures, neither as they are written, nor as they are prea- 
 died, as well as baptism, can be any means of grace ; tor 
 they are all external. My opponent by denying baptism, to 
 be the means of regeneration, was led to deny all external 
 means ; hence, the holy scriptures ; for they are external ; 
 and herein he manifests himself, either as a fanatick, or as a 
 deist. For if no external means can effect regeneration, it is 
 evident, that the word of God cannot, as it is also external * 
 hence according to this theory, if God regenerate any one, he 
 does it without the gospel word, baptism , or any other means. 
 This at once, sets aside the divine validity of the gospel. If 
 no external means effect regeneration, then it is in vain, to 
 look to the word of God, as well as to b:ipti&m, or to use any 
 other means ; hence, no opportunity at all to be saved ; un- 
 less we by the carnal, and wicked works of our reason could 
 merit salvation ; otherwise, we would have to lie dormant, like 
 the Epicurians ; or, else wait, and gaze to the clouds, to expe- 
 rience regeneration, by an extraordinary miracle. 
 
 When the divine efficacy of the word of God, and baptism 
 is vindicated, one may hear multitudes, who profess Christi- 
 anity, as if they were pierced through, exclaim : Gotl alone 
 can save a sinner ! he must do the work ! only the spirit ! the 
 spirit ! the preaching of the gospel, and water baptism are 
 man's works ; for men preach and baptise ! Such denying, 
 that the divine blessings are contained in the gospe! word, 
 and baptism, they palliate themselves, either by some carnal 
 self-work ; such as they call praying, and corporeal mortifi- 
 cations, in order to render God an equivalent for salvation ; 
 or, by being dormant, until their disordered imaginations fi- 
 gure to thcnMelveg heavenly dreams, and their minds get en- 
 
Vironed by satanic illasions ; they are sure the Ho^y Spirit, 
 has began iiis wo'k in thsm, an 1 in some tanatick paroxysm ; 
 either, m a gar lea, fteid, grjve, or some lonely placf, they 
 imag ne tiiey h 'ar a sapeiii i tura' voice ; and without any gos- 
 pel WJrd, o- baptisiTiySf^nsibly experience regeneration : hence 
 it is not so vary sa 'prising, svhy the word ot G')d, as it is re- 
 vealed in the scriptares, and baptism, when exhibited as 
 means ot" g-ace, sh )uld be as otfensive to tbem, as to Thom- 
 as Pain', V >Uair, in I th^ir rjsciples ! D "I'jded men I can 
 th^y nit see, that the gospel is the power o God unto sa va- 
 tion to everyone that bcl!eveth, Rom. 1 16 ; :tnd that bap- 
 tism is G>i's own institution, and includes his blessed name, 
 which is h' nself. NjtwUhstanding, these anaticks crowding 
 thnr sermjns with what they dre.tmt, and felt ; and thus 
 preaching themselves instead of Christ ; yet, lest they be 
 viewed as inJiH ds, profess to b dieve the scriptures, a'ter spir- 
 itu iHziig sun Iry texts, wh-ch are opposed to their opinion, 
 and ai ninister baptism, and the Lord's Sapper, as a form of 
 godl'n3SS. Such are pointed oat by the apostle, that they 
 "have a form of g>d iness, but deny the power thereof " 
 2 Tim. S, 5. Win tiie qiesion is put: the power of 
 what d ) thiy deny ? th^ answer will be, o^" the form of 
 godliness ; for the anteciident, is the form ot" godliness. Did 
 sach '"an iticks n )t p -o "ess th ; scriptures, and pretend to the 
 admini tration o'the sacraments, there would be nothing, to 
 distin-Tuish them from the scoffers of the world ; and they 
 wou'd apoear in their infidel oiiginality ; but as they wish to 
 pass for Ghi-istians, they pretend to pay some regard, as they 
 sav, to the oat varfi gospel, water baptism, and the Lord's 
 Supper, as emb'ems of thi^ir outwa-'d pro^'ession ; hence, as 
 a form of their gtd'iness .• but that there is any saving 
 power, or virtue in them, they utterly deny, and agree with 
 mv opponent, th it nothing external can effect regeneration ; 
 and thus they deny the power of the form of god'iness, which 
 a^eording to the ap >stle, is the true characteristick of decei- 
 vers, and false prophets. 
 
 Without shame, and without paying anv attention to the 
 good sense of his readers, my oppon mt says, p. 40, that in 
 the use of the means, we are to receive the bless-ng ; when 
 before, he coald have the effrontery to assert, that the bles- 
 sing is not contain >d in the means, nor that any thing external 
 eould 'feet regeneration ; by which he roundly contradicts 
 himself. 
 
 2 In mv treatise, I quoted the words of our Saviour : ''ve- 
 HVy, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be bora of water 
 
55 
 
 and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, 
 John t^j 5 ; and tl en cbscrvec;, that the v. atei aiid the spirit 
 are connectefl, vn hen the new birth is eficcted. V\ hereupon 
 ]Vir. M. observes ; 
 
 « How this proves that water baptism is a heavenly flood 
 of ngenerytion, I see net. >ieiiher cun 1 see h( w this proves 
 that it is die orrlinury n eans ; nur ht w it plainl} slow s that 
 water and spirit must be connected v hen tl e re w hirih is ef- 
 fected. For Ist, were I to grant that baptism is a meims, 
 yet the means and the end are not the san e : and a ^o, the 
 m ans may be. and often are used, and the end not obtained ; 
 therefore, baptism is not rt general en. 2. It bipt>n is a 
 Bvans at all, it is not the urdinaiy n tans, (as \m h<iVf ahea- 
 dy shewn) be ause there are other means, su(h as preach ng 
 fhe gjspel,&c. that commonly brmti us to cbta n ihe same 
 etid ; and so n^times all the means fai , and the new birth is 
 never eft'3etel in the hearts oi many. 8 Our Lord told Kic- 
 olemus, 'Except a man be born of \Nater and the spirit, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ' >Jicodtnus v as a 
 Piiarisee, and had attended to the washings and purifications 
 under the law ; and I have thought; was ot the sarr e opin- 
 ion that Mr. H. is, viz : — That water estprnal y a)»plied, by 
 -which they were cleansed fiom the filthiness of the flesh, vas 
 sufficient. Ghri-t to convince him of this error, said, 'Ex- 
 cept a man be born of water and the spirit, &:c. — of the water, 
 by which he is external'y made clean, as a figure, or sign ; 
 and of the spirit as the thing signified by water, whereby he 
 is rent' wed in the spirit of his mind, and made internally 
 clean by d vine grace, he never can enter into ihe k'ngdona 
 oi' G )d. Hence water, in this place, was referred to by our 
 Lord, as an emblem or sign, to show Nicodemus the nature 
 of that internal birth that must take place in the Soul, effected 
 by the spirit of God. " 
 '"Tliatthis is the meaning of Christ, I think will appear, 
 1st, from St. Paul's words. See Heb. 10, 22 : "Having 
 our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies 
 washed with pure water. ' Here the apostle speaks of the in- 
 ternal and CKternal washing 'Having the heart sprink'ed, 
 &c. relat'^d to that internal wo.k, wrought in us by the ope- 
 rations of the grace and spirit of God, whereby the conscience 
 is cleansed from all evil, and the soul renewed in the image of 
 God. Our bodies washed with pure water, related to the ex- 
 ternal washmg practised amongthe Jews, which was emblem- 
 atical of that internal purity that they must obtain, in order to 
 be acceptable worshippers of God, Htnce we must be born of 
 
55 
 
 the water and spirit ; i. e. we must be made inwardly and out- 
 ward y holy. See alsoHeb ix. 9. 14. Hence I think Christ 
 had no reference to the Christian baptism, as practised under 
 the present dispensation ; for the Christian baptism was not in- 
 stituted at that time; therefore, Nicodemus was entirely un- 
 acquainted with it. Of course, Cluist could not have referred 
 him to an ordinance that was not in being at the time, as an 
 ordinary means by which he was then to be regenerated and 
 born again But 8. Nicodemus was a Jew, and of course well 
 acquainted with the Jowish rituals, by which they were wash- 
 ed and purified irom the filthiness of the flesh, and prepared 
 to enter into the worshipping congregation of the Lord. 
 Christ refers to this as a figure, sign, or emblem, of that in- 
 ternal purification performed by the spirit , by which the soul 
 is cleansed from the filthiness of sin, renewed in the image of 
 God, and prepared to enter into the congregation of the Lord 
 above. Hence, 'Except a man be born of water,' by which 
 he is externally purified from the filthiness of the flesh, as a 
 figure or sign of an internal grace — *and of the spirit/ where, 
 by the conscience is cleansed from dead works, and the soul 
 renewed in the image of God, as the thing signified, he can- 
 not enter into the kingdom of God. '' p. 28, 29, 80. 
 
 Answer. That I am of the opinion, as my opponent asserts, 
 that water externally applied to take away the filth of the flesh, 
 is sufficient, is a most barefaced slander. Have I not fre- 
 quently said, that the virtue of baptism consisted not in the 
 V ater, but m the co'i mand, and name of God, with which it 
 is connected ? "N thither, did my opponent prove by any text, 
 or cir^'umstance, that ^Nicodemus was of this opinion. For 
 proof he offers : / thought Nicodemus was of this opinion, 
 and upon this he ibunds his interpretation : viz. that Christ 
 intended to convince him of this error, by saying except a 
 man be born of the water and the spirit, &c. He ought first 
 to have proved, that this was the error of Nicodemus, before 
 he asserts, that Christ intended to convince him of the same ; 
 but instead of this, he dispaches it by * / thought' ! That 
 Nicodemus was well acquainted with the washings, and puri- 
 fications under the law, is admitted ; but that this should be a 
 reason, why he believed, that the external application of wa- 
 ter was sufficient, is very inconclusive : for we might as well 
 say, Mosos, David, or any other saint, under the old testa- 
 ment dispensation believed, that the external application ot wa- 
 ter was sufficient ; because they were acquainted with the 
 washings and purifications under the law. According to my 
 opponent, Nicodemus was acquainted with the legal purifica- 
 
tions ; if so, why then should our Saviour have been so pat- 
 ticular, to intorni him of the necessity of being regeneiat* d by 
 such, and the spirit ? Would it not have been sult.cient, if he 
 only had urged the necessity, of being regeneiated by ihe spir- 
 it ? "And all the people that heard hin:, and the puhlicanSy 
 justified God, being baptised with the baptism oi John. But 
 the pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel ot God aguii.st 
 themsetves, being not baptised of him " Luke 7 2.9, oO, 
 This text shews, tliat although, the people justiHed God, be- 
 ing buptised ; yet, the pharisees and lawyers rejected this 
 coun-el of God, against themselves, and were not baptised. 
 Nicodemus was a pharisee ; hence had not rejected the cuinal 
 washings unrier the law ; but appears to have been a stranger 
 to the dispensatiun of the gospel. John's baptism was the 
 counsel of GjH, .nd the introduction to the kingdom of the 
 Messiah ; hence how rational t was, that he instructed Nico- 
 demus, with respect to its necessity and importance ? There 
 is an obvious difference between the opinion, as entertained 
 by the pharisees, with respect to baptism, and the doctrines, 
 which I incu'cate They rejected baptism ; hence, must have 
 viewed it as useless ; whereus, even according to the testimo- 
 ny of my opponent, I venerate baptism too highly : for I Ci n- 
 sider it as a means of salvation. Mr. Moore's doctrine, is lar 
 more agreeable to the opinion of the pharisee- ; for they des- 
 pised baptism, which ^vas the counsel of God ; and what 
 does he ? — He esteems baptism nothing but a little water, ar.d 
 has called it Henkel's heavenly flood ; and although, he him- 
 self baptises ; yet, representing baptism so mean, and insig. 
 nificant, he virtually rejects it as the counsel oi God ; and 
 thus ranks very highly with the pharisees. Yet, herein the 
 ph irisees acted more consistent ; for as much, as they despi- 
 sed baptism, they did not all practise it ; whereas my oppo- 
 nent counts it nothing but water ; yet, he administers such a 
 despicable thing. 
 
 That tlie water of which Christ spake alludes to the Jew- 
 ish washings is by no means proved by Heb. 10, 22 : '' hav- 
 ing our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bo- 
 dies washed with pure water. " The writer of this epistle, 
 was n>t speaking to Jews, as such that were under the cere- 
 monial law, and thus subject to the carnal washings, but to 
 such, as were Christians under the gc-pel dispensation. The 
 phrase *'our bodies washed with pure water, " is in such a 
 conneKion, that it cannot relate to the legal purifications. To 
 elucidate this the context is quoted : — "Having, therefore, 
 brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Je- 
 
 H 
 
^\iiB, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated 
 for us through the vai', that is to say, his flesh ; and having 
 an high priest over the house of God ; let us draw near with 
 a true heart, in full assurance ol taith, having oui hearts sprin- 
 kled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed witi puie 
 waier. " v. 19-22. By whom sliouM the Hebrews enter 
 into tne holiest ? Ans. Not by the blood oi calves and goats ; 
 but by the blood oi Jesus VVhat is called the new and liv- 
 ing way ? Ans That which was conseciated by his fleehv 
 Who is the high priest over the hou^e of G.)d ? Ans. Nei- 
 ther i\.aron. nor his sons ; but Jesus Chiist. To whom, and 
 in what manner should ihey draw near? Ans. To Christ, 
 wiih a true heart, in full assurance of taith, having our hearts 
 sprinkled from an evil conscience^ and our bodies wash<d 
 witli pure water. What have the Jewish washings to do 
 with the Cliristian dispensation ? or with the high priest Jesus 
 Christ ? or with the full assurance of faith ? Astoni.>-hing ! 
 that the w -iter of this epistle, should congratulate the Hebrew 
 Christians, upon their being washed by the abrogated rites of 
 the ceremonial law ; or, give them encouragements to draw 
 n'^ar the high priest, Christ ; l?eeau;-e they were washed with 
 the sa.ne I Where is the Christian divine, who does not 
 know, that at tlvat time the Jewish ceremonies were abroga- 
 ted ? And even. vNhen some ot the converts were wont to 
 hold some O' the legal ceremonies, and to incorporate them 
 with Christianity, the apostles, instead of encouraging them in 
 it. they rebuked them ; as for instance ; St. Paul, told the 
 Galatians the impropriety of being cii eumcised ; and exhorted 
 the Colissiane, not lo suffer themselves to be judged, with re- 
 spect to meat, drink, ho'idays,n'^w moons, and sabbath days. 
 Col. 2, 16. If then already, the apostles discoun:enanced 
 those abrogated rites, w hat manner o' consistency can there 
 be, in assorting, that the washing with pure water, as applied 
 to the Hebrew Christians, relate s to the Jew ish washings un- 
 der the law ? He indeed, must possess a Judaizing mind, 
 ■who cannot discover, that the pure water, with which the 
 H'i'hrews were washed, is a Christian inst'tution : hence bap- 
 tism. The reference which my opponent made to Heb. 9, 
 9, 14, does not establish his aranment ; lor these texts do not 
 prove, that the Cbrist-an Hebrews, were subject to observe 
 these carnal ordinan es ; but thev were only instructed, that 
 such were prefiRnriitir>ns o'the Mood of Christ. 
 
 To s-iy, that the Christian baptism was not instituted at the 
 time, Christ conversed with Ni^oHemos, is no evidence, that 
 ^ water, of which he here speaks alludes to the Jewish wasli- 
 
59 
 
 ings. "Neither has my opponent proved this assertion. It is 
 said : ''Alter these things came Jesus and his disciples into 
 the land o Jiidea ; aiid there he tarried with ihen;, .ntl bap- 
 tised. " John S, 22. A ler these things : viz. alter Chri^l■s 
 conversation w th MicodenuiSj which is immediately i"ccorded 
 in the preeeeding part cf this chapter v '■^Q — "And thty 
 (Ji>hn> diseipies) came unto John, and saidunio hln , Rabbi, 
 he that WMs with, thee beyuid Jon-an, to v honi thtu barest 
 witness, behold, the same baptiseth.and all me^i^comeio him.** 
 Anil ch. 4, V t)2, " '.Vhen iheretore the L>>rd knew how the 
 piiaiisees had 'leard tha" Jesus made and baptisi-d more dis» 
 ciples ihan Joim, (Th^ngh Jesus himse'i"bapti,-ed not, bui his 
 discip'es, &c. " I'hese texts undeniably prove, that Christ 
 baptised by the agency ot his diseipies bi fore his crucihxion, 
 and before John, the baptist was imprisoned ; hence, cotem- 
 
 E.irary with Nicodemus. But suppose, that Christ did not 
 aptise be ore his conversiition with Ni^odemns ; yet, it does 
 not prove, that he could not reier to baptism, wh'ch it not then 
 already should have been in vogue ; yet, inmiediatcK' after- 
 wards took place. So that it cannot with propriety, be f-aid, 
 that Christ did not baptise, cotemporary wiih Nicodemus ; for 
 it is sufficiently obvious, th :t Christ baptised in the days of 
 John the baptist. Again, John baptised, before he inaugu- 
 rated Christ ai Jordan, a^ ahisrh priest ; hence, before Christ 
 appeared as a pub'ick teacher. See Luke 3. John 1. Is ,1 pos- 
 sible, that Nicodemus should nut have know^l any thing of 
 this baptism ; when in his day, Jerusalem, and all Judea, 
 went out tc him to be baptised ? Was not John's baptism per- 
 formed with water? Yes: most certainly. But was it a 
 Jewish wa«:hing ? No. For if it had, it would liave been 
 more ancient than Joltn ; neither would the lawyeis., and 
 pharisees have rejected it ; because they were very attentive 
 to the rituals O' the law. John says, "I indeed baptise you 
 with water unto repentance " Matth, 3, 11. It is evident., 
 that many of those, whom John baptised, were before, in an 
 impenitent state ; fw he calls them a generation of vipers, v. 7 ; 
 and exhorts them to repent. "Now, since John said unto them, 
 •I baptise you with water unto repentance, it shews that bap- 
 tism was a means of repentance. Aga'n, "And he (John) 
 came into all the country about Jordan, pre-achingr the bap- 
 tism of repentance, for the remission of sins." Luke 8, 8, 
 '•Then said Paul, John verily baptised with the baptism oi re- 
 pentance, &c. " Acts 19, 4. These texts, do not only shew, 
 that John's baptism was unto repentance ; but is al-o positivc- 
 }y called Q.*^bajptism o/ repenia?»ce " What can a baptisa* 
 
60 
 
 of repentance otherwise be, than a baptism, which effects pe» 
 pentance ? which is the very same as a flood of regeneration, 
 when I say, the mother of a child, 1 mean the child was 
 boin of the mother : baptism of repentance, is parsed in the 
 same manner ; hence a baptism, which is the cause of repen. 
 tance. Here I must observe, tiiat whereas, my opponent has 
 ridiculed ihe title of my treatise : viz. "heavenly flood ot re- 
 generation " as unfounded in the scripturt-s ; yet, as J«.hn's bap- 
 tism was positively a baptism of repentance ; and by bapiism, 
 we have the remission for sins, it is the very same thing, as a 
 flood of regeneration. This one expression '^baptism of re- 
 pentance," as applied to John's baptism, with water, is suffi- 
 cient to refute all the sophisms, of those, who deny baptism to 
 be a means of regeneration. 
 
 J )hn's baptism did not essentially differ from that, which is 
 in vogue since the Saviour's resmrection ; for the spirit also 
 accompanied it, as it was a baptism of repentance ; for with- 
 out the spirit, there can be no gc^nui^ne repentance. It belongs 
 to the office of the Holy Gaost, to guide into all truth, to glo- 
 rify, and receive of Ciii-ist, and to shew it unto his people ; 
 J->hn lo, 13, 15. Now, John could only point to Christ, as 
 *'the lamb of G >d, which t iketh away the sin of the world ; " 
 bur not as a S.tviour already crucified ; and as having "by 
 himst'lf purged onr sins, and sat down on the right hand of 
 the maj-^sty on high ' ; hence, J Jhn's b iptism could not in- 
 clude those things, a*? a'realy accomplished ; and herein, the 
 baptism after our Saviour's resurrection is superior ; because 
 it inc'udes the work of redemption, as fu'ly accomplished. 
 !N >w, if John's bapt sm could not include the work of re- 
 demption, as already accomplisbed, and yet was a baptism of 
 repentance, how much more, should not the baptism after- 
 wards, be a means of repentance ; hence, of regeneration ; 
 for it embraces a Saviour, as having fully accomplished the 
 work of redempti tn, and thus superior. 
 
 Suppose my opponent's theory be received, that the water, 
 of which Chii-^t spake to Nicodemus, referred to the Jew- 
 ish washings under the law ; then the text would have to 
 read : *'V'*rily, veri'y, I say unto thee, ''Except a n>an be 
 born of the Jewish was'>in^s under the law, & of the spirit he 
 cannot enter into the kmgdom of God " Hence, not only 
 Nicodemus ; but any man, must be born again of the Jew- 
 ish washings, and of the spirit ; or e'se, not enter into the king- 
 dom of" Gofl» But, who can have the least idea, that our bles- 
 sed S tviour encouraged the Jewish washings in the kingdom 
 ifff pod, which was then, about to take place under the gog- 
 
pel dispensation ? Or, what Christian can believe, that who* 
 soever is not born again, o1 the Jewish washings, and o! the 
 spirit cannot enter into the kingdom Oi God ? All the Jfw. 
 ish rites, were abrogated under this dispensation ; notv\ith- 
 sianding, my opponent ; because he is determined, not to own 
 baptism as the means of regeneration, makes our Savif/ur 
 say, that except a man be born of the Jewish wash ngs under 
 iixe law, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God, which is contrary to the whole gospel dispensation ; in 
 short it is nonsense. That he says, the \\ ater is a sign, or fi- 
 gure of the spirit, does not make the 'ase consistt-nt ; for if so, 
 then still the water, as used in the Jewish washings, would 
 be a sign, and thus none, bat those, who had t*'is Jewish sign, 
 and the spirit, can enter into the kingdom oi God. What an 
 absurdity! Even, according to this theory, water, and the 
 spirit, would be connected in the production of the new birth, 
 against which my opponent contends ; yet, he had the misfor- 
 tune, to substitute the Jewish washings, instead of a Christian 
 ordinance. Except a man be born of water, which accor- 
 ding to Mr. M. refers to a Jewish washing, and oi the spir. 
 it, &c. by which he renders the Jewish washings necessary^ 
 and as connected with the spirit. NotviithstanHing, it is not 
 his intention, to connect, but to keep them separate ; so that, 
 the water is to effect an outward bodily, and the spirit an in- 
 ward spiritual purity. If so, then thtie would be two new 
 births : the one would be effected by the Jewish washings, 
 wh ch would shew, the body regenerated ; and the other 
 would be the regeneration of the soul, separately by the spirit. 
 If this be the case, how will it be with a man, whos-e body 
 is thus washed, and regenerated ; but his soul has never been 
 regenerated by the spirit ? Will his regenerated body enter 
 into heaven, and the unregenerated soul into hell ? 
 
 I also know, that many of those, who do not with Mr. M» 
 explain the water in this text, as relating to the Jewish wash, 
 ings ; but admit, that it relates to baptismal water ; yet, they 
 separate the water, and the spirit, and say, as the water wash- 
 es away the fi'th of the flesh, it represents the inward c'ean- 
 sing of the soul, by the spirit, and that, when a man is bapti. 
 sed, he is born of the water, into the outward church of Christ ; 
 but not of the sp'rit, into the true invisible church. Such also, 
 have two new births, and two kingdoms of Christ. It is both 
 contrary to fact, and scripture, that as the water trkes away 
 the filth of the flesh, so it is to represent the inward purifica- 
 tion. For, if the soul gets washed no cleaner, than tne body 
 ^s in baptism, it must ever remain filthy ; for when a man is 
 
62 
 
 JJaptised ; either, by effasion, or immersion, it has no effect 
 ppon the tilth o the ti sli. Those ministers of emblems, n 
 order, to represent this internal purity by the outward wash- 
 ing, ought to :ake more pains, to cleanse the bodies of their 
 Oa:ulidites, for baptism than they do. In order to eft'ect this, 
 they must app'y water with »<oap, or some other purifying 
 Ingredients, and not ceise »perating up in them, until they are 
 berrectly clean It is nothing but a lying representation, for 
 thi^ baptismal water loes not cleanse the body. It is also con- 
 trary to scripture — " T le ''ke figure whereunto, even baptism, 
 doth also now save us (not the putting au ay of the tilth of the flesh, 
 but the answer of a good con Men^^e towards God) by the re- 
 «urrection of J*-;us Gh-ist. " 1 P.it. 3, 21. The apostle, in 
 this text denies, that baptism is the putting away of tl e filth of 
 the tlesh ; wh M'eas the multitudes of emblem preachers say it 
 is. by whi^h they contradict the word of God. Where is 
 there any proof f )r two churches ? Si. Pan says "There is 
 one body an I one spirit. " Eph. 4, 4. This body is his 
 church — 1 Cor. 12 There are no two separate churches ; 
 and thoug'i there be many branches, "ailed separate churches ; 
 yet are they all bu^ one Suppose even the professors of faith, 
 whom \Vf m ly see, should be called a visible church, in order 
 to distinguish them from tho^c. that arc not known ; or. such 
 as are in g'ory ib >ve ; yet th's visible church is but a part of 
 ^he one church and by no means a distinct body. By the pro- 
 fessors o?" faith in this place, I do not mean hypocrites ; but 
 genuine Christians. But suppose the outward church, to be 
 distinct from theti-ue invisible church, then the question may be 
 ask'-d, does this ouiwar<l chui-ch, consist ot Christians, or of 
 hypocrites ? If it consist of Chidstians, and as baptism makes 
 a man a member of the outward church ; hence, it must also 
 make him a iristian whieh is nothing short of being regen- 
 eratf-d But, if it consists of hypocrites ; then baptism would 
 make every man, that receivfs it a hypocrite ! Here, again 
 the ministers of emblems get into a di'emma. They must ei- 
 ther own, <har the outward church consists of Christians, and 
 thus must grant, that every baptised man is a real Christian ; 
 b 'Cause baptism makes him a member of that church, which 
 is composed of Christians ; or else, must say, that it consists 
 of hvpicrites ; if so, th^n all persons let them be whom they 
 may, that are baptised must be hypocrites ; because they 
 would be made members of a church, that is composed of 
 hypocrites. That baptism is to make any one a Christian, 
 i. e. a resC'^neraed person, is what those deny ; and for this 
 pui-pose have invented a separate, outward church, into wliicb 
 
6^ 
 
 one is lo be born again by water, as a sign of an otber birtH^ 
 by which one is to enter intc an cthtr chuich. Poci men ! — - 
 emblems, atter emblems, have bliiidec ttin^i, like the veil of 
 Moses the Jews ; so that they catmot see that this, distinct 
 outward chuich must, either c( nsiM ot Chi stiii.s. or ct h}po- 
 crites ; and that ii it consist ol Christians, that bapti^n! n akes 
 one a Cliristian. which is the vi rj thii g af^^a r&t v\hichthey 
 contend : but ii it consist ot hyJ)Ocr^te^, that they enrol tht m- 
 selves among their nuniber ; ioi thty j-k ies-s to belcng to the 
 outward church ^Jeiiher is it poss bie to be extricated, by 
 saying the outward church einsists ot both. Christians and 
 hypocrites ; lor if so, baptism wou'd either, make us Chris- 
 tians ; or, else hypocrites ; or else both ! 
 
 Ml'. M. says, p. 80, The same observations, will apply to the 
 prophecy of Ezekiel, whfre the Lord says: 'Then will I sprin- 
 k e clean water upon you, & ye shall be clean ; from all your 
 filthiness & irom your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart 
 also will I give you, md a new spirit will I put within you ; 
 and I wiil take away the stonv heart out o« v<nir flesh, and t 
 will give you an heart of flesh. ' Ezek XXXVI 25,26, 
 Water I n this place must be used tiguiatively, as a sign, or 
 emblem of the grace of God, by wl .i<h it is purged from an 
 evil conscience, cleansed ficm all the filthiness oi sin, and roni 
 all its idols : (or a renewed heart,) and a new spirit, (or, a 
 new principle, of love to God, and good will to men) is given 
 and put within us ; the stony heart also is taken away, — that 
 hard, obdurate, disobedient heart, s taken av\ay. and a heart 
 of flesh, (or soft, humble, teachable, and ol edi< nt heart,) is 
 given in its place. — This certainly mu&t be the true meaning 
 of that scripture. 
 
 Answer. That my opponent snys, water in this place must 
 bo used figuratively, .is a sign, or emblem ot the grace o: God ; 
 and that the sprinkling with cleiin water must be figurative, 
 or significant, of the sprinkling the heart with the spirit of 
 God, he has arbitrarily asserted ; but has not proved it ; un- 
 less we take his ipse dixit for evidence I do not deny, that 
 there are many figurative expressions in the scriptures ; but 
 when a man asserts, that a passage is figurative, he ought to 
 prove it ; either, by other texts, or the context, or by the ru'es 
 of sacred criticism. Some expositors are veiy expert, when 
 a passage of scripture is in their way, to turn it into a meta- 
 phor, without any authority ; although, it should be at the ex- 
 pense of all the rules oflan-juade. According to this rule of 
 exposition, the most important truths may be explained away» 
 ?wd the scriptm-es turned intg ridicule ; as for instance, whta 
 
04 
 
 it reads r "thou shalt not commit adultery ;" "thou shaltnot 
 steal," I m ght by the same art say, this only has a reference 
 to metaphorical adultery, and thett ; and that therefore, no re- 
 al adultery, and theft ure prohibiied. In this way our pres- 
 ent fanaticks impose on the people, and lead them into error. 
 The planest evidence, they arbitrarily force hito a figure ; and 
 then persuade many of the laity, that because there are some 
 metaphorical expressions in the scriptures, that they have the 
 liberty, without any evidence to make- every thing figurative, 
 that thwarts their preconceived opinion: To const, ue, the 
 water spoken ©"^in this text, to mean an emblem of the spirit, 
 is contrary to ihe rules of language. I shall quote it herea- 
 gain : — " Then will I sprinkle cle.jn water upon you, and ye 
 shall be c'ean ; from all your filthiness and trom your idols 
 will I c'eanseyou. A new heart a^so vvil. I give you, and a 
 new spirit will I put within you ; and 1 will take away the 
 stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of 
 flesh. " Now, if the water in this passage is to signify, the 
 sprinkling of the heart, uith the spirit ; why then is it added, 
 *' a new heait also will I give you and a new spirit ? " If 
 this gloss be true, then the text should read : "then will I 
 sprinkle, that is I wi 1 sprinkle the spirit upon you, and ye 
 shall be c'ean ; from all your filthiness, and from all your 
 idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, 
 and a new spirit. '^ Thus tlie water, would be made to mean 
 the same as spirit, which would be the same, as saying, that 
 they should be sprinkled with the spirit, und al?^o a new spirit 
 should to them be given. What an unreasunabe tautology ! 
 What need was there, to represent the spirit under the figure 
 of water, and then immediate'y mention the spirit literally ? 
 Are there two spirits : the one to be represented under the fi- 
 gure of water, and the other the spirit literally ? Or, did the 
 prophet, like a silly man, in the same text repeat one thing 
 twice, only by difterent expressions ? lithis text is to make 
 any correct meaning, water, must mean water ; and spirit, 
 spirit. As this text is a prediction of something under the 
 new testam nt dispensation, the water and the spirit, must al- 
 lude to some institution, that consists of the same, wkich is 
 no other than baptisn^. 
 
 Mr. M. says, page 81, " Mr. H's ideas on this passage are 
 so f'xtrava<Tant, th;u they are hardly worth troubling the reader 
 with •, but I will give thom in a condensed form. Heavenly 
 flood pag'" 25 he >-ays: ^- Now it is likely the prophet alludes 
 to such hearts as were under the stony law, or that had the 
 spirit of bondage to fear, from which they should be liberate*^ 
 
6& 
 
 under the sfospel, by the sprinkling of clean water and the relv 
 spirit. " The law," he says, " was engiavenon two tables of 
 stone ; " therefore, he calls it a stony lavN — •' These that w ere 
 under the law, were ki'pt in bondage, — shut up unto the laith 
 which should alterwards be r( vcale(i,&c. But that law was 
 taken away under the gospel ; therefore, the heart oi st( ne w as 
 taken away, and we delivered from the spirit ot bondage to 
 fear ; a heart of flesh, and a new spirit given us." 
 
 Thus you may see Mr. H's ideas. And if yt u can believe, 
 that because the 'aw was engraven on two tables o; sttnc,it 
 was theretbre a stony lav. , — and vv hen the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion was taken away, that thtreioie the htart of stone was 
 taken away, and a heart of flesh given ; and also, a new heart 
 and a new spirit put within us, and we ele; nsed Iron all our 
 idols and tilthiness, and that by aheaven'y flood o wattr bap- 
 tism, then you can believe Logica Henkelensis, and en brace 
 his doctrine ! " 
 
 Answer. My opponent in this condensed form, has most 
 shamefully misrepresented n:y ideas. 
 
 By transcribing the fo'low ing from my treatise, the reader 
 will be enabled to perceive Mr. M's misrepresentation of my 
 ideas, on this subject: — Heavenly flood p ^6 & 26, 1 sa) : 
 
 The prophet ht re certainly refers to the days ol the new testa- 
 ment dispensation, for he speaks of a nev^ spiit, v hieh has a 
 reference to the administraticn oi the Hoi} Spirit under the 
 gospel; further, he speaks of taking away the ^tcny heart. 
 Now the lav\ was engraven on tw o tables of sttre & ih( se that 
 were under the law were kept in bondage, as the Apostle 
 saith ; * but be'bre faith came, we weie Kept ui der the law, 
 shut up unto the faith v\hich shou'd atteiwi-rtls be revealed. 
 Wherefore the law was our schooimaster. to biing us unto 
 Christ, that we might be justified by faith ; but atter that *aith 
 is come, we are no longer under a shoo'mastei ' Gal. 8, 28-25. 
 See a' so eh 4 N<»w it is 'ikely the prophet alludes to such 
 hearts as were under the stony !aw . or that had the spirit of 
 bondage to fear, from which they should be liberated under 
 the gospel, by the sprinkling of clean w ater and the new spirit. 
 Thus the prophet also mentions v a*er and the spirit, hy w hich 
 the people shall be cleansed from their filthiness < nd idols, and 
 receive a new heart, which is nothing short o be rf borr ant w 
 of water and of the spirit. The clean water menioned by the 
 prophet cannot mean spirit only, but an elementary water; 
 for if he meant by the term 'clean water' cnly spirit, he 
 would not afterwards speak of a new spirit ; hence it is evident 
 
66 
 
 he means two distinct things by two distinct expressions, viz: 
 clean waiei*, and a new spiiit. 
 
 Now tliere is a manife^t difference, belvvecn saying, that the 
 law was taken away under the gospel ; that theietore, ihe htarfc 
 of stone was taken away: and that such hearts, as wtre under 
 the stony law, and had the spirit of bondage to tear, should 
 be iibarated from the same, under the gospel. To ha\ , that 
 the law was taken away under the sjospel \^ou■d imply, that 
 there vvas no law in existence, since Christ's incarnation. This 
 \v luld be a false doctrine, which I utteily disclaim. Although, 
 Christ has suffered the penalty ol the luw ; yet is it in existence; 
 and though no man may ever be justified thereby ; yet, it is 
 necessary to reveal sin, and is otherwise useful. But lo be 
 liberated from the fear of bondage, and Irom the law, by tiie 
 sprinkling of the clean water, and The new spirit, implies a sou', 
 who has tied to Christ for refuge, on whom the law has lost 
 all its power of condemnation. It is very unfair for my oppo- 
 nent, to attempt to make his readers believe, that I deny the 
 ex stenc ',an I use of the law, under the gospel, when it is not 
 true. One thinsj is, to be freed from the law, by faith and thus 
 not be in bondage ; and another ihihg is, the entire aboliiion 
 of the La^v. I asserted the former, and by no means the latter. 
 With respect to his stricture, on the phrase " stony law,'' I 
 will ju'^t observe, that I '"an discover no more impropriety in 
 caUin J it a stony law, because it was inscribed upon two tables 
 of stone, than to call it a written law ; because its contents have 
 b'*en coramitt d t » paper But as this is a matter of little im- 
 portance, I will take n > furthe pains, to justiiy its propriety. 
 
 I shall now examine the analogy my oppon' nt speaks of 
 bet.veen a natural and the spiritual birth'. He says, p 6&7, 
 " If we view the analogy between a natural and spiritual birth, 
 there is — 1st a conception ; 2d. a travai' ; 3d. a deliverance. 
 We are then born into this world, aufl begin to brealh ihe vital 
 air, which gives motion and expansion to the heart and lungs ; 
 and thus receives from the sun-ounding atmosphere, tho-e vital 
 particles of air which are onstantly needed to support the fii me 
 of animil 'i^e. Our external senses are also open to behold 
 the licrht of this world ; and we begin to discover, and to linve 
 a knowledge of the various objects which surround us on every 
 side. Likewise, by receiving nourishing food, first the mi'lc 
 o^ the mother, then stronger as our eonstitution will bear it. we 
 grow, and from babes, we come to be young men and fathers^ 
 and are enabled to perform the duties of h'e." 
 
 " Thus it is in a spiritual birth. 1. The understanding is iU 
 Ituuioated by the word and spirit of God, and the soul brought 
 
a? 
 
 to sec il5 lost arif^ undone situation. This produces crnviction 
 in the uiinil. The soui jielciuig to tliis cciiviction, it n a^ be 
 saiil, that the seed oi (iivini.- grace is ctiiceived in tiie ht ait. 2. 
 We I he ! have to go ihroiigh the painiul travail or npeniance 
 towards God, before we obtain deliverance. This lejcntance 
 humbles us as in the dust ; tills u> with deep pt nitcntial sonow, 
 and can<!'"s us to abhor ouiso'vcs as in dust iind asht-s belore 
 God. Thus we come, labou. ing undei the weight oi sin and 
 guilt, acknowledging belore God. our manitold ciines and 
 transgres>ions, au'i earnestly praying lb. niercy. The Loid 
 h''arkens and hears the humble mourners' prayer, and biesses 
 them with a pardi)ning love. Thus 3fl. 'l hey are deliveied, 
 and born of the spirit. Yes, the spirit ot G'kI applies the merit 
 of Cirist's death to the w'ounded sou!. — Guilt and condenina- 
 tion are taken away from the conscience, and the soul l>rc.ught 
 into the light and hberty o; God's children. The} new breathe 
 the vital air Oi divine love, v^ hich expands their sou!s with 
 Love to God, and good vvil' to men ; and supp ics then: \Ailh 
 grace, to feed the flame of that divine and spiritual life which 
 is kindled in their hearts. " 
 
 Answer. I wish n)y opponent had suppressed those gross 
 and carnal ideas. It is unbecoming the dignity of this impor- 
 tant subject, to compare it with a carnal birth. Properly to 
 delineate this supposed analogy, the previous study of mid- 
 wifery would bi" ne-essar} . Whether Mr. M. understands 
 it, I Jo not know ; but as it respects myself, I make no pre- 
 tensions to it. Yet, so much any one nmy knew, that in a 
 na'ural birth, the mother conceives, labours, and is delivered. 
 Bat the sinner, who is spiritually born, certain'y cannot him- 
 self be the mother. Hi; must be the spiritual child, lor the 
 scrio'Ures call the regenerated, God's children But accorditig 
 to M.- M's statement, the sinner, who is to be the spiritual 
 child, must conceive himsel'", and deliver himself^ by the pain- 
 fu' travail of repentance. Most unfortunate, and ridiculous 
 analogy! it subverts the nature of things! for where in all 
 creation, can it ht' fouii! I, that the child is substituted for the 
 mother '. O" does he mean, that the sinner is to be both, the 
 child, and the mother? It appears so; for he says, that the 
 seed of divine grace is conceived in the heart, when the mind 
 is illuminated, by the word, and spirit of God ; and then v e 
 have to go throusjh the painful travail of repentance, before we 
 obtain deliverance. ^Vho does n"t nt the first v'ew perceive, 
 how vulgar it is, to invent su-^h an analogy ? Did not our bles- 
 se 1 Saviour carc'u'lv guard against such carnal idea«, when 
 speaking on this subject ? When ^ficodemus asked him, "how 
 
ican a man be born when he ^s old ? " he replied, "that which is 
 born of the flesh is flesh ; and that wiiich is born of the spirit, 
 is spirit;" by vviiicii ne absl.-acts all carnal ideas, and vulgar 
 comparisons. Wh -re, in the scriptures, is repentance called a 
 painiul travail? it seem-:,that my opponent considers repen- 
 tance sjm-^ kind olpanishment, similar to that of a Papish pur- 
 gatory. Many of his b.ethren, together with sundry others 
 en-ertainthe same views ; hence, their Sf^rmons consist of many 
 a\v;u!, an I fearful expi'essions, to terrify the imagination, in 
 order to produce this paintn) travad, which not untVequently 
 affect the nervous syste.i),the resultof which in many instances, 
 has bi'en corporeal convulsions. There are many who think, 
 that before a man can be regenerated he must undergo some 
 punishment, which they cad co iviction, causing the mt»st des- 
 perate throes ; sach they suppose to be the travail of repentance. 
 Such teachers, vvhen they speak of repentance, they do not 
 mean, what he scriptures imply with respect to this subject, 
 bat sam^ kind of punishment, like as if it should be an atone- 
 ment for sin. This doctrine, and that of the Roman purgatory 
 are nearly related. All the ditference is, that the one is a 
 present, and th • other a future purga'ory. 
 
 The verb ^u^favofw, which is translated /repenf, is compoun- 
 ded of /«,£*». after, and I'otw, I consider ; and thus properly 
 signifies, I consider after the deed; hence its substantive 
 ftitavoia, which is translated repentance, pioperly signifies a 
 change of mind. It may be seen '-l.tt'i. 8.2. Arts 17, 30, 
 Lnke 15, 7. ch. 16, 80 ' Matth. 11, 20. Acts 2, 88. Mark 
 6, 12. A change of mind, does noi ueeessarily involve the 
 idea of a painful travail* St. P ml says 'Mbr by the law is the 
 knowledge of sin." Rom. 8, 20 "1 had not known sin. but by 
 the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, 
 Thou shalt not covet;" ch. 7, 7— and v. 18—" But sin, that it 
 might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; 
 that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 
 ^^ Wherefore the law wa<^ our schooImaste^• to bringns to Christ, 
 that we m ghtbe justified by fiiith." Ga!. 8, 14. These texts 
 shew, that G )d's holy law is the means, by which the spirit 
 convinces the sinner of his guilt, the justice of his condemna- 
 tion, which urges him to come to Ghrist» For without the law, 
 we should never realize the enormity of our guilt; and hence, 
 never p'M'ceive the indispensable necessity of a Saviour. So 
 jndeed, the law causes us to consider after the guilty (]cc(^ ; but 
 only to drive us to utter desperation, unless the gospi I of Christ, 
 he also heard, and believed, which swallows up all the terrors, 
 |g^feich the law yvpuld otherwise display in the mind of the sinner. 
 
Hence, the mere operations of the law are not sufficient to re^ 
 plete repentance; tor the gospel must be adfleil,to cause faith, 
 by which the righteousness of Christ is apprehended. The 
 scriptures declare, that by repentance we get the remission for 
 sin; and yet, also declare, that without faith we cannot be sa. 
 ved,* which proves, tlidt faith constitutes a part of repentance. 
 A though, the lasv be calculated to reveal sin, and terrify ever 
 so mach; and thou'^h. all this be ev r so n.icessai-y ; yet it can 
 not an")unttoa painful travail; because if it be repentance, by 
 whiiih is the reaiission fo- sin, filth is necessarily included, 
 which apprehends the Saviour of the world, whose atonement 
 is far superior to all guilt: this changes theteirors ol the law, 
 and sooths into mental tranquility. This is illustrated by the 
 following passage: 
 
 " T lere'bre, Ut a'l th.^ house of Israel know assuredly, that 
 God hath m I le that sam • Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both 
 Lord and Christ. Now, when they heard this, they were 
 prickcvl in their heart, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of 
 the apostles, Men and brethren what shall we do? Then 
 Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of 
 yoj in the name of Je^us Christ, for the remission of sins, and 
 ye shall receive the gift of the H >iy Ghost." Acts 2, 86-38. 
 When Peter told the Jew;, that Jesus, whom they had cruci- 
 fied, arose from the deal; v. 32, and was made both Lord 
 and Christ, they were pricked in their heart, which indicates 
 their consternation. They were the Saviour's murderers, and 
 upon hearing, that he a'-ose. and was suprenudy euahed, they 
 anticipated his vengeance. They being pricked in their heait, 
 were already in a state of travail, before they asked Peter, 
 what they should do; and before, he returned the comfortable 
 answer: to repent, and be baptised, in the very name of him, 
 whom they crucified, for the remission of their sins. Now, 
 suppose rpppntance to be a painful travail, what necessity was 
 there for Peter tote'l those Jews, to repent, i. e. according to 
 my opponent's theory, to be in a painful state of travail, when 
 
 * Note. In the following passages, it is to be observed, that faith, and 
 repentance, are hoth mentioned. — " Repent ye and believe the go.spel." 
 Mark 1 15. "Testifying both to the Jews, ant also to the Gteeks, repen- 
 tance toward God. and faith towaid our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20, 21. 
 The word reoen'ance, he-e i^s only taken for the one part, i. e. sorrow for 
 sin. Neverth'ess, faith is Joined to this sorrow for sin; hence there is no 
 remission fo- sin no matter how mu' h contrition a sinner may have; un- 
 le-s he have faith. So that when repentance for the remission of sins, ie 
 mrniioned in the scriptures, we understand taith incladcd^ for without faith, 
 no mai> can have the pavdoo for siij. 
 
70 
 
 fiiey were already in this state ? It is evident, that this ex- 
 hortation, A^hicli t;ie ap3stle gave them, to repent was to eman- 
 cipate them from this state of travail. It seems, that if my 
 opponent, hid had the maaai^ement on <hi day of penteeost, 
 he '.voald have rold thase p )or, ter "itied Jews, to enter afresh 
 into an>ther travail, and vehemently exhorted tJiem, to feel 
 the torm'^nts of O'lrojatJi-y ; before he would have given any 
 hope of deliverance ; for he makes a painful travail, of repen- 
 tance. Wht^reas St. Peter comforted them, by exhorting 
 th^m to repent and to be baptised. It is said, ''they that 
 gla lly received the ward were baptised ; an I the same day 
 th?re wer * adie 1 wito ^he n a'l > it three thousand souls. " v 41. 
 Tiis also shews, that three thm^and souls being added to the 
 Christian church the same day, that they could not have had 
 suJii uent time, to lie twenty four hours, half convulsed under 
 sore conviction, and labouring in travail, before they obtain- 
 ed deliverance. 
 
 I shall yet, a H 'h^ jailor's cmversion, Tiie jailor antici- 
 pated the escape of his prisoners, when by the earthquake, 
 the foundations of the prison were shaken, and saw its doors 
 open, and their bands loosed ; whereupon he drew out his 
 sword, md wouki h ive kille I himse'f. But being prevented 
 by St. Paul, h^ catne tremblinij, and fell down before him, 
 and S as, anJ b!'>!ight them out ; and said, Sirs, what must 
 I lo to be saved ? T las it is eviflent, that before the jailor 
 asked this important question, he was in a state of consterna- 
 tion, and ver i^e 1 on lestru'fim ; for he hid almost commit- 
 ted su'cide. Bit whit answer di I Paul and Silas return? 
 No doubt, hid mv oppon nt been there, he would hnve said, 
 " you must first pass through the ordeal of a painful travail' ; 
 and to effect this, he would ha/e represented to his mind, 
 the flaming sulphureous seas of Tophet ; and had him con- 
 vulsed f)r a while ; be ore he would have administered con- 
 solation. Sot this was not thf answer, the apostles gave. 
 They said "Bdieve on the L^-d Jesus Christ, and thou shalt 
 be saved, and thy house.'' H<* Was also immediately bap- 
 tised. Thus we learn, that the jailor had no travail in his re- 
 Eentance. But when he was vet on his way to destruction, 
 e was in a state of travail Bit as soon as he beared the 
 gosiel, and believed it, he was in a state of salvation, and re- 
 joicing. He also shewed the fmits of his repentance, by his 
 km dness to the apostles ; for he washed their sti-ipes. and set 
 meat before them Al! this, transpired in a few hours ; hence, 
 no time to pass through this supposed purgatory of travail I 
 See Act 16, 25 - S4, 
 
71 
 
 It is admitted, that when nothirg but the terrors of the ]a\V 
 are preachec! to the pcope, that many enter into such a pain- 
 ful travail, and many have utterly (iesp;iired ; w hilsi others 
 became hypocrites, by thinking the pains they experiuiced, 
 were a sutticini atonenit nt tor their crin es But Christ's 
 ministers are not commanded, to ofliciate in this manner. If 
 they mention the law, they must also place bj its side, the su- 
 perior glory, and excellence ot the gospel God convicts us 
 by thi* lavv, not with a view to punish us for our sins ; nor 
 does he kill us, that we should tinai y die ; but that we should 
 see the nc'^essity ol a Saviour, and live lor ever, ll a n an 
 shou d hear the sentence oi Heath pr< noi need agirst bmi. it 
 indeed, woud be tenible ; but when at the san e tin v, the 
 pardon s presented, the terror ceiiSes ; for the idea of a par- 
 don destroys the terror ol the sentence ; hence no travail 
 could take place. If the sentence of denth only, should be 
 pronounced, without a pardon to accompany it. then indeed a 
 travail, but to no sa utary purpose, would be the result Bot- 
 wh) has authorised any one to say, that the law must sepa- 
 rate y be preached, to produce this travail of repentance ? 
 Un ess the law be prea^h^d separa'ely, a travail can never 
 be the result ; for.wherever the gospel is added, the sinner 
 is com orted, and the terrors vanish. Hence, I uiust con- 
 clude, that my opponent is a preacher of the law, and knows 
 more of Moses than of Christ. 
 
 The Papists taught a purgatory after death, in which souls 
 must get prepared for heaven : but some protestants in prop- 
 erly so called, tea^^h something which is similar, i. e. a travail^ 
 before they can be sav -d, and a false representation of repen- 
 tance is made their pander. Multitudes of people, when they 
 resort to the meeting house, where such preachers officiate, in- 
 stead of hearing the joyful news, that God is reconciled to the 
 wor'd through the death of his Son ; and that all, who be- 
 lieve, realize this free salvation, they enter into a hou:?e of 
 gloomy dea'h, and where no hope beams upon the souls of 
 sinners. On the pulpit stands a beinsf, who is called a minis- 
 ter of the gospel. arrayeH in some peeuliar coat, to denote his 
 distinction from th? world ; his natural tone is lost, and sv^ al- 
 lowed up in a voice moaning, to shew his super-anffelic humil- 
 ity : his cheeks are curved ; his lips protruded ; his eye-balls 
 unnaturally rolling, like balls of 6re ; whilst occasionally 
 he sheds tears, like a crocodile, to signify his external holi- 
 ness : from his lips issues a torrent of bombastic expressions, 
 describing somewhat like Milton, the torments of h«Il. with 
 
,72 
 
 adamantine * chains, and penal fires, and thus crowding the 
 imagination with those t'earul metaphors ; so that w eak le- 
 malesj and unliable men get alaimed ; ihey tall into convic- 
 tion, the penitential ti avail commences ; they wrestle in some 
 corporeal matmt^r ; and having thus by their hard labour, ren- 
 dered God a recon pt nee for their s-ins, they imagine, they 
 have obtained deliverance ; and they rise, and give him glojy, 
 and thence date their convei'siun. 
 
 The Papists by their unscriptural representations of purga- 
 tory, acquired a great ascendency over the peop'e, and an ac- 
 cess to their purses ; for whenever people are kept in legal 
 bondage, a tyrannical priesthood will domineer. A'thcugh 
 the dark ages ol tyrannical popery are past ; yet, now under 
 the garb of the protestant religion, repentance is made a pain- 
 ful travail ; so that the people may be kept in legal bondage. 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 This section contains an investigation of mv opponent's gloss on 1 Pet. 3^ 
 20, 21. 
 
 This text being quoted in my treatise, my opponent als» 
 quoted, p. 35. a paif of my con.ment on the same : viz 
 
 " Mr. H. p. 35. says : "The flood in which the antedilu- 
 vians perished, was a figure of baptism. 'Eight souls were 
 saved in the ark by water. The like figure whertunto even 
 baptism doth also now save us.' The flood ccnsis'ed of water ; 
 so does baptism. The ^^ater upheld the ark, so that eight 
 souls could swim on it, and be saved ; the Holy Ghost moves 
 on water in baptism, and Christ is put on theieby &c." 
 
 On this Mr. M. observes, p. S6 : " li the flood is a figure 
 o^ baptism, then baptism must also be a figure of the flood ; 
 because the apostle says, baptism is a like figure. So then, 
 here would be one figure representing another figure ; which 
 ■would not be correct. " 
 
 Answer. That baptism is called the like figure, does not 
 
 * By the above remark, I do not wish to convey the idea, that there are 
 no <"uture punishments ; nor. that it is improper to mention the description 
 of future torments, a9. described in the sctiptmes : but only to check all 
 wild, exlragant, expressions, and to ridicule the absurd doctrine, that the 
 preaching of the law, without the gospel by its side, will convert sinners. 
 
73 
 
 prove it to be a figure of the flood. Neither does the apostle 
 say, that baptism is a figure of the flood, but the Hke figure* 
 What is here in EngUsh called the like figure, is in the ori- 
 ginal, avtvtvTtov, which is an antitype, or a type corresponding. 
 But is an antitype, a type of a former type ? By no means. 
 An antitype is not emblematical, but is the corresponding sub- 
 stance of a former type, or figure. 
 
 My opponent proceeds ; " Agreeably to Mr. H's doctrine, 
 the flood is but a very poor figure indeed of his holy baptism ; 
 for that was a destroying flood, or flood of divine wrath, as 
 well as a flood of water, by which all the wicked were de- 
 stroyed I But his holy baptism is a saving flood, or flood of 
 divine grace, by which all ttie ungodly, who receive it, are sa- 
 ved from sin and divine wrath ! " 
 
 Answ^er. Can a flood of destruction, not also be a flood of 
 safety ? Although, the antediluvians perished in the w-ater ; 
 nevertheless, by it the eight souls were saved. If baptism be 
 a flood of salvation, it must also be a flood of destruction. 
 The apostle says '^ Knowing this, that our old man is crucifi- 
 ed with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
 henceforth we should not serve sin." Rom. 6,6. Again — 
 "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die : but if ye through the 
 spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live. " ch. 8. 13. 
 These texts shew, that if the body of sin be not destroyed we 
 must die ; but otherwise we shall live. Through the spirit 
 the body of sin must be destroyed, which as I have already 
 proved, is administered by baptism, which destruction will 
 prove our ultimate felicity. Although, the flood was destruc- 
 tive ; notwithstanding on that account, it is a proper figure of 
 baptism ; for if baptism be a means of salvation, it must also 
 be that of destruction, as the old man in us must perish, before 
 the nev/ can finally be triumphant. 
 
 I deny this to be the truth, what my opponent says, that 
 my holy baptism saves all the ungodly, who receive it, from 
 sin and divine wrath. There is no such an idea exhibited 
 throughout my treatise ; but the contrary is asserted. See p. 
 83, 34, 35. Neither, have I ever preached any such doctrine, 
 Mr. M. you ought not to accuse me falsely ! 
 
 "But" continues Mr. M. "As the Apostle says that bap- 
 tism is a like figure, it proves 1st, that baptism is a figure ; 
 therefore, a sign, or emblem. " 
 
 I answer : Every figure (much less an antitype) is not an 
 emblem : that is a mere allusive picture, which is the mean- 
 ing of an emblem. Eight souls were saved in the ark by the 
 flood, which truly was a figure ; but was it therefore, a mere 
 
 K 
 
74 
 
 emblematical flood ? — and were they only emblematically 
 saved ? It destroyed the wicked. But was it only an em- 
 blem of destruction ? No — the flood was real — 'he eighi souls 
 were really saved — the wicked dest;'oyed : and yet, it served 
 as II prefigui-ation of baptism. Now. it the flood and its ef- 
 fects were nal, which was a figure, how much more must 
 baptism its antitype, or the like figure, be real with respect 
 to its properties anri eticcts .' 
 
 My opponent afl({s ; " '3. It proves that there was another 
 figure to \vl»ich the apostle referred. Now the question is, what 
 was the other figure like ? My answer is, it was the ark. 
 For the eight souls were not saved by water ; but were saved 
 in the ark, from perishing by water: hence a figure of Christ, 
 and the salvation that we receive from the flood of divine wrath 
 by being in him. S > baptism is a like figure ; i. e. a figure of 
 the baptism of the spirit, by which we are saved and cleansed 
 from all sin, ' by the resurrection of Jesus Christ ; ' or by the 
 power of that spirit which raised Chi'ist from the dead. " 
 
 Answer. Mr. M. positively contradicts the aposth Peter, 
 whan he asserts, that the eight souls were not saved by water. 
 This will appear plainer, by fully quoting the words of the 
 text: — " Which (the spirits in prison v. 19) sometime were 
 disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in 
 the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein 
 few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like fi- 
 gure w hereunto haptisir doth also now save us, (not the put- 
 ting away of the filth of the flesh, br.t tht- ans\Aer of a good 
 conscien.'p tow arris God.) bv theresurti'cticn of .lesus Chrii-t.* 
 1. Pet. 3, 20, 21. What is the aniecedrnt tothe phrase ''the 
 like figure }'^ Ans. \\'ater — an(! the text positively says, 
 ^'ei{jht soids were -aved by water *' Now \\hat authority has 
 my opponent, for asserting, that thi y were not saved by wa- 
 ter ? Whom shall v. e believe ? — him ? — or, St. Peter ? 
 
 VVhat he alleges from Heb. 11. 7 — is no proof, that the 
 eight souls were not '^aved by water. It dimply proves, that 
 Noah prepared the ark to the saving of his house ; for in the 
 ark, as St. Peter says, eight souls were saved ; not by the 
 ark, but by the water. If there had not been a flood of wa- 
 ter, what use ^^ ould there have been for the ark ? Surely 
 not to swim on, and be saved by dry 'and ! Indeed the ark 
 was necessary ; but without the water it wnuld have been 
 prepared in vain. As there would have been no deslruction 
 without the water ; neither could the eight souls have been 
 saved ; because they wotdd have been in no danger. 
 
 When he asserts, that '•'baptism is a like figure i. e. a £- 
 
75 
 
 gure of the baptism of the spirit. " he violates the roles of sa- 
 cred criticism. The apostle does not say so. If Mr. M's 
 gloss were correct, the text uouUl have read : ^'vvherem lew 
 that is eiglit souls were saved by water. The like figure 
 whereunto baptism doth also now ?ave us, which baptism is 
 the like figure of the baptism of the spirit, by which we are 
 saved. " This last phrase, is no part ol the text, but the most 
 uncouth adilition. and contradicts the apostle's words. For 
 ha only speaks of one like figure, that is baptism, which is 
 properly the antitype of th>' tlood ; but my opponent makes 
 this antitype, or sabstance of a former figure, that is the flood, 
 a type of the baptis.n of the spirit- It appears, because he 
 hates the idea, that baptism shouUl t)e the means of salvation, 
 and yet, this text is so much against him ; in order, that he 
 may be right, he forces into it another antitA'pe, and thus per- 
 verts the scriptures. I do not deem it necessary to say more 
 on this subject, as any person, who reads his gloss may see^ 
 that he has contradicted the apostle. 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 Aa examination of my opponent's arguments, which l^e produced to prove, 
 thai baptism is an emblem, fete. In this section al-o it is -hewn, that it 
 is inconsis'ent and i lolatrous, to teach that the sacvamenis oT baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper'are emblems. 
 
 Mr. M. attempts to prov; by some assertions in my trea- 
 tise, and by Doct. Luther's words, that baptism is an em- 
 blem. He says, p. 40. "Having in the preceding section ex- 
 plained the design and use of baptism, by comparing it with 
 that of circumcision, we wdl in this show more luliy that wa- 
 ter baptism is an emblem, or visible sign, which is the same. 
 I think this will appear from Mr H's own premise, which 
 he has stated in his sixth section, where he calls baptism a 
 seal. Now a seal is an impression, or extt rnal mark design- 
 ed to confirm the truth of any thing. Hence there must be a 
 difference between the senl, and that which is ratified by 
 it : they cannot be one and the same thing. Mr. H. s&ys, 
 baptism is a seal of the Abrahamic covenant, and of the right- 
 eousness of faith, as circumcision formerly wa=^— therefore, 
 an external thing — hence an emblem — of course not a heaven- 
 ly fiood of regeneration. He says ; "To be circumcised in 
 
76 
 
 Christ, and to be baptised into Christ, are expressions of sim- 
 ilar import. " If so, they must also be of similar signification. 
 Now, St. Paul calls circumcision in the flesh, a sign of cir- 
 cumcision, as well as a seal of the righteousness of faith. 
 Rom. iv, 11. Therefore water baptism is a sig7i of the bap- 
 tism of the spirit as well as a seal. Hence an emblem ; of 
 course, not a heavenly flood, &c, Mr. H. himself being 
 judge. " 
 
 Answer. It seems, that with my opponent a seal, sign, 
 and emblem are synonymous. Thus when he speaks of a 
 seal, and sign, he means an emblem. And because circum- 
 cision is called a seal, and sign, he concludes that baptism 
 must be an emblem ; because like circumcision, it seals the 
 Abrahamic covenant. But it is wrong to infer from this, that 
 baptism is an emblem. An emblem is an allusive picture. 
 Neither a seal, nor a sign, necessarily signifies an emblem. 
 There are different terms for each in the original : — o^paycj, a 
 sea! — STiixtvov, a sign — if^extifia, an emblem. 
 
 A seal, in civil aflairs of life is joined to a deed, testament, 
 or another instrument of writing, in which certain stipulations 
 are made ; and by which also, the things stipulatecl may be 
 legally conveyed. Such a seal, also ratifies the same. Such 
 an instrument of writing, when exhibited before a court of 
 justice, will procure to the legal bearer, the possession of all 
 therein stipulated ; whereas a person appearing with mere 
 emblems of property, would render himself ridiculous. Thus 
 if we ever apply the meaning of a seal, as used in the civil af- 
 fairs of life to circumcision, and then infer the same with re- 
 spect to baptism, it cannot be an emblem. But that meaning, 
 which the scriptures attach to the word seal, and no other, 
 ought to be applied ; because they are best interpreted by 
 themselves. The following will shew the scriptural import 
 of a seal : — 
 
 St. Paul say^, '- Now he which establisheth us with you in 
 Christ, and hath anointed us, is God ; who hath also sealed 
 us, and given the earnest of the spirit in our hearts. " 2 Cor. 
 1, 2], 22. This shc\^ s, that to seal is God's own work ; for 
 "who (God) hath also sealed us. " In this text also, to "give 
 the earnest of the spirit. " is connected with "who hath also 
 sealed us." And in Eph. 1, 13, the apostle says, "Ye were 
 sealed with that holy spirit of promise. " These passages un- 
 deniably indicate, that to seal, is to apply the holy spirit. 
 Now if baptism be a seal, the application thereof, must also 
 be an application of the holy spirit, which difters widely from 
 an emblem. Again the apostle says "The foundation of God 
 
77 
 
 siandeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that 
 are his " 2 Tim» 2, 19. When the question is put, what 
 seal has the foundation of God ? — the answer is, that the Lord 
 knows them that are his. Hence, the word seal in this text, 
 includes to be known of God as his, which is far more than 
 an emblem. To be known of God as his, is nothing short of 
 being in a state of salvation. Now, if the scriptural meaning 
 of a seal be applied to baptism, emblems are excluded. My 
 opponent has not produced one scriptural instance, where a 
 seal is an emblem* 
 
 The word sign, according to the language of the scriptures 
 implies more than an emblem, or an image without a substance. 
 A few instances will prove this : — "Behold, this child (Jesus) 
 is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel ; and for 
 a sign, which shall be spoken against." Luke 2. §4. In 
 this text, Jesus is called a sign, ariixnov, which is the very 
 same word, which St. Paul uses, when he speaks of circum- 
 cision. '' And then shall appear the sign (ari/A-siov^ of the son 
 of man in heaven : and then shall all the tribes of the earth 
 mourn, and they shall see the Son coming in the clouds of 
 heaven, with power and great glory. " Matth. 24, 80.-— 
 compared with Luke 21, 27. This text also, calls Jesus a 
 sign. Thus he is a sign, which is spoken against ; and a sign, 
 when shall come with power and great glory. But does this 
 prove, That Jesus Christ is an emblem, or an allusive pic- 
 ture ? According to Mr. M's theory, Jesus would be an 
 emblem ; because he is called a sign, which Mr. M. says, 
 is the same as an emblem ! See page §5. In the same man- 
 ner he proves, that baptism is an emblem ; because circum- 
 cision is called a sign ; equally so, I can also prove, that 
 Christ is an emblem ; for he is called a sign. But who would 
 admit, unless he be a blasphemer, that Jesus Christ is an em- 
 blem, that is an allusive picture without a substance ? Thi,» 
 is not only the meaning of the word emblem ; but my oppo- 
 nent also applies it in the same sense, when he denies the di- 
 vine blessing to be contained m the means. Though Christ 
 be called a sign ; yet is he a real substance. Thus it is evi- 
 dent, that a sign is not a mere emblem ; but either includes, 
 or else is the substance itself. Now, if circumcision be a 
 sign, and baptism being in lieu thereof, according to my op- 
 ponent's reasoning, it must also be a sign ; hence I conclude, 
 that baptism includes a reality ; because I have already pro- 
 ved, that a sign is also a substance. This is the more evi- 
 dent, because baptism does not consist af mere water ; but al- 
 so, of the name of God, which is not a shadow, but a sub- 
 stance, 
 
78 
 
 That D"»ct, Lather calls baptism a sign is no evidence, 
 fchat he cjiisidei-ed it as a mere emblem, which will appear 
 from ihe l"3ch article of the Aagastan conl'ession, which was 
 subscribed by himself, in which the meaning of a sign, is suf- 
 ficiently qiiiified. The article says : 
 
 "Of the Sacraments, we teach : that they have been estab- 
 lished, not only for outward signs, whereby Christians may 
 be knovvn, bat that they shall be signs and testimonies of the di- 
 vine will towards us, in order thereby to awaken and strength- 
 en the faith in us ; wherefore they require i'aith, and are then 
 used in a right manner when we receive them in faith, and 
 strengthen it thereby. " 
 
 In this article the word "sign," is not used for an emblem, 
 but tor a testimony of the divine will towards us, to awaken 
 and strengthen the faith in us. Whatsoever is a testimony of 
 the divine will towards u^, and to a^yaken and strengthen our 
 faith, is far more than an emblem. 
 
 Again, he reasons incorrectly, when he concludes, that be- 
 cause baptism is an externa! tiling; therefore, it must be an 
 emblem. Is every external thin^ an emblem? If so, then 
 the holy scriptures mist be an emblem ; because they are ex- 
 ternal. Not only so, but every man in the world, yea Mr* 
 M. himself mast be an emblem ; because he is an external 
 person. Who r.ould believe such logick ? 
 
 It can easily be proven, that circu ncision was of more im- 
 portance than a mere emblem, and that it was a means to ef- 
 fect the circu ncisiin of the heart. Circumcision was called a 
 covenant. "And Gxlsaid unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep 
 my covenant therefore, th')u and thy seed after thee, in their 
 generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, be- 
 tween me and you, and thy seed after thee ; Every man-child 
 among you shall be circumcised." Gen. 17, 9, iO. Accor- 
 ding to this, circumcision is called a covenant. Why go ? 
 Not that the cuttingoff of the foreskin, was the covenant itself; 
 but it must have had a connection with rt ; hence it was a to- 
 ken, V. It. which St. Paul calls a sign. Circumcision was 
 connected with the covenant, or a means to effect the circum- 
 cision of the heart. If in case circumcision had not been con- 
 nected with G)d's covenant, why then would the Lord have 
 said, ' Aod the uncircumeised man child, whose flesh of his 
 foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his 
 people ; he hath broken my covenant ? " v. 14. By not be- 
 ing 'ircumcised God's covenant was broken ; but how could 
 this be, if circumcision was not connected with it? Ifcir- 
 eumcision had been a mere emblem, and distinct from God's 
 
covenant, it could not have been broken by not being circum- 
 cised. The Lord might have charged the uncircumcised w ith 
 disobedience, for neglecting his c(ftnmand, but not for bra- 
 king his covenant ; provided circumcision had not been con- 
 nected with it. By not being circumcised, the covenant was 
 broken ; hence, the conclusion is, that by being circumcised 
 the covenant was established and confirmed. JVjr. M. agrees 
 with me, page o7, that this covenant contained the promises of 
 the gospel. Bui what were those promises ? They included 
 Christ, and his blessed spirit. See Gal. g, 9-29. Through 
 Christ we are justified, and by his blessed spirit we get sanc- 
 tified. Now, since circumcision was connected with this cov- 
 enant, which included the promise of the ]Vlessiah, and the 
 gifts of the holy spirit, it could not be a m.ere emblem ; but 
 such a sign, as included the stipulations of important realities, 
 which are calculated to etYect the circumcision of the heart. 
 I shall add St. Paul's testimony, Rom, 3, 1-4, compared 
 with eh. 9, 4, 5: — "What advantage then hath the Jew? 
 or what profit is there of circumcision ? Much every way : 
 chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles 
 of God. For what if some did not believe ? shall their unbe- 
 lief make the faith of God without effect ? God forbid."— 
 And of those circumcised Jews he says : — "To whom par- 
 taineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and 
 the giving of the law, and tlie service of God, and the prom- 
 ises ; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the 
 flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed tor ever A- 
 men." From these te.xts we learn, that circumcision profited 
 so much, that unto the .Jews the oracles ot God were com- 
 mitted, and his promises made ; notwithstanding their unbe^ 
 lief. They to whom the divine promises where made, had a 
 right, and they to whom the oracles i. e. the words of God 
 were committed, had the means to have had their hearts cir- 
 cumcised. Thus God by virtue of this covenant, had granted 
 them all those privileges ; notwithstanding, many abused them 
 through unbelief. God abides faithful, his offers are earnest 
 and true ; although frequently despised by sinners. 
 
 Although baptism now, seals the Abrahamic covenant ; yet 
 this does not prove, that baptism must therefore, in all respects 
 be similar to circumcision, in its meaning, use, and design. 
 This is elucidated in my treatise, which I shall here insert* 
 Heavenly flood, p. 40 & 41 : — Baptism though in lieu of cir- 
 cumcision, yet it must be far more valuable, otherwise it never 
 would have corne in the room of circumcision. If baptism 
 oould effect no mvre than circumcision; what then could have 
 
80 
 
 been God's design in abolishing circumcision and substituting 
 baptism ? Is not Christ as a high-priest in the room of the 
 Jewish high-priests under the law, and his sacrifice in the 
 room of the sacrifices, which they offered ? But what man 
 of common sense would conclude, thdt therefore Christ can be 
 no greater than they, and his sacrifice not more valuable than 
 their sacrifices ? Is not the whole new testament dispensa- 
 tion in the room of the old ? Is it therefore not more valuable r 
 It certainly is more valuable, otherwise the old would have 
 continued, and not waxed old, "For if the first covenant 
 had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for 
 the second. " Heb. 8, 7» Again, " In that he saith, a new 
 covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decay- 
 eth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. " v. 13. Now^ 
 circumcision was a rite under the old testament, but baptism 
 under the new ; hence as far as the new testament excels the 
 old, so far baptism excels circumcision ; for every institution 
 must be agreeable to the testament of which it is an institution. 
 Circumcision sealed the promise of a Messiah that was yet to 
 come ; but by baptism we put on Christ, that is already come. 
 Circumcision was principally confined to the Jewish nation, 
 and only to the male sex; but the apostle saith, ''For as many 
 of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. 
 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, 
 there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ 
 Jesus." Gal. §, 27, 28. Thus Ijaptism includes all ; hence 
 superior to circumcision. Thus far the argument in my trea- 
 tise. 
 
 Circumcision is to be viewed, 1st, as a sign, and a seal of the 
 Abrahamic covenant, before the era of the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion, or the covenant made at mount Sinai. And 2d, as in- 
 corporated with the Mosaic code, after its adoption. As a 
 seal of the Abrahamic covenant, it was purely evangelical ; 
 for this covenant had Abraham's seed, who is Christ, Gal. 3, 
 16, in whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed, 
 for its object. In this respect baptism is in lieu of circumcis- 
 ion. St. Paul says, that by baptism w^e put on Christ, and 
 then concludes : if we be Christ's, then are we Abraham's 
 seed, and heirs according to the promise. See v. 27-29» 
 If by baptism we put on Christ, and thus become Abraham's 
 children, it is evident, that we are in the Abrahamic covenant. 
 But circumcision in so far, as it constituted a part of the law, 
 obligated men to fulfil the same. Gal. 5, 3. Rom. 2, 25. 
 In this respect, baptism is by no means in lieu of circumcis- 
 ion ; for who can believe, that men under the gospel dispenea- 
 
•81 
 
 iion are bound to fulfil the law of Moses ? The aposUe, ob- 
 jected to circumcision under the gospel dispensati* n ; betause 
 it would bind men unto the law, and then comludes : that 
 whosoever is justified by the law is alien from giacc. Gai. 5, 
 1 -4, Now it" baptism laid us under the same ob igations, it 
 ■would follow, that all those that were baptised, would also 
 have fallen trom grace; because they would thereby be put 
 under the law. As this cannot be said ot baptism, the conclu- 
 sion is, that in this respect it cannot be similar to circun cision. 
 IVIr M. therefore, is very incorrect in his manner of com- 
 paring baptism, in this respect with circumcision. See 
 p. 38, 39. 
 
 I shall now proceed to shew the impropriety, and idola-- 
 trous consequences, of viewing baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
 per, as emblems. My opponent says, page §8, "Now, 
 wherever there is a sign, there must be somethmg signified ; 
 and also the sign and the thing signified cannot be identically 
 one and the same thing ; there must be some distinction be- 
 tween them. " When he here says : wherever there is a 
 sign, there must be something signified ; he does not rr-ean, 
 that this something is connected with the sign, or baptism ; 
 for he has already declared : the grace is not in the means* 
 A'so, when he speaks of a sign, he has an emblem, without a 
 substance in view ; hence he must mean, wherever the sign 
 or baptism is administered, there the thing signified must be in 
 the heart of the person who receives baptism. That this is 
 his meaning, appears from what he 'urther says, "Therefore, 
 as St. Paul calls the circumcision, which Abi-aham received in 
 the fle^h, a sign of circumcision, it undeniably proves, 1st, 
 that outward circumcision was not the tiue essential circum- 
 cision, but only a sign of it. 2d, the thing signified, is the in- 
 ternal circumcision of the heart, performed by the spirit of 
 Gocl, and is the true essential circumcision " And page §9, 
 he applies this to baptism, where he calls it "a sign or em- 
 blem of that inward and spiritual grace, by which the soul is 
 regenerated, &c. " All this plainly indicates, that he consid- 
 ers baptism, as a mere representation of the inward, spiritual 
 ^ace in the heart, but by no means as connected with bap- 
 tism. 
 
 If this doctrine be true, then every baptised person must ei- 
 ther alreadv, or else, will in i'uture possess this inw ard, spiritu- 
 al 2race ; because he has the sign ; and wherever there is a 
 siarn, there must be somethmg signified, I' not, baptism 
 would be 1 'v'nef emb'pm to all such, as were destitute o^tbis 
 inward, spiritual grace ; for they would have the emblem 
 
82 
 
 without the thing signified. Wherever there is a sign, and 
 tha thing siguirieil is not also there, it is ev.dent that such an 
 em olem would be a teacher of lies. But is it true, that all 
 the iiaptised do, or ever shall possess this iIi\^ard, spiritual 
 grace ? By no means ; for many, as my opponent himself 
 ackno\vled<yes are, an I remain graceless. ^Notwithstanding 
 baptisin, according to his theory, is an emblem of this inward, 
 spiritual grace ! flow s.'lf-contradictory ! Is it possible that, 
 O >J vlio cannut lie, should have appointed an emblem, which 
 proves to be a teachv^r of lies to many thousands ? To affirm 
 this, would be a most horrid b'asphemy. It is in vain to say, 
 baptism is only a true sign of the inward grace, to such as 
 believe, but not to unbelievers ; because we might as well 
 conclude, that the word of God, which is the essence in bap-, 
 tistn, is only true when believed ; but otherwise it is a false- 
 hood. This woalfl be repugnant to the scriptures. God's ve- 
 racity does not depend upon our faith. *'Ir' we believe not, 
 yet lie abideth faithful ; he cannot deny hiniscb. " 2 Tim. 2, 
 13. "For what if -ome did not believe ? shall their unbelief 
 make the 'aith of God witliout effect ? God forbid." Rom. 
 o, 3, 4. Nosv such as teach, that baptism is an outward em- 
 blem of an inward, spiritual irrace, must either admit, 1st, 
 that aV the baptised possess this grace ; or, 2d, that it is a ly- 
 ing emblem to many thousands ; or, 3d. that the veracity of 
 this emblem solely depends upon our faith, and not upon di^ 
 vine authority The first, my opponent himself does not ad- 
 mit — to assert the second, that God should have appointed a 
 lying sign, would be a blasphemy — and the third, that the 
 divine veracity should depend upon our faith, would be ab- 
 suril, and antisrr'ptural. From these considerations it jip- 
 pears, that baptism cannot be an outward emblem of an in- 
 ward, spiritual grace. 
 
 When we view baptism as the ordinary means of regene- 
 ration, no such inconsistencies will result. Although many 
 resist the grace, of which it is a means, so as not to be saved 
 by it ; yet it remains true, the same as the gospel is ti*ue, 
 though resisted by unbe'ievers. God is good ; though we be 
 wicked ; he ^s merciful, and declares h:s good v^ill towards 
 ws by his word, :ind sacraments ; though we reject it ; and 
 thus we are left without an excuse. 
 
 I deem it a duty, which I owe to the Christian publick, 
 ■more explicitly to assert mv objections, against the much pre- 
 valent opinion of the sacraments being emblems. Not only 
 my opponent has assertcfl, that water is a figure, or emblem 
 of the spirit ; but it is also a very cut rent language among 
 
S3 
 
 many of the severa' denominations, professing Christianity, 
 to call water in baptism, an emb-eni of the spuit ; and bnad, 
 and wine in the Lord's Siippei , emblcn.s ol the body and 
 blood Ol' Jl-sus Christ. An enibleai is an allusive picture ; 
 hence an image, a uding to somt person or thing. A repre- 
 sentation is tUe same, 'fh-ise who call the sacraments tm- 
 ble.ns, or representations, abhor the idea, that the sp.nt should 
 operate through baptism ; and ol Christ's body, and blood be- 
 ing present in the holy Rucharist Such texts, which declare 
 the connexion ol the spirit with the waier ; and the presence 
 ol Christ's body and blood, as tor instance : 'Except a nan 
 be born of water, and of the spirit, &c. ' John 8, 5 — 'take, 
 eat ; this is my body — this is my blood of the nev\ testa- 
 ment, &c. ' Matth. 26, 26, 27— they by a ti-ojiical invention 
 cause, that the water, and bread, and wine, are metan i rpho- 
 sed into emblems of the spirit, and of the body and bloofl of 
 Jesus. But to use emblems in divine worship, is not only a 
 superstitious idolatry, but it is also condemned by the scrip- 
 tures, "Thou shall not make unto thieany graveri image, or 
 any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is 
 in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth : 
 thou sha!t not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them, fee.'* 
 Exod. 20, 4, 5. Now to construe any sacred text, v%hich 
 speaks o' baptism and the Lord's Supper, by leaving the ob- 
 vious, grammatical sense ; so as to convert those sacraments 
 into emblems, which contradicts God's command, which pro- 
 hibits all emblems, or images in divine worship, is nothing 
 but corruiiting the holy scriptures. Baptism is administered 
 in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, acconpa- 
 nied by the invocatlai of the divine blessings. The Lord's 
 Supper is also, celebi-ated in the name of Jesus, uith devout 
 [prayers, and reverential postures ; so that it is evident : those 
 lessed sacraments are used in, and incorporated with divine 
 worship. Since they are used in divine worship ; und ytt, 
 viewed as emblems, or representations by those aheady men- 
 tioned, what do they otherwise, than convict themselves as 
 idolaters ? In vain such protestant denominations execrate 
 the Papists, for using imaajes in their worship ; w hen they 
 themselves, by a tropical interpretation convert baptism and 
 the Lor'^l's Supper into emblems, which they a'so use in their 
 worship ! What can be the difference, whether I represent 
 the crucified Jesus by a wooden, or golden emblem, or by the 
 emblems of bread and wine ? 
 
 A.n emblem being an allusive picture ; hence, it must shew 
 «s the foriDj and complexion of whatsoever thing; to which it- 
 
 I 
 
84 
 
 raay allude — Or, in other words, there must be a striking sim^ 
 ilarity becween tlie emblem, and thie substance, wh.cli it is 
 to represenc. For instance : the emblem ot a man, shews us 
 his features, by which we raay easily recognise his person. 
 If water in baptism be an emblem of the spirit, then it must 
 shew us his form and complexion. In like manner, if bread 
 and wme, be emblems of the body and blood of Jesus, they 
 must also represent unto us the form ot his body, and the co- 
 lour, and quantity of his blood. But is it possible, that water 
 can be a representation of the spirit ? The holy spirit is God, 
 and cannot be represented by water, nor any other thing. 
 *' To whom will ye liken God ? or what likeness will ye com- 
 pare unto him ?" Isa. 40, 18. Ati ! says one, water in 
 baptism, is a fit emblem of the Holy Ghost ; it beautifully re- 
 presents his purifying influence I ! Do not reason, and com- 
 mon sense, as well as divine revelation, speak aloud against 
 the abominable practice of representing the infinite holy spirit 
 by an emblem, or similitude of water ? What greater aftront 
 can we offer to God, an I what greater cheat can we put upon 
 ourselves, by such gi'oss absurdities and such pagan imitations. 
 Again, who can possibly believe, that a piece of bread, and 
 wine in the holy Eucharist, can be emblems of the body and 
 blood of Jesus ? Who among us, have ever seen his body 
 and blood ; so as to know what manner of bread and wine to 
 ch)ose, to represent them ? The Lord's Supper is adminis- 
 tered in many places ; hence, all the bread every where, can- 
 not be alike ; some is larger ; some smaller ; and diversified 
 with respect to beauty, and colour ; hence, if bread is to re- 
 present the body of Jesus, there must be as many different bo- 
 dies, as there are different kinds of bread ; and every commu- 
 nicant, must figure tlie body of Christ to his imagination ac- 
 cording to the piece of bread, he may have in his hand ; for 
 he is diligently taught, that this bread is to be view-ed, as a fit 
 representation of the broken body of Jesus The same may 
 be said with respect to the wine, and the blood of Christ. All 
 this would be absurd. If the body and blood of Christ are 
 not more glorious, than the dead and cormptible elements of 
 bread and wine, are calculated to represent them, he indt-ed 
 cannot be a Saviour ; but he must be the most stupid idol. 
 Bread and the Saviour's body, have no resemblance ; for who 
 could recocjnise his body, by seeing this bread ? No man 
 could possibly conjecture, that this bread looks like the glori- 
 ous, and incorruptible bodv of Jesus. This bread has neither 
 ji:he form, nor the complexion of the Snviour's body, even as it 
 yva,^ in his state of humiliation ; much less now, since he lives 
 
85 
 
 in a superlative state of glory. Whosoever views the elements 
 in the Eucharist, as emblems of the Saviour's body and blood, 
 must also, thereby figure to himself the form, and complexion 
 of this body and blood ; for tliis is the design of an emblem : 
 but as it is utterly out of the question, for the true body and 
 blood of Christ, to be represented by any thing ; such an one, 
 must necessarily fancy a body and blood, which are like unto 
 bread and wine ; and such a body and blood, are no where 
 m existence : thus bread and wine, if viewed as emblems, are 
 nothing but teachers of lies ; and are calculated to corrupt our 
 minds ; so as to cause us to view the inmiortal Saviour, like 
 unto cormptib e bread and wine, the same as the images cor- 
 rupted the minds of the heathens. Although, such as are al- 
 ready mentioned, only design with bread and wine, to repre- 
 sent Ciirist's humanity ; yet, not only as is already stated^ 
 they cannot be used as emblems, without representing a false 
 Christ ; but such is also posinvely prohibited by the divine 
 command, "thou shalt not make unto thee any likeness of any 
 thing that is in heaven above " Now Christ, according to 
 the views of nearly all, is in heaven above ; hence to make a 
 representation of his body and blood, is a positive defiance to 
 the divine prohibition. Such as are destitute ot faith, bet their 
 imagination at work ; they fancy to themselves the holy spirit, 
 like unto water ; and the body and blood of Christ, like unto 
 bread and wine ; and all the while, are very sincere, and un- 
 disturbed in this their idolatrous worship. The heathens 
 committed a similar mistake, which proved fatal. The works 
 of creation, were calculated to convince them of the existence 
 of God ; for the heavens declare his glory, and the firma- 
 ment shews forth his handy work j suns, and worlds unnum- 
 bered, like so many letters spell the adorable name jehuvah. 
 In all, they could have discovered his operations ; hence his 
 presence : "because that which may be known of God is man- 
 ifest in them : for God hath shewed it unto them : for the in- 
 visible things of him from the creation ot the world are clearly 
 seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his 
 eternal power and Godh<=ad ;" Rom. 1. 19, 20. But in- 
 stead of viewing him in his works, and giving him glory, ac- 
 cording to his dignity, they prostituted his creatures for the pur- 
 pose of figuring a shape, or similitude of him to themselves. 
 Thus some viewed one, and others another thinp, as an em- 
 blem of God ; or, as the apostle expresses himself: "they 
 changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image 
 made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourf'ooted 
 Ijeasts, and creeping things*'' v, 2S» Under the Christian 
 
8® 
 
 dispensation, God instituted baptism, in which he offers life, 
 and salvation, and in which the ho.y spirit is shed on us abun- 
 dantly ; bat instead of beheving the divine piomises, many set 
 their imagination at work ; they create an emb.eni, and tluis 
 change the incorruptible glory ot the ho y spirit into a corrup- 
 tible image, lik-^ unto water. The blessed Jesus appointed 
 his supper, but instead of viewing his blessed body and blood 
 present ; they consider them far absen , and change their in- 
 corruptible giory, into images of corruptible elements. 
 
 In this small work, the reader cannot expect to find an ela- 
 borate dissertation on the Lord's Supper ; neither is it the point 
 in question, except in so far, as it respects the doctrines ot em- 
 blems and of consubstantiation. But whereas, I consider the 
 doctrines of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and of tm- 
 blems as erroneous ; some of my readers, who perhaps may not 
 be so well acquainted with the doctrine, which Lutherans 
 maintain with respect to this subject, I deem it necessary, to 
 make a few remarks on the words Oi the institution. They 
 are as follows: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, 
 and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and 
 said, Take, eat ; this is ray body. And he took the cup, and 
 gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all o: it : 
 for this is my blood of the new testament, \Nhich is shed for 
 manv for the remission of sins." Matth. 26, 26-28. See Mark 
 14, 22. St. Luke ch. 22, 19. 20, gives the same description, 
 with the addition of describing what body it is: viz. ''which is 
 jiven for you;" and also, ''Do this in remembrance of nie." 
 Some of those, who deny the presence of Christ's body ynd 
 blood, give these wor Is a tropical interpretation. A trope, 
 according to the rules of lihetorick is, when a word loses its 
 natural meaning and another is substituted ; as for instance r 
 "the seven stars are the anoe's of the seven churches ; and the 
 seven candle-sticks vi'hich thou sawest are the seven churches." 
 Rev. 1, 20. In this text, stains and candle-stick}> have lost 
 their natural meaning, and sjgnifj' angels, and churches. This 
 is applied to the vvords, " this is my body " — "• this is my blood: " 
 that is, bread and luine have lost their natural meaning, and 
 are figuratively called body and blood ; hence, the obvious 
 meaning would be, this bread as an emblem, represents my 
 body, and this wine my blood. I have also discovered in the 
 works of a learned commentator, some such idea as this : w hen 
 we seethe picture of a certain man, with whom we are acquain- 
 ted, it is quite natural, when we point at it, to say: this is the 
 roan, by repeating his name : althoogh it is only his Tkeress, 
 This he applies to the words here iu question : thus because the 
 
87 
 
 bread is an emblem of the Saviour's body, it was very naturat 
 for him to say: this is my body, when it only signified it. I 
 admit it to be correct, that when we see the image of a n)an, 
 to say, it is the man ; but this cannot apply to the bread in the 
 Eucharist ; because by the iinage we know a man is represen- 
 ted ; because it resembles him ; bui by a piece of bread, the Sa- 
 viour's body cannot be recognised , foi brt-ad does not resemble it* 
 Again, it is by no means tiue, that C hrist cal!ed the bread his 
 body, the same as the seven stars, are called the angels ot the 
 seven churches, and the candle-sticks the churches. It is ad- 
 mitted, that if the phrase " f/iis is, " referred to bread, that 
 there would be some reason to say, this br^ad signifies my 
 body. But bread in the original is, tov aptov in the accusa- 
 tive case, and mascu'ine gender. "Now it the words *'this is 
 my body" have an allusion to bread, then the pronoun 'Uhis^ 
 ought to asjree in gender with the word bread. Bread in the 
 original, as is already observed, is in the masculine gender; 
 whereas the pronoun Hh s^ is rovto ; hence, in the neuter 
 gender. If the text would read : orroj tyt, then bread, or 
 top a^tof, might be its antecedent : because ovtoi is masculine, 
 ani would thus agree in gender ; but as all three of the Evan- 
 gelists have the neuter tovto, it is evident, that bread, because 
 it is masculine cannot be its antecedent. By what rules of 
 language can it be mad»^ appear, that a neuter relative pro- 
 noun, can have a masculine antecedent ? Since the idiom of 
 the Greek text, does not admit the bread, it being masculine, 
 to be the antecedent of the pronoun ^'this," it being neuter, it 
 is evident, that this tropical, and popular explanation : "this 
 bread signifies my body," is a gross violation of the rules of 
 grammar ; hence vulgar, sophistical, and an imposition upon 
 the understanding of the common English reader. Since it 
 is plain, that the bread cann)t, by all the literary Alchymists 
 be made a signification of Christ's body, unless by forcing, 
 contrary to all sound rules, a masculine and a neuter to agree ; 
 the question wil' arise, what is the antecedent to the relative 
 pronoun "this ?" (tov-eo) Its antecedent must also be a neu- 
 ter. It must be fte;ayua, the thing understood : hence some- 
 thing more, and different from the bread. I shall by no means 
 interpose my private opinion ; but exhibit St. Paul's interpre- 
 tation, which will elucidate the Saviour's words. He says, 
 1 Cor. 10, 16, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not 
 the communion of the blood of Christ ? the bread which we 
 break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" In 
 these words, the cup is called the communion of the blood, 
 •ind the bread the communion of the body of Christ» A com- 
 
S8 
 
 munion requires at least, the connexion of two things ; hence, 
 as the cup is the communion of the blood, it is evident, that 
 the cup and the blood, must in some manner be connected. 
 The same applies to the bread and the body. Now as the 
 bread is the communion ot the body, it proves that Christ gave 
 his disciples more than simple bread ; he indeed gave them 
 bread ; but such a bread, as was the communion of his body : 
 for this reason he could say, "this is" (in the neuter gender) 
 my body. If the doctrine of emblems v\as true, the apostle 
 ought to have said, the cup ot b'essing which we bless, is it 
 not an emb'em of the communion of the blood of Christ ? the 
 bread which we break, is it not an emblem of the communion 
 of the body of Christ ? Thus not only the word emblem, 
 would have to be arbitrarily added to the sacred text, which 
 is corrupting it ; but bread and wine, could not agreeable to 
 the above named tropical explanation, be emblems of the bo- 
 dy and blood of Christ ; but only emblems of their commu- 
 nion, for which there is no foundation in the scriptures. A- 
 greeableto this view, neither tran substantiation, nor emblems 
 can find anv countenance. And as it respects the connexion, 
 between the body and the bread ; and the cup and the blood, 
 it is only temporary, as the apostle says, the cup of blessing 
 which we bless : viz. whilst we are blessing it in the distribu- 
 tion, is it not the communion of the blood ? for he does not 
 say, that it h such, when it is not blessed : — and the bread 
 which we break, viz ; when we break it for distribution, is 
 it not the communion of the body ? for he does not say, that 
 it is such, when we do not break it. Hence no incorporation, 
 or consubstantiation can take place Or, as I have already 
 said, in the second section. See page, 7 & 8. 
 
 What I have here said, on the subject of the Lord's Sup» 
 per is not deemed sufficient, to answer every objection, that 
 may be brought by those, who deny the real presence ; but 
 I considered it necessary to say so much, for the reason al- 
 ready assigned. But if any one shall consider it necessary, to 
 write against me, on this subject, I shall then give a full re-' 
 ply : provided, I get to see the work. 
 
 SECTION XI. 
 
 An examination of my opponent's arguments, with respect to the one true, 
 essential baptism, &.c. 
 
 Ill my treatise I proved, that there is but one baptism, acv 
 
89 
 
 cording io St. Paul: 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism,' 
 Fipli i, 5 ; and tiiin obscrvt'd, that such a^ teach two bap- 
 tisms ui the churcli, round y contiadsct the apostle. On tliis 
 Mr. M. observes p. 42, "Mr. H. has either lorg- tten, or has 
 not attended to that saying of St. Paul, in Heb. 6, 2: 'Tie 
 doctrine of baptisms,' in the plural: whichcertamly proves that 
 there must be more baptisn s than one, or cise now could 1 e 
 have spoken the truth? Thus to the Ephesians, he says, 'One 
 baptism' — to the Hebrew s he says, 'Ihe doctrine oi baptist s.' 
 which means more than one. ^ovv as St Pant did not mean 
 to contradict himself, it will dev(;lve on "SS'iv. H to reconcile 
 Pau! with Paul; to show how Paul to the HcbrevAS, did mt 
 contradi;"t Paul to the Ephesans. When he does this, I think 
 wc shall get clear of the heavy charge he brings against us, viz : 
 *'Hovv roundly such men contradict the apostlt, when they 
 speak of two baptisms" "Were I to unciertake it, 1 would 
 say, 1. There is John's baptism of water unto repentance. 2. 
 Tbere is the Chiistian baptism periorn.ed in tht name of the 
 Father, Son, and Ho'y Ghost. 3 There is thi- baptisn' of the 
 spii-it, admini^teI'ed by Christ h'mself, according to the predic- 
 tion of John. Viewing it in this light, we may say with Piuil 
 to tlie H'brew^'i, 'The doctrine of baptisn^s.' But as the spirit 
 is the thing signified, and is the only one which is essentia! to 
 salvation, w e may, w ith Paul to the Ephesians, say, ' One bap- 
 tism,' i. e. one true essential baptisn , w hich alone is suft cient to 
 save us. & the others are only a ^ign or eniblem of this, Bi t as 
 the sijjn, and the thing signified, both agree in one, both dcMgn- 
 ed to bring us to the same end, viz. the regeneralicn and salva- 
 tion of the soul . they are not considered tico, but one : i. e. one 
 in aureemcnt, design and end; as Si. John says: 'Theie are 
 thee that bear record on earth, th^ spirit, the v^atei and the 
 blood ; and these thrt^e agrt- e in one ' 1 John v. 8 So we n-ay 
 say in this ease — the spirit and the water agree m one. — But as 
 the natural water is not the spirit, nor the spirit the natuial 
 water; and as they are not connected together. but applied srpa- 
 rately, the one externally, the other internally ; and also, as 
 people may be and often are baptised with vAater, who never 
 receive the baptism of the spirit ; they may, in that sense, be 
 considered baptisms. Hence view ing it in thii- light, I think 
 we may, witii propriety, say with the apostle to the Kebiews, 
 'The docfrinc of bapli.sms,'' without contradicting Pau! to the 
 Ephesims. — and with Paul to the Ephesians, 'One baptismf* 
 without eontr.idi«"ting the apo'-tle to the Hebrews " 
 
 Answer. Th<ise Kvo texts may ea^i'y be reconciled, with- 
 out having recourse to a plurality of baptisms, agreeing in one 
 
 M 
 
00 
 
 design. The writer to the Hebrews in this text, does not say 
 one word with respect to baptisms, as being in use inxu r .he 
 g)spel dispensation; but he simply mentions the docirbit o^ 
 ba )tisms. Wliere does he say, ihere are baptisr s, ilie sume 
 as the ai)ost*e to the Eoh'sians declares, there is one baptsm? 
 " P'lere is one body, an 1 one spirit, even as ye are called, in 
 one hope of your calling; one Lord, one iaiih,one baptism, 
 one God and Father ofal!, &c " Eph. 4. 4-6. This text does 
 not say, the doctrine of one body, and one spiiit; one Lord, 
 one faith, one baptism; but posili\ely, there is une body, one 
 spirit, &e. There is a considerable diffeicnce bctw een saying: 
 '•^ there is one baptism," and "the doctrin oi baptisn.s." Ihe 
 sane as th*re is one budy, i. e. the church, and one spiiit; t ne 
 Lord, and one faith ; so there is also one baptism. But the 
 phrase, "the doctrine of baptisms,"' does not necessarily im- 
 ply, that baptisms must also really exist ; ior such although, 
 formerly in vogue, may have been abrogated ; and yet, it may 
 br* expedient to teach the doctriiie relative to su' h, in point- 
 ing out their former uses, the same as u hen St. Paul taught- 
 the Romans and Ga'atians the former use of circuncision ; 
 a'though, it was then ah-eady abolished. Whene\er Mr. M. 
 shall have proved, that the baptisms, of v^ hose doctrine the 
 xvriter to the Hebrews had spt)ken. are all yet in vog-ue in 
 the Christian chui'ch, then only can he argue, a plurality of 
 baptis.ms, agreeing in one design. St. Paul to the Ephesians 
 attributes the same oneness to baptism, as he does to body, 
 sph^it. Lord, faith. Go./, and Father. Hence as it would 
 be ineonsistent, to seek for a p'urality of bodies, spirits, 
 faiths. Lords, Gods, and Fathers, agreeing in one ; evt n so 
 little ought we to contend for a p'urality of baptisms ; and 
 th^-n seek th-nr oneness in agreement. 
 
 Is it pos'^ible, 'hat Mr. ]>L can believe, that John's baptism is 
 yet in vogue aiii )nQ: Christians ? since he so confidently asserts, 
 *'l Thve is John's baptism of water unto repentance — 2d, 
 the Christian baptism, &c. in order to establi-b a p'urality 
 of baptisms He ought to hav** said, there teas, and not 
 there is John's baptism. Surely he cannot be so ignorant 
 as to believe, thot John's baptism, together with the Cliris- 
 tian, p'M'formed in the name of the Holy Trinity, are both 
 to be u^ed in the church ? If J hn's baptism be yet in vogue, 
 then we must be bai^tised tuice \\ ith water. iSly opponent 
 ought certainly to know, that th.ere is but one baptism with 
 water, even i'' he contends for another, wit' out it. I'' so ; 
 why does he introduce John's baptism ? What has that to 
 do with the point in question ? If even he hud proved; that 
 
91 
 
 once there had been many more baptisms, it would be no- 
 thing at al! to this argunient. The quehtiun is, Uuw n.any 
 baotisms are new in tiie church ; — anti n<^t, how n.any NM-bh- 
 ings (calietl baptisms) thi-re were under ilie lau r or^ huvv 
 many there were with John's baptism ? As a rational ex- 
 positor, lie cannot suppose two watei bapti^ms ; hence 1 un- 
 derstand him, that nc contends tor two baptisms, tlic one 
 consisting of water, and the ether ot the spirit, which are 
 one m agreement. Bu how does he piove it r W ha! — ■ 
 By Heb, tJ. 2 ? because it speaks oitlie dr.ctiine of baptisms, 
 which IS in the p'ura! number ? This is not only gn.und- 
 less, for the reas »n aheady assigned ; but also, because this 
 tex.t does not speak of the doeti ine ol baptisms, in the dual 
 number. According to the i(Uom of the Greek language, 
 two, do not amount to a plural number. There arethiee 
 numbers : the singular, the dual, and the p'ural. The sin- 
 gular expresses one ; the dual two ; and the plural, any num- 
 bc'- above two ; so that noihinu- less than three, can be p'ural* 
 Tie text has jlartftd^wv, the genitive case, and p'ural num- 
 b'^r. BaTttiiu.ot.v. is dud' ; h'licc expres^es .wo baptisms. 
 Bit as this text does not express "the doeUine ol baptisms," 
 in the dud, but in the plural number, which necessarily le- 
 quiivs at b'ast three ; hence also, upon this ground it is in vain, 
 to urge this text to prove two baptisms. He must either ad- 
 mit, thvit there are three, or more bajitisnis ; or else the bap- 
 tisms were abrogated. There certainly cannot be three, or 
 more baptisms ; md as th s text, even to force it to n can bj-p- 
 tisais, as existing now, cannot possilily allude to twoba])ti^n;s ; 
 b.^causc it is plural, it is evident, that by all the uncoutli scj h- 
 istry it cannot, without detection be prostituted to prove two 
 baptisms. 
 
 In order to prove that there is a distinct baptism of the 
 spirit, from that of water, Mr M. proceeds page 41, "We 
 will first take a view of the testimony that John the Baptist 
 gives on this subject. ' I indeed baptise you with water : but 
 he sha'l baptise you with the Holy Ghost and fire.' Matth. 8, 
 11. Also Mark 1,8 'I indeed have baptised you v\ith wa- 
 ter ; bat he shall baptise you with the Ho'y Ghost.' Thus 
 you may see that John makfs a clear distinct on betwee n his 
 water baptism, and the baptism of the spirit, with which Christ 
 was ti baptise. In Mark, it is st.«ted, I have baptised you 
 with water, (past tense,) but hr (Chri-it) shall baptise you, (fu- 
 ture tense ; ) which indubitably proves, that the water and 
 spirit w^ere n^t connect'^d toge-ber, but w rre received at difler- 
 ent periods of time. Tiiis testimony of Jolm is confirmed by 
 
92 
 
 Christ, Acts 1, 5. ^John truly did baptise with wafer, but ye 
 s.iail be bj,piiac;d with the Holy Ghost not niuU) days htiice ;' 
 which makes it evident that they wei-e not connected together. 
 See alvj Acts ix, 16. John 1, So. " 
 
 Answer, vV^hat are tliese texts to prove ? 1 hatregenera- 
 ti )n is erfected by the baptism ot the Holy Ghost, and hre ? 
 Tney say not one word ot regenelration. Neiihci,that the 
 bcipiisni otth.' spirit is the internal, anrl the on:y true, essential, 
 baptism. Where in ail the sacred scri]jtuies is it said, Ex- 
 cept a man be born again olthe Holy Ghost and fire, or by 
 the baptis n of the spirit, he cannot enier into the kingdon) of 
 God ? There is nothing of this in the scriptuies. Our bles- 
 sed Saviour said' 'Except a man be born oi water, and of the 
 spiri;, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ' Juhn 3, 5. 
 In this text, as well as in many others, which speak ol the 
 baptism pertormed with water, regtne.ation is iiientioned as 
 th^" re«uk ; whereas, this is no where said ot the spirit ^ fire. 
 Why then is the baptism of the Hi>ly Ghost, and iirc introdu- 
 ced, when it is no where shewn, that it is the means of regt n- 
 eration ? The question in this controversy, is not v\helher 
 there ever was a baptism of the spirit, and tire ? but whcliier 
 regeneration is thereby etfectcd ? Th.- text^ which my op|;0- 
 nent has qtioted, on'y pnwe the inlallibie prcdi- tion oi sucti a 
 baptism ; but say nothing; of regeneration. It seems, that be- 
 cause such an extraordinary baptism was predicted. IN'ir. M. 
 immediately concludes that therefore, it must be the on'} bap- 
 tism by which souls are I'egenerated, \yhcn there is i:t thing 
 said of regene;-ation ; as if this ba})tisn) of the sjiirit could not 
 have been administered for any otlier purpose. Such reason- 
 ing is fallacious. 
 
 The text in St. Matth o, 11, positively connects fire with 
 th»- Ho'.y Ghijst. See also {,uke 3, 16. Whether this fire 
 allnd:"s to the fire, which is mentioned as a threatening in 
 v»*rse 12, which is to burn up the chafl" ; or, to the coven 
 tongues as of fire, which appeared on the day of Pentecost, 
 Acts 2, §, is not material to the question deb;' ted. In either 
 case it was a baptism, which consisted not ot the spirit alone, 
 but also of fire ; and in either case it could not be a means of 
 regeneration. A baptism of fire would equail}' be externa], 
 as w'ell as a baptism of water, for it is one of the 'our ele- 
 rncnts ; but where is the person in our time, who has ever 
 seen fire descending on him, for the purpose of effecting re - 
 g'Mieration ? Nevertheless some say, the fire in this text, does 
 ijot me in fire, but the fiie of divine Love, v ith \^h'ch we aie 
 to be baptised, Bui how do they prove it ? By nothing- ; 
 
9S 
 
 unless an arbitrary assertion he considered a proof. If the 
 word tire in tins text, is to signity divine Lo\e, 1 woultl then 
 ask, is not the Holy (ihost himself divine Love r He is God; 
 and God is Love. I John 4, 8. Aeeording to this, ciivine 
 Love would be mentioned twice in this phrase. Hence the 
 text would have to read, 'Hi shall baptise you with tlu Htly 
 G lost, and divine Love. ' Wiiat ! — iie sh.dl baptise you v\ ith 
 tne Holy Ghust. who him eif is divine Love, and with in e, 
 which is flivine Lisve 1 VVh t a ridiculoiis tautology this 
 would be ! Yet, it seems the inspired writers n'U^t havi this 
 n »nsensc attributed to their language ; so that those fanaticks 
 may explain away the meaning of the word fire, because oth- 
 erwise, it would prove hostile to their S( heme. 
 
 The text Acis 1. 5. parallel wi h Mark 1, 8, is a part of 
 our Saviour's address to his apostles, when he was about to 
 ascend to heav n. See v. 2, ^, 4. That they should be bap- 
 tised with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence, alluded to 
 t ie period often days, the day of Pentecost, or til'ty days alter 
 Christ's resurrection. He tod them, v. 8, 'but ye shall re- 
 ceive power, after th.vt the Ho'y Ghost is come uponvou: 
 and ye shaU be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in 
 all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part ot the 
 earth. ' Tiie text does not say, ye >! all be ngenerated, after 
 that the Holy Ghost is come upon you ; but ye shall be wit- 
 n 'sses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, &c This 
 indicates the supernatural qualification, w hirh they should re- 
 ceive from the miracu.ous descent of ih( Holj Ghost, to ena- 
 ble them to bear the gospel niinisiry. Hence they were com- 
 manded not to depart from Jerusalem, but to v^ait for the 
 promise of the father, v. 4 In the 21 chapt/r the fulfilment 
 oi" this promise is described : "And sndden'y there came a 
 sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty v ind, ard it filh d 
 the house where they were sittins-. And 'here appeared unto 
 them cloven tongu-'s like as of fire, and it s it upon each of 
 them. And they were a'l fil'ed with the Holy Ghost, and 
 bi«gan to speak with other tongues, as the spirit jjave tben> ut- 
 terance."' V. 2, S, 4. And v. 6-11, we ae informed that 
 of the different nations, such as Partians, Med' s, Elamit< s,&c 
 who were assembled in Jerusalem, heard them speak ev( ry 
 man in his own tongue. Thus it is evident, the bapt'sm of 
 th'^ Holy Ghost is nothing else, than the miraculous eftusion 
 of the spirit. If Mr M's doctrine be true, that the baptism 
 ot the spirit was the only one essential, and necessary to effect 
 regMieration. it would follow, that the apostles had rot been 
 regenerated 'til after Christ's ascension to heaven; as this bap- 
 
91 
 
 ^sm was only then p''omised them, and hence, that their faith 
 previo isly, had Jcan a vain imaguiation. Bat this is not true, 
 for taey be-'oie followed Christ in the regeneration. "Then 
 ansA^erei Peter and sad unto him, behold, we have forsaken 
 all, and folio, ved thee ; what shall we have thereioie ? And 
 Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you, thatyewhuh 
 hive followed me m the reg "nerati .'n, when the Son of man 
 shad sit in the throne of his g!>)ry, ye al-o shad sit upon tv\ elve 
 thrones, jn Iging the tw dve tribes of Israel " Matth. 19, 
 27, iS T lis cjnvei'sation between Christ and his disciples, 
 a-i the order of the history shews, took p'ace befure his death 
 an 1 resdrrecUin. They who had followed him in regenera- 
 tion were the a oost'es ; hence, th.w must have been previous- 
 ly ;'egen:^rated. Waereas this text beyond all dispute proves, 
 that the ap )stles were already reg?;nerated, how inconsistent 
 it mast be, to applv th • test Acts I, 5, 'ye shall be baptised 
 with the [1 >!y Gi>st, not many days hence,' to the doctrine 
 of regeneration ! 
 
 M •. M -^ays, " We will secondly view the testimony and 
 conduct of !hi apostles aft r Chrisr's resurrection, under the 
 p/esent dispensation Peter said, ' R'^pent and be baptised, 
 in the name of the L>rd Jenis, for the remi-^sion ot sin, and 
 y-" shall receive the gift of ihe Holy GUiSt.' Acts ii, h8. 
 H-^'c the receiving of the Holy Ghost was distinct from their 
 b*ng bapt'sed with water in the name of Jesus Christ. 
 W II *h evidcndy proves that the Holy Ghost was not connec- 
 tel with, nor conta nel in, nor conveyed by it, but was recei- 
 ved imnj liately from G) 1 himseU', unconnected with the wa- 
 ter. The case of the people of Samaria wdl fully establish 
 this point. See Acts viii, I'i. It is said, 'They were baj.ti- 
 sc 1 both mni and vvomen ' But they did not receive the Ho- 
 Iv Gh)st iintil some time afterwards ; not until Peter and 
 John went down from Jerusalem, prayed with, and laid their 
 hands anon thvn. Sjc verses 15, 16, 17. Also, the case of 
 the twelve disciples whom Paul found at Ephesus, clear- 
 ly proves this p dnt ; for they were baptised twice with water, 
 1. with John's, th mi with the Christian baptism, before they 
 received the Ho'y Ghost. S^'C Ads xix, 1, 7. From the 
 above qioti^d scriptures, it is manifest and clear, that there is 
 a scriptural baptism spoken of in the word of God, entirely 
 separate and distin-^t from the water. This is the one true 
 es-;ential baptism, which alone is able to regenerate the soul, 
 cleanse it from sin. and prepare it for heaven ; and water bap- 
 tism is a visibli" sign or e nblem of th-s internal grace. " 
 
 Answer* There are the ordinary gifts of the spirit, which 
 
95 
 
 arc necessary to effect repentance, and also, the extraordinary, 
 whk'h uianiiested thcmfecives in nlilacu!(U^ tperiii.c<i s. In 
 the api'Stolic age, niii'uculous gitis were (On nu,n. ]V,y c ppo- 
 nent has not proved, thai the gilt ol the Htl} Ghosi, v\liich 
 the Jews wen; to receive alter being ba}.tisid was an ordiiia- 
 ry gift to clTect regeneration, V\ hen the questicn is pot, 
 whereby should they receive the icmission tor sins ? the an- 
 swer is, they should repent, and be baptised in the name of 
 Jesus ; as the text says "repent and be baptised tor the re- 
 mission of sins. " Thus the pardon lor sins, \\ as the resilt of 
 repeutance, and baptism. It docs not sa\ , and }e sliah re- 
 ceive die gift of the Holy Ghost lor the remission ol sins-, be- 
 cause this was an extraordinaiy giit, v^hich they weie to re- 
 ceive after they had pardon for sins, through repentance and 
 baptism. • 
 
 As it respects the people of Samaria, it is to be observed, 
 that they were not only baptised, but they also ''bclitvcd Phil- 
 ip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom o! God. and 
 tho name of Jesus Christ,'' Acts viii, 12 ; before they recei- 
 ved the Holy Ghost, by the hands oi Peter and J(din. If 
 they were believers before, they nuist have been regenerated 
 before P.!ter and John came to them. For "he thatbelievtth, 
 and is bapt'sed shall be saved : '' — ''v hosoever believeth that 
 Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. " 1 John 5, 1. But h< w 
 did they receive the H >ly Ghost? By the laying on of the 
 apostles' h'lnds. "Then laid they their hands en them, and 
 they received the Holy Ghost. " v 17. The Hcly Ghost 
 came upon the people by the laying of the apostles' hands, in 
 a V isible, external manner. In verse 16, it is said the Ho'y 
 Ghost as yet was fallen upon none of them ; which indicates 
 a visible descent. Hence it is said, v. 18. that "when Simon 
 saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy 
 Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, give me al- 
 so th s power, that on w homsoever I lay hands, he mav re- 
 ceive the Holy Ghost." v. 19 Had this gift ol the Holy 
 Ghost, been an invisible operation in the heai t, to effect regen- 
 eration, how could Simon have seen it, and thus be induced 
 to offer money, to obtain the power to convey this pift by (he 
 laying on of his hands ? Blind n ust be the eye. that cannot 
 discover, that the gifts, w hi' h 'he apostlf s conveyed by the 
 laying of th-'ir hands, were visibh- and m.iraculous. Hence 
 how erroneous is therefore, Mr. M's assertion, that this bap- 
 tism is an internal baptism to regenerate the sou', when the 
 very texts, he has produced to prove it stare him in his face, 
 and loudly proclaim, that it was an external, visible, miracuv 
 
loas descent of the spirit, which was even conveyed by the ex- 
 ternal act of t!ie laying on ot the aposiles' hands ! Is it possi- 
 ble, that any person could be blinded with such barefaced so- 
 phistry ? 
 
 Neither does the case of the twelve disclp'es. Acts 19, 17; 
 wiiorn Sr, Paul found a Ephesus prove, that the baptism of 
 the spirit th^y received, effected their regenei a ;On. For we 
 ai"e infoi-med, that -'when Paul laid his hands upon them, the 
 Holy Gi >st came on th m ; and they spake with tongue?, and 
 p )|)hesied. " v. 6 Thus v\e see. they received the Hv ly 
 G I'Jst by the impasltion of St. Paul's hands in a miraculous 
 m.inner ; for they spake with tongues, and pnphesied Now 
 if my opponent will apn'y this to his argument, he must also 
 prove, that Christians at this tin)e receive the Holy Ghost, by 
 the laying on oi hands in such a manner, as to enable them to 
 speak with tongues, and prophesy. But as this is out ol the 
 qj 'Stion, his argmient is without a foundation. 
 
 x\s it respects C>rneUu-;, and the n.cn who were with him, 
 A "ts X, 44, 48 ; \\ hich case my opponent has also introdu- 
 ced, I simply answer, they were the miraculous gifts ot the 
 spirit, they received, beiore they were baptised withvater. 
 For they were heard ' to spe:;k with tonguf s and magnify 
 G 'd. " V. 46. But suppose, the baptisn) with water is not 
 essential, an! this baptisn) of th • spirit, they received separate- 
 ly, supplied every thing that was necessary, was it not astcn- 
 ishing, that they should have received the non essential btp- 
 tism with water ? It would be abominable to think, that they 
 should have been baptised merely for the sake of a useless cus- 
 tom. It is evident, that the gilts of the spirit, which they had 
 received were miraeu'ous, and that other gifts were given by 
 the b '.ptism with water. To work miracles is one thing, and 
 to receive the spirit, so as to be regenerated, is an other. 
 
 Ml-. M. proceeds, p. 43, '*I will ju'-t (observe in the last 
 place, that some aie of opinion, that the baptism of the spirit 
 ineludes on'y th > miracu'ous gifts, and not the common and 
 ordinary operations of the sp'rit in the woik of regeneration. 
 Therefore, wlien the miraculous sifts ceased, the baptism of 
 the spirit was likewise done away. To which I \'\ ould observe, 
 that the seriptu-es. in several places, clearly refute this idea. 
 Bit I think St. ParTs words to the Corinthians, wi'l be suf- 
 fr.'.ient. See 1 Cor. xii. 18 'For by one spirit are we a1! bap- 
 tised into one bodv, whether we be -Jews or Gentiles, bond or 
 free; and have been all made to drink of one spirit ' Hence 
 St. Pa'd evid-^ntlv proves that the baptism o' the spirit, in- 
 cludes the common gifts in the work of regeneration, as well 
 
97 
 
 as miraculous gifts. For we know that the whole body of 
 Cliiistiaiis ilid not receive the niiiacuious gifts ; but Puuib.MS, 
 *By one spirit, we are all baptised into one bod\ ,' &c. This 
 agrees with what our Lord said to his diseiples Mat xxviii, 
 20 'And lo, I will be with you always, cvt n unto the end of 
 the world;' which was not in his bodily presence, but in his 
 spiritual presence This then, is the one true essential baptisn), 
 which alone is sufficient to regenerate the sou!, cleanse it from 
 sin, and p'-epare it for those pui-e and spiritual de'ights at God's 
 right hand ah we. Without v\ hich, a'l our water baptism | wM 
 avail notliing, as to the salvation o! the soul ; we shall still >on- 
 tinue servants of sin, and will at last eternally perish, just as 
 though we had never been baptised with water." 
 
 :f. I'he folJowing fragments are selected from seme mann.icripts, written 
 by the rev. Philip Heukel, residing in Tennessee, and loho is the Au- 
 thor's brother. 
 
 Upon reading a pamphlet, called strictures on a piece, written bv Mr, 
 Da\id Menkel, entitled Heavenly flood of regeneration, or a tiealise on ho- 
 ly baptism : by Mr Josejh Moore, I deem it my duty to make some ob- 
 servations on this subject. If only, it concerned David Henkel, ! should 
 have paid no attention to it. But since the woro of God, and the sacred 
 institution of bapli-^m, ha- e been attacked by misconstruction, it seems (oo 
 important to pass over it in silence. Whereas 1 iinderstand, that Mr. Mcore 
 is a minister of the Methodist connexion, and as the Methodists in sun- 
 dry places hold out the idea, thai their doctrines do not essentially differ 
 from tho-e of the Lutheraas by which means they succeed in proselyting 
 some Lutherans, I deem it my duty to unaiask this imposition, by shewing 
 how Mr. M has condemnetl the doctiine of Doct. Luthei . 
 
 1. Mr. M pagi" 5, denies tha; we are regenerated by the baptism, per- 
 formed with water. ]n order to prove, that baptism is not the means of re- 
 generation, he quotes Eph 4", 22, 24 ; and Col 1, 13, 14 This indeed, 
 is a strange method of proving. I mi'j.ht with equal piopiiety say, that a 
 child is not a child, ani! that it must seek to be born such . because hi> fa- 
 ther said, you must walk sir cumspecilv. Although, the apostle admonish- 
 ed the Ephesians. 'To put off concerning the former conversation, the old 
 man, &c.' but he does not say, lor the puipose of being regenerated. He 
 did not direct this admonition to umegenerated persons, which is evident 
 from ch 2, 1 13 
 
 The text in Col. 1, 13. 14, reads thus : "Who hath delivered us from 
 the power of darknesa, anc; hath transla'ed us into the kin?/:om*)f his clear 
 Son . in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the lorgive* 
 ness o^' sins " This text proves, that the Colossians ha<i already been i egen- 
 erated ; and says not one word for, nor against baptism. 
 
 Neither does the text, Rom. 12, 2, prove that regeneration is not effec- 
 ted by baptism. It leads thus : ' .\nd be not conforme(i to this world . but 
 be yc traiisformed by the renewing of your minvl, that ye may prove what 
 is that j;ood, and aicepiable, and perfect will of God ' It is to be remember- 
 ed, that the apostle addressed Christians, as the 1st verse plainly shews, 'I 
 be'.eeih you therefore brethren, by the meicies of God, that ye present 
 voiir bodies a livin- sacritice, holv, ac eptable unto God, ivhich is your lep 
 
 N ^ 
 
93 
 
 Answer. It is evident, that the baptism of the spirit con- 
 sisic lin miraculous eft'usions ; hence, as miiacles have ceased, 
 this baptism does no more exist. That the scriptures in se- 
 veral places, c'eai'iy relate this idea, is an arbitrary, incorrect 
 assertion. Why did my opponent, not point out those several 
 
 sonable service.' Astonishing, that the apostle shoiili^ have railed a body 
 ofunvegenerated heathens, or infidel Jews his brethren ! This text con- 
 firnis the following words of Doct Luthei : -A child must not act that he 
 may he boin, but because he is boi n." So the Romans were to act, not to 
 be born ; but because they were already born anew. 
 
 2. Mr. M. proceeds, "Now i' it not evident, that if regeneiaticn implies 
 such a deep and ladical change of heart, that water bapii-m, nor any thing 
 external can effect :f Can any thing short of the mighty powei of God, or 
 operative ene gies'of that, almighty spirit, which raised the lo;iy of Christ 
 from the dead- and bicatheJ into the nostrils of the first man, and he became 
 a li\ in^ soul, effect such a change? such a death to sin and new birth uuto 
 righteousness .■■ 1 think it is eviaenl that it cannot " But 1 wish to know 
 who denies, that it req lires tiie povvei of God to effect regeneration? Or 
 who says, that a mere eKiernal thing can effect it ? i do not see. that ei- 
 ther Luther, or David Henkel, denies the first, nor affirms the latter. 
 
 3 He says, p. 6, "Water is a natural thing, therefore cannot produce a 
 spiritual birth " This every person knows But is baptism simple water 
 only ^ Or, tloes it consist of something mo' e important .- Mr. M. it seems, 
 calls the institution of Christ a nat'iral thing, and speaks as if D. Henkel 
 had institute.! water baptism. See p 9. ."36. But lie ought to consider, 
 that he is here treating God's own institution with the utmost contempt. 
 Remember Vjr. M. you do not viiify D, H. but almighty God ! How 
 da!e a sinful mortal say, that ho!v baptism, the positive institution of Jesus 
 Christ, is a natural thing ! We know that water is a natural thmg. But 
 baptism as Luther says, is not simple water <mly, but with the word of God 
 it constitutes a Chiistian baptism, and gracious water of life, &c. It is per- 
 formed in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; never- 
 theless iVlr. M. calls baptism a natural thing. He also considers baptism a 
 corruptible thing when he says "Thus we are born again fiom above, by a 
 spi'itualbirth ; not of corruptible things, such as silver anri gold, [nor by 
 the natuial water in baptism) but bv the preciou.5 blood of Christ, &c." 
 What a burlesque this is upon Ch; ist's own institution 1 lo compare it with 
 corruptible thiu^^s, such as gold, and silve? I Neither Luther, nor D. H. 
 say, that we are re^^enerated by natural water Mr. M. knows to the con- 
 trary, for they tell him again, and again, that baptism is not simple water 
 only, but the word of God and his name connected with it. Surely Mr. .M . 
 argues, as if D H. wis the author of baptism ; if so, I would agree with 
 him, thattit would be a cor -uptible thing. But he is not the author ; but 
 Jesus Ch'ist, who in-tituted no corruptible sacraments. Now Mr. M. it 
 devolves on vou to prove, that the word of God, which is the essence in 
 baptism is conuptib'e; and luilil you do it, we shall consider you a scoffer 
 of holy thiiii^s, and an enemy to our blessed Saviour. 
 
 4. Mr. iVl. p. 6, compaies the spiritual with the natural birth And p. 
 7, he says xvf haA'e to go thiougb the painful travail of repentance, before 
 we obtain deliverance. Most sublime logick ! I never knew, that the 
 child, that is bo«nhas to uudei go the travail of the [nother Neither has 
 he proved, that repentance is a travail. Kvcry naan of common scn.5ej ea- 
 sily perceives the absurdity of this assertion. 
 
9^ 
 
 places ? The text, 1 Cor. xii, 13 ; <^-Tor bv one spirit are we 
 ;i!: hiptise.l into one bofly," &:c. does not prove, that they 
 \vere legenerated by this baptism. There is nothing said in 
 
 5. He attempts to prove, that baptism cannot effect reoene'ation ; be- 
 cause Paul thanked God, thai he baptised m-ne ol the Corialhians, but 
 Crispus and Gaius. and the hoti.-ehold of Stephanus ; and because he was 
 not sent to baptise, but to p eacb i^e iTos;jel, See p. 8. Why does not 
 Ml' M. tell Us the reason why 8t Paul thanked God. tliat he baplibCd so 
 few a; Corinth ? In v. 15 (1 Co\ . 1. 15) the reason is as^iuneu . viz. 
 •'l.est any should say, that I had baptised in mine own name " Thu-> it 
 appears, that some of" the Corinthians miuht have prostituted baptism to 
 Support a party ; provided, the apostle had baptised a goodly numher, which 
 is the reason he thanked God, that he baptised but .so tew. Who could 
 pos ihlv inier from this, that the apostle ci.n-ideref; baptism as an unimpor- 
 tant institution, when he so hi'>h!y exiolsit in hi- epistles to the Romans, 
 Galatians, anil Ephe-ians : See Rom. 6 — Gal 3 — Kph. 5 AUliough St. 
 f* aul himselt'. di.i not bap'.ise all the Corinthians ; yet, what reason have ue 
 to believe tlial thev were not baj.tised ? And though he was sent to preach 
 the gospel ; yet he no wheie -p'Mks tonlemjjtiblv ot baptism ; oi' like Air, 
 IM compares it with corrupiiLle things. A^ain, we Hnd in sundry texts, 
 that Paul himselt baptised people, in other places : tbi insUnce see Acts c. 
 16, ch. 19 
 
 Mr. ,M. argues very incorrectly, when he concludes, that if Paul had 
 baptised them with water, it might have led ihem to .have depended upon 
 what he had done for -alvation. St Paul con esses, that he had baptised 
 Crispus and Ga'us ; and also the household of Stephanus. Now if Mr. Ms 
 conclusion be correct, then St Paul acted like a deceiver, anJ a villain 
 for 'lapiizin;^ Crispus, and Gaius, and the housetiold of Stejihanus ; thus 
 lea in^ thrm to depend upon, what he had dtn^ for salvation ! Why did 
 Paul not lead those poor people out of this dan ;j,erous situation ' vVhy 
 leave them tiius delu'led i But who, except he be a deist, can possihlv be- 
 lieve this to be St. Paul's cha'acter ? As St. Paul was a faithful apostle of 
 Christ, the reason as.signeii by Mr. .M. musi be 'idiculous. 
 
 6. Mr .M fal^elv accuses D. Henkel, with having w itten, that baptism 
 is regeneration itself. D. H. sai<i no such thing, but he indeed, has proven, 
 that baptism is the ordinary means ot re;^ene»aiion. 
 
 7 .Mr. .VI has spoken most shamefully of baptism, when p. 32, he com- 
 pares it to a broken scatf He savs, "And I could ventuie to say, that if 
 JNlr, i4. and his people depend on it (baptism) or salva ion, they will de- 
 pend on a broken staff." Wl.at I is the holy institu'ion of Jesus Christ 
 like a broken staff' We wi-h .Mr M. thai you would pro\ e this by the 
 scriptures. O 1 horiid beyond degree, to co npare God's own institution, 
 to a broken staff ! Poor ! pvouJ ! sell-impo tant, sinful dust, repent of 
 your vile, abominable wo-k ; flee to the Saviour of the woild, lest ete.nal 
 damnation be vonr portion ; fo you have not simply spoken against D. H. 
 but you have spoken igainst Jehovah himself, by comparing hi* own insti- 
 tution to a broken -taff ! 
 
 8. VVhilst the M 'hodist connexion do not bring Mr. Moore to an ac- 
 count, *brhis misrep e-entations, anu the disrespectful l-ingnage, he has em- 
 ployed to degiade the institution of holy baptism, we shall consider them aa 
 «onniving at his conduct, and foes to this blessed institution 
 
 Th£ reader's /tumble servant 
 
 PHILIP HENKEX 
 
100 
 
 it, nor its context, with respect to regeneration. Why intro- 
 duce a text, which says nothing ol" regeneration ? Tins is an- 
 other erroneous assertion : "we know that the whole body of 
 Ch istians did noi receive miraculous gifts. " The contrary is 
 not only evident, from the general practice in the apostle's 
 days in conveying miraculous gifts by the laying on ot their 
 hands ; but also, the context of this pa8>age shews, that the 
 Corinthian church generally had such gifts, ''^ow there are 
 diversities of gilts, but the same spirit. And there are difier- 
 ences of administrations, but ihe same Lord. And there aie 
 diversities of operations, but it is ihe same God which work- 
 eth all in all. But the manifestation of the spirit is given to 
 every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the spirit 
 the word oi' wisdom ; to an ither the word of know ledge by 
 the same spirit ; to another faith by the same spii it ; to an- 
 other the iiifts of healing by the same spirit ; to another the 
 working of miracles ; to another prophecy ; to another dis- 
 cerning of spii-its ; to another divers kinds of tongues ; to an- 
 other the interpretation of tongues : but all these worketh 
 that one and the selt same spirit, diviriing to every n^an sev- 
 erally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath n.'any 
 miMubers, and all the members of that one boi'y, being many, 
 are one body: so also is Christ. For by one spirit are v. e 
 all baptised into one body, whether we be the Jev^s or Gen- 
 ii es, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all made 
 to drink into one spirit. For the body is not one member, 
 but many. If the foot shall say, Becau- e I am not the hand, 
 I am not of th-' body ; is it thereiore not of ihe body > &c. '' 
 verse 6 - 15. Without any comment, this context shi ws to e- 
 very intelligent reader, that the Corinthians as a Christian 
 church, had those extraordinary gifts of the spint in com- 
 mon. See also eh. 14. The text Matth. 28, 20, does not 
 say any thing with respect to the baptism of the spirit ; but 
 it simply contains a gracious promise, of Christ's perpetual 
 presence. We do not believe, that Christ is visibly present 
 with us, and are therefore, not of the opinion, that vac can see 
 him, as some pretend at the eamp-mcetings. Nevertheless, 
 we believe him really, invisibly present. As Mr. M. has 
 not produced any ai-guments relative to our Savioui'.^ pres- 
 ence, and as it is not the subject in question ; I therefore do 
 not de'm it expedient, to say more upon it in this little work. 
 It is a subject of vast importance, and cannot be handled very 
 |?riefly ; hence it would require a separate volume. 
 
101 
 
 Supplement to section XL 
 
 AHhou gh my opponent has quoted sundry texts to prove, 
 that tliere was a bapt sm uf the spirit separate ironi that vviiieh 
 is performed witli water ; (this is not denied ;) niveitiieless it 
 is by no means pertinent to the subject in que>tiun, because he 
 has no where proved, that this baptism has ever eflected le- 
 generation. It has been sufficiently proved, that the aposties 
 received this promised baptism oi the spirit on the day ol Pen- 
 tecost, whose descent was signidized by a sound from heaven 
 as of a mighty rushing wind, anci accompanied by the phe- 
 nomenon of cloven tongues as ot fire. Immediate!} witiu ut 
 any previous ?tudy, they were gifted to speak the difterent lan- 
 guages, which then were prevalent ; and thus the gospel could 
 easily, in a short time be promulgated amoiig all nations. 
 Oa;- bbssed Saviour's prediction, John 7, §8, 39, was aihO 
 fulfilled. "Ht that believeth on me, as the scripture hath 
 said, out of his beliy shall flow rivers of living water. (But 
 this he spake of the spirit, which they that believe on liim 
 should receive : for the Holy Ghost was not yet given ; be- 
 cause that Jesus was not yet glorified. " For they by the lay- 
 ing on of their hands healed the sick ; they cast out devils, and 
 raised up the dead. It has also been shewn, that Christians 
 in common, during the primitive age, received miracuicus 
 gifts of the spirit by the imposiiion of the apostles' hands ; for 
 they could speak with tongues, and prophesy. In this nsan- 
 nsr the divine authenticity of the religion of Jesus was estab* 
 lished, and confirmed. What would it have availed, if the 
 apostles had preached the crucifierl Jesus, to the world, which 
 was a new doctrine, if they could not have proved it by a tes. 
 timony greater than their own ? Who would have believed 
 thern ? H'-nce ''God a' so bore them witness, both with 
 signs, and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts ofthe 
 Holy Hhost, according to his own will " Heb. 2, 4, From 
 al! this we learn, that such a miraculou'^ efl^usioti ^^as called 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost. But this baptism cciised. 
 ^Charity never faileth : but whether therebc prophecies, they 
 shal' fail ; whether there be tonfyues ; they shall cea?e ; 
 whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.' 1 Cor» 
 13. 8. In the prcceedingj chapter, the apostle had discoursed 
 upon the divers, miraculous gifts of the Corinthian (thurch, 
 ani then concludes, by shewing them a more excellent way ; 
 and in this he extols charity above a'l ; because tongues, and 
 prophr'cies shall fail, whilst she 'ike the green of heaven, shall 
 live and reign for ever* For after the Christian Religion was 
 
102 
 
 sul&ciently attested by signs, and wonders, their continuation 
 be\;im ' nnne._-essaiy» Wiat need is there, to continue prov- 
 ing by signs, and wonders, a religion which ah-eady has been 
 in.alUbly established ? It is sufficient, to convince any per- 
 son >f its truth, by exhibiting the original testimonies. 
 
 Such as pretend to have received this baptism of the spirit, 
 the same as the apostles, and primitive Christians, let them 
 maiiirest th'Jse mii-aculous operitions. Let them speak the 
 langiages of the 1 tie "en t nations ; predict futute events ; heal 
 the sick, by the imp:>sition of hands, and raise the dead. But 
 whilst we see no su -h works, all the pretensions ol having re- 
 ©eived this baptism, are nothing but idle dreams. 
 
 SECTION XTI. 
 
 •This section contains a reply to snnrlry objections, which are alleged a- 
 gainst the doctrine : that baptism is the ordinary means of regeneration. 
 
 Whereas there are sundry objections alleged against this doc- 
 irine, not only by my opponent but also by others, which are 
 ca culated to perplex the minds of many, 1 consider it neces- 
 sary to make the following statement of the same, with my 
 answers : 
 
 Ohje ;tion I. Jesus Christ is our only Saviour. Hence if 
 we believe, that we are saved by baptism, we make that a 
 Saviour, wh ch is absurd. 
 
 Answer. When we teach that we are saved by baptism, 
 we understand nothing else, than that Christ saves us ; for he 
 has instituted it, and it is the means in his own hands, to ef- 
 fect our regeneration. According to this objection, it would 
 be impossible, for God to employ any means in the salvation 
 0''a sinner ; lest the means be made a God, and a Saviour. 
 H'Mice we must dt^ny, that preaching the gospel is a means, 
 lest the samt^ may be made a God. This must be a wonder- 
 ful phi'oso;)hy, that God cannot save, or effect any thing by 
 means ; unless we believe, that thereby they become a Sa- 
 viour, and a Gjd ! This objection is every whit as absurd, as 
 if I would say : because an author employs his pen, in wri- 
 ting i book ; therefore the pen is the author ! 
 
 OSje'tion II The seriptures der;la»*e, that we are regene- 
 rated by the word of God, as St, Peter says, 1 Epist. 1, 28 ; 
 
103 
 
 •Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorrupti- 
 ble. L)> the vvoi-d o! God, whieh live h luid abideth lor ever.' 
 If the word of God, as this text si:tlicieiitl} Uidicatet, be the 
 means, how then ean baptisni be ihe ordinary n cans > Hence 
 one may be regenerated by the \\ord, withoi.t bi-ptitni. 
 
 Answer It is reatlily a( milted, that the \\oit. o; God is 
 an auxiliary means. But this does not piove, that LaptiMn 
 is not the ordinary means ; nor that v^e n ay be regenerated 
 as well without, as with it : un'ess it cculti be evincer, tlyt it 
 was impossible for an ordinary means to have its auxiliaiy* 
 Without the word of God, we v\ould knov% nothing ol bap- 
 tism, nor of its desif»n, and value. By the word we are it d 
 to baptism, and by it we discover the div ne promises, which 
 are therein sealed ; so that it may not appear to us an unn ea- 
 ning ceremony. Had it not been lor the v^ord, v\e sheuld 
 never have been baptised ourselves, nor would we have our 
 offsprings dedicated to God by this sacran ent. ^c w a.^ the 
 word leads us to baptism, and teaches us how to use it ; hence 
 it is therefore, also necessarily a meiius of regeneration. For 
 that which leads me to the washing of ri generation, must be 
 an auxiliary means of regeneration. Since the word shews 
 me the divine promises in baptism ; so that I learn to believe 
 them, and be saved ; lience in this respect the word is the 
 means ; but this does not exclude, but rather includes baptism. 
 
 Obj III. If baptism was the ordinary means of grace, 
 we should see more good fruits in those, v\ ho are baptised than 
 what we do. Many of them live as wickedly as those, who 
 are not baptised. If baptism be the washing of regeneiation, 
 why then are not all the baptised regenerated ? This indi- 
 cates, that baptism is not connected with any divine virtue. 
 
 Answer. This objection is popular, and with many it pas- 
 ses for an unanswerable argument. In one of the preceeding 
 sections, it has b^^en answered ; yet, I shall add the following : 
 
 1. Many whose children have been baptised, bestow no la- 
 bour upon them, when they arrive at the ;ige of maturity, to 
 instruct them with respect to the use, and design ol baptism ; 
 hence, as the good seed receives no nurishment, how can it 
 be expected to prosper ? Suppose an husbandman had plant- 
 ed a good seed, but neglected its cultivation ; noxious weeds 
 overrun it, and prevent its fertility, could we conclude, that he 
 spake the language of reason, if he vilified the seed, or denied 
 its principle of procreation ? We would say, he is beside 
 himself. Althousih we do not hear sober men vilify the seed, 
 they neglected to cuUivate ; but many after neglecting the reli- 
 gious education of their children^ and finding them graceless-; 
 
104 
 
 they like men bereft of the use of their reason, deny the divine 
 virtue of baptism. 
 
 2. Theie are bat Tew who believe, that baptsm is the w ash- 
 ing of regeneration. The clergy of the must oi thr Protestant 
 denjmmations, are agreed in calling ii an emblem, and repre- 
 senting it as not essential to salvation ; and hus siik it as low 
 as possible, in the estimation ol their hearers. Although, the 
 Papists admit it to be a washing of regcnci ation ; but as they 
 ais) maintain, that go id works arr nt:cessary, tnjustily us be- 
 fore G>d it IS evidtni, thar they notw ith^iandin^, doubt bap- 
 tism to be a p.M'fect (aver of regene; ati n. For if baptism be 
 a perfect washing of regeneration, why may 1 nut always 
 have access to it, when 1 have fallen ? what need have I to 
 be saved by legal works ? 
 
 Now let us suppose, the great majority of ministers, of all 
 denominati 'ns were agreed, to delame ihe divine authenticity 
 of the sacred scriptures, by representing them to their heareis 
 as not essentially necessary to be read ; and that it would be 
 even dangerous to depend on them, as a rule of taith, and con- 
 duet : would it be rational to conclude, that the scriptures 
 were no more than a shadow, because many people have them 
 in their possessions, and are not benefited ? Would not every 
 man of discernment say, no marvel that the people are not 
 benefitted by the scriptures ; when the clergy, by whom they 
 are led, inspire them with the belief, thai they are useless ; so 
 that they become dilatory in perusing them, and regardless 
 with I'cspect to their promises, and precepts. \\ h.t is the 
 p'>pu'ar doctrine with respect to baptism ? The learned de- 
 grade baptism with polished v. ords, in a systematical foim ; 
 whilst the unlearned vilify the same, in vulgar language. Af- 
 ter having done all, to degrade this institution ; and to pluek 
 from the minds of the people, every sacred promise, which 
 God stipulated to them in it ; they then are the first, \^ ho \\ ith 
 an affected sanctity, set up the melancholy complaint : theie 
 are but few goorl fruits to be discovered, in many of those, 
 who are baptised ! 
 
 Obj IV. It is a dangerous doctrine to teach people, that 
 baptism is the means of regeneration, lest they will think : if 
 thev onU' be baptised, they are quite safe ; hence, they will 
 indulge themselves in sin, without restraint. 
 
 Answer. Aa^rceable to this objeetinn, it would also be 
 dangerous to instruct the people, that God is good to all, and 
 that he loves his enemies ; lest they should think, because he 
 is so good, and kind, he will not puni'^h us for our crimes ; 
 hence vvc mav continue in sin. In short there is nothing, by 
 
105 
 
 which God manifests his Love, and Goodness towards sin- 
 ners, but what n)ay be liable to such an iibuse, and against 
 which such an objection n)ay be alleged. W^hat is the clifier- 
 ence whether sinners bt heve the goodness, and mercy ol God 
 are manifested in baptism, or by any other means? for such 
 as are determined to abuse the same will do it, at the peril of 
 their own souls. 
 
 Obj. V. I' baptism be the ordinary means of regenera- 
 tion, then it must follow, that all those, who are not baptised 
 will be damned. There are many thousands, whoareunbap- 
 tised ; now, to suppose all such to be lost, is extremely un- 
 charitable. 
 
 Answer. In this way I might also prove, that it is very 
 uncharitable to teach, that whosoever does not believe in Je- 
 sus Christ shall be damned ; because there are many thou- 
 sands, who do not believe, and many more have never heard 
 his name. What Christian would presume to say, that faith 
 in Jesus Christ, is not essential to salvation ; because it would 
 be uncharitable to suppose all such as lost, who are destitute of 
 it ? In what manner God deals w -th the heathens, and others, 
 who are unavoidably bereft of the gospel, and the sacraments; 
 so as to extend his mercy, and benevolence to them all ; so that 
 they shall be without an excuse, if numbers of them be not 
 saved, is a subject, on which I cannot say any thing in this little 
 work. This only would I observe, that whereas God is im- 
 
 1)artial, he knows how to devise means in abundance, by wh'ch 
 le may shew the heathens his salvation. Whatever dispensa- 
 tion he may have ordered to save heathens through Christ, 
 does by no means interfere with the dispensation, under VAhich 
 we live. We cannot expect to be saved in any other way^ 
 than the one, that is revealed to us by the scriptures. 
 
 SECTION XIII. 
 
 This section contains a short address to Mr. Moore, 
 To Mr. Joseph Mooie. 
 
 Reverend Sir ! 
 
 I have concluded my reply to your strictures on my treatise. 
 I believe none of your arguments against my treatise, have 
 
 Q 
 
t06 
 
 been passed over in silence. You are at liberty to write some 
 strictures on this reply, and if you can point out errors in it, I 
 shall thank you. It is known to you, that my treatise on bap- 
 tism, is not written against any particular society, of people 
 nor individual ; hence you had no just provocation, to commence 
 an individual controversy. You might have published your 
 sentiments on the subject, without any personal reflections. 
 But since you have made the beginning, I hope you will not 
 be offended at the plainness of speech, which is found in this 
 reply. Sir! your strictures have not offended me; though, 
 they have put me to the disagreeable task of replying. Should 
 you decline writing any more on this subject, I hope you, or 
 some of your brethren, will meet me in the presence of a pub- 
 lick assembly, for the purpose of debating it, more minutely in 
 a friendly manner. If you agree to do so, you will please to 
 let me know it ; so that we may mutually appoint the time, and 
 place of meeting ; and also, devise an equitable pl&nofcon 
 ducting the controversy. 
 
107 
 
 A FEW 
 
 FRAGMENTS ON THE DOCTRINE 
 
 OP 
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 FRAGMENT I. 
 
 A brief, contrasted view of the divine Law, and Gospe'l, 
 
 To form accurate views of the doctrine of justification, it 
 is necessary to understand the distinction between the law and 
 the gospel. 
 
 Whereas God had imposed various laws upon the Israelitesj 
 I must observe that the law, which I intend to contrast with 
 the gospel, is the moral, called the decalogue, which the Lord 
 had engraven on two tables of stone, and delivered unto Moses. 
 It is called moral, because it is a perfect rule of moral rectitude. 
 Hence, it is not possible to commit a sin ; unless it be a devia- 
 tion from this law: 4br sin is the transgression of the law.' 
 1 John §, 4. 
 
 The sum and substance of this law, is love. *Thou shalt 
 love the Lord thy God \\ ith all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 
 and with all thy mind. This is the first and great con mand- 
 ment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour as thyself On these two commandments hang all 
 the law and the prophets.' Matth. 22, 37-40. And St. Paul— 
 *for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Foj- this. 
 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not kill, Thou 
 shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt 
 not covet ; and if there be any other commandment, it is brief- 
 ly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour as thyself Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: 
 therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.' Rom. 13, 8-10. This 
 is evident, for he that loved his neighbour as himself, would 
 not seduce his wife ; nor kill ; nor take from him his property 
 by fraud, or violence ; nor bear false witness against him ; nor 
 even covet any thing that is his : and it he loved God with all 
 
108 
 
 his heart, he would not cherish an idol ; nor profane his sa- 
 cred nam '. H/nct^ all passages, whether they be in the Old 
 or New Testament, which forbid any vice, or command any 
 virtue ; or, threaten the former with punishment, and pjom- 
 ise a reward to the latter, belong to the law ; either as a prin- 
 cipal pan, or an illustration thereof. 
 
 A'though, the ceremonial law was abolished under the new 
 dispensation ; yet, the moral law remains undiminished, with 
 respect lo all its moral precepts ; for nothing can possibly re- 
 lease any creature, from the obligation of love towards the cre- 
 ator, &c. Lave being the falfil.nent of this law, is and must 
 be perpetual ; for "^charity never faileth.' 1 Cor. 13. 8. Our 
 blessed Saviour testifies, 'Think not that I am come to des- 
 troy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but 
 to fulfil F )r vein!y I say unto you, Till heaven and earth 
 pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, 
 till all be fulfilled. Matth. 5, 17, 18. Those words suffi- 
 ciently indicate the perpetuity of the law. 
 
 The law is spiritual, Rom. 7, 14 ; hence it does not simply 
 require our external conduct to harmonize with it ; but also, 
 that the motives of the heart be unsullied. It is said, 'That 
 whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath com- 
 mitted adultery with her already in his heai t,' Matth. S, 28. 
 Which shews, that the law requires the heart to be in con- 
 ibrmity with it ; for if the sinful lust were not engendered in 
 the heart, the action would never be committed. Hence, all 
 inordinate desires are prohibited. If man's heart, and con- 
 duct were perfectly conibnuable to the law, there would not 
 be the least cause for condemnation ; he would have the di- 
 vine approbation, and a conscience pure, and serene, and thus 
 enjoy the foliriry ol heaven. Hence, the law has the promise 
 of life annexed. This is evident, from Christ's reply to the 
 lawver. 'A certain lawyer stood up, and tempted hmi, saying, 
 Master, what shall I d > to inherit eternal life ? He said un- 
 to him. What is written in the law ? how readest thou ? And 
 he answering, said, Thon shalt love the Lord thy Godv\ith 
 all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, 
 and witli all thy mind ; and thy neighbour as thyself. And 
 he said unto him, Thou hast answered right : This do, and 
 thou shalt live.' Luke 10, 25 28. This text does not simply 
 prove, that the doers of the law shall preserve their lives from 
 the execution of the civil magistrate ; but that they shall in- 
 herit eternal life ; for the question was not, what a man shall 
 do to enjoy civil hapniness ; but what he shall do to inherit 
 /eternal life* Christ certainly answered, agreeable to tlie 
 
109 
 
 question* St. Paul says, 'Moses describetli tlie righteousness 
 which is of the law, That the man which doeth tlu-se things 
 shall live by them.' Rom. 10, o — comp. Levit, 18, 5 A- 
 gain — 'And the law is not of" iaith : hut, The man that doeth 
 them shall live in them.' Gal. S, 12 — 'And the conm:and- 
 ment, which luas ordained to life, 1 found to be unto death.' 
 R)m 7,10. These texts undeniably prove, that the doers of 
 the law shall inherit life. 
 
 God did not give his law in vain, for it must be fulfilled. 
 Such as do not obey all its precepts, must fulfil it by suttering 
 its penalty. Hence, it is written, 'Cursed is every one that 
 continueth not in all things which are written in the book of 
 the law to do them.' Gal 3, 10. 
 
 The gospel is also the word of God ; yet it is to be distin- 
 guished from the law. The word translated gospel, is tvay. 
 lyextov, in the original. It is derived from sv, happily, and 
 ayysjita, a proclaiming. Hence, it signifies good news, or 
 happy tidings. T!ius it is said, ' How beautilul are the teet of 
 them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings 
 of good things.' R^m 10, 15— conip Isa. 52, 7 — ch 61.1. 
 *Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, 
 which shall be to ai! people For unto you is born this day, 
 in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Ciirist the Lord.' 
 Luke 2, 10, 11. 
 
 The gospel as contrasted with the law, implies that joyful 
 proclamation, which is founded on the divine promise of a Sa- 
 viour. Thus it is said, the gospel was preached unto Abraham. 
 *And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the hea- 
 then through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, 
 saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed.' Gal. 8, 8 Christ 
 according to his human nature, is Abraham's seed ; and fiom 
 V. 14-16, it appears was the foundation of the gospel, whose 
 day Abraham rejoiced to see, and saw it by faith, and was 
 glad, John 8, 56 ; and in whom not only th»' Jews, but also, 
 the Gentiles should be blessed. Thus the gospel was announ- 
 ced before Christ's incarnation, and the blessings pron ised, 
 were prefigurated by many types, under the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion. Bat under the new, the types have vanished; because 
 the substance appeared: for the Son of God is incarnate, he 
 suffered, and died ; and revived ; and was taken up into glory ; 
 a»id now the gospel brings to light, li'e and immortality. 
 2 Tim 1, 10. To preach the gospel, is to declare pardon, 
 life, and salvation through the merits of Chiist, to guilty, and 
 condemned men. Hence all passages, whether in the old, or 
 pew testament, which contain a promise of a Saviour, of par- 
 
110 
 
 don for sin ; and all concomitant blessings, belong to the gos- 
 pel. 
 
 The sacraments of baptism, and the Lord's Supper, are 
 appendages ot the gospel ; for where in the law, do we find 
 their institution ? They are administered by the ministry of 
 the gospel. Hence are not moral duties ; but means of grace. 
 
 We do not find a vestige of the gospel, in the works of 
 creation ; whereas the 'a»v of natuic, does not essentially dif- 
 fer from the one that is written ; hence the heathens who 
 have not the scriptures ; yet they have the law written in 
 their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their 
 thoughts the mean wnile accusing or else excusing one another. 
 Rim. 2. 15. Had man not fallen, the revelation ol" nature 
 would have been sufficient. Since the gospel proposes par- 
 don for sin. and a restoration to happiness, guilty, and fallen 
 creatures are presupposed. Now if the gospel, the same as 
 the !aw, were stamped upon man's heart, or revealed by the 
 works of nature, it would at once shew, that God had created 
 man sinful and wretched. Bat as this cannot be supposed, it 
 is evident that neither man in his pristine state ot rectitude, 
 nor holy angels knew any thing of the gospel. It was a bles- 
 sed mjstery, enshrined in the bosom of Jehovah, before the 
 foundation of the world ; and since the fall of man, it has 
 been made known by a particular revelation. These are 
 things, which angels desire to look into, 1 Pet. 1, 12. Eph, 
 3,9-11. 
 
 The law requires love ; the gospel faith — 'The just shall 
 live by faith ; and the law is not of faith' — Gal. S, 11, 12; 
 hence love, and faith are as different as the law and gospel. 
 They therefore, ought not to be confounded. The la\y, al- 
 though it requires love ; yet gives the sinner no inclination to 
 love ; the gospel does not simply require faith ; but it also, re- 
 presents the testimony and promise ; and imparts the power 
 to embrace the same : for its ministry is that of the spirit, 
 and of life. By the law sin is revealed, and made exceed- 
 ingly sinful, Rom. 7, 7, 18 ; the gospel shews, where sin a- 
 bounds, grace much more abounds. Rom. 5, 20. The law 
 reveals the wrath of God from heaven against all ungodliness 
 of men, it is his hammer to break rocks into pieces, Jer. 28, 
 29 ; the gospel declares, that 'God sent not his Son into the 
 world to condemn the world ; but that the world through- 
 him might be saved ' John §, 17. The law is the key to 
 bind the culprit ; the gospel is the key to loose, and set him 
 at liberty. Matth. 16, 19. The law engenders the spirit of 
 bondage i the gospel the spirit of adoption, GaU 4, 21 -31.- 
 
Ill 
 
 The law roars in the conscience of the sinner, like the thun 
 tiers on mount Sinai, that he through fear seems to hear no- 
 thing else ; the gospel represents the blood ol Jesus, as spea- 
 king louder ; and brings the spirit of adoption into the heart, 
 crying, Abba, Father, which cry is so empbatical, that it 
 penetrates the heavens ; 'and God hears it out of his tem- 
 ple.' Ps. 18, 6. The ministration of the law, is that c.f con- 
 demnation ; for it is the letter that kills, 2 Cor. 3, 6, 7 ; it 
 shews the sinner the silence and darkness of the grave ; the 
 portals of hell ; and causes painful anticipations ot the smoke 
 of his future torments, ascending for ever, and ever : the min- 
 istration of the gospel , is that of life ; the power of God unto 
 salvation, Rom. 1, 16 ; it represents Jesus as the bright, 
 shining herald, risen from the dead ; and having the keys of 
 hell and of death, Apoc. 1, 18 ; and declares authoritatively, 
 *I will ransom them from the pov^er of the grave ; I will re- 
 deem them from death : O death, I will be thy plagues ; O 
 grave, I will be thy destruction.' Hos 18, 14. It unlocks 
 the gates of paradise, and exalts ♦he sinner out of hell, into 
 heaven. The ministration of the law is glorious ; for it re- 
 veals God's justice ; it also, had an external glory on mount 
 Sinai ; for the mount smoked ; the thunders roared ; and the 
 noise of the trumpet was heard ; so that the Israelites trem- 
 bled, Exod. 19, 16— eh. 20. 18, 19 ; the gospel is more glo- 
 rious, as it represents the filial God head manifested in the 
 flesh, fulfilling divine justice, and expiring on mount Calvary, 
 amidst a combination of wonders : such as the trembling of 
 the earth, and the bursting of rocks, and the sun's total eclipse. 
 Not only, did the external glories on Calvary, exceed those 
 on Sinai ; but there w as also, a superior display of moral ex- 
 cellence in the sufferings of Jesus, who is not merely a man ; 
 but also, Jehovah, an infinite, eternal personage ; hence his 
 tears, groans, and prayers circumscribed time, and eternity ; 
 and the flowing of his blood, is superior to the legal demands; 
 and causes all heaven to lavish with gifts to man : so that the 
 scenes of the gospel , eclipse the glory of the law, like the bright- 
 ness of the sun, the mild rays of the moon : or, as the apostle 
 expresses it, ^even that which was made glorious had no glo- 
 ry in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.' 
 2 Cor. 8, 10» 
 
 IMPROVEMENT. 
 
 It is a very important blessing to understand the distinction 
 between the law, and the gospel. Without observing it in 
 
112 
 
 the perusal of the sacred scriptures, they will appear like a 
 chaos shrouded in darkness. By this blessed clue, tliej ap- 
 pear full ot harmony, and acquire a high degree of elucidation. 
 Not observing it, is the reason, why so many people read, 
 without acquiring knowledge ; and why many preach, w ith- 
 out rendering their hearers happy ; as it is necessary rightly 
 to divide the word or" truth. 2 Tmi. 2, IS. Wuhout observ- 
 ing this distinction, the inhde! Jews, and many called Chris- 
 tians, read the scriptures ; yet their minds remain blmded, 
 not kno»ving that the penal demands of the law received their 
 consummation in Christ ; tor they look not beyond it ; and as 
 the apostle says, 'when they read Moses the vail is upon their 
 heart.' 2 Cor 8, 13 - 15. We frequently hear people ex- 
 claim, it is almost impossible to be saved ; as no man can live 
 agreeable to all the precepts that are contained in the scrip- 
 tures Such mingle the law, with the gospel, and consider 
 them both as the same ; otherwise they would not draw such 
 a groundless conclusion It is evident, that no sinner can 
 keep the law ; hence let him look lor its fulfilment in Christ, 
 who is the founHation of the gospel. 
 
 The gospt 1 being joyful news ; or, a happy proclamation 
 from heaven of peace on earth, and good-wdl towards man, 
 Luke 2, 14 ; hence whatever doctrine may be announced, 
 which is not joyful, nor calculated to console the terrified, can- 
 not be the gospel. It must either be the law ; or, an amal- 
 gam of the law and gospel ; or, a doctrine invented by some 
 wild enthusiast. 
 
 To preach that Christ has only redeemed the smaller num- 
 ber of mankind, that the majority are predestinated to perish 
 in their sins, without the offer of >ufficient grace to prevent it, 
 cannot be the gospel ; because it is not a joyful, but the most 
 terrifick annunciation. Upon hearing it, sinners must ration- 
 ally conclude, that if the majority be reprobated, there is a 
 greater probability of being units of this unhappy number, than 
 of the partially favoured few ; as it is absurd, for every one to 
 hope, when but a few are destined for endless felicity. The 
 intention of the gospel ministry, is to cause sinners to believe 
 in Christ, and by believing lobe saved. Whenever a person 
 is exhorted to believe, he must first have a promise stipulated ; 
 as it is nonsense, otherwise to require faith. Now how would 
 it be possible for any sinner to believe, that he is one of the re- 
 deemed, if the minister could not testify, that it is the will of 
 God that all should be saved, and come to the knowledge of 
 the truth ? 1 Tim. 2. 4. The scriptures do not contain a 
 catalogue of the names of the elect ; hence, how is it possible 
 
113 
 
 for any man to find in them a promise of salvation for his per- 
 son , provided the doctrine ofa partial reden.ptiuii be cornet ? 
 It IS in vain to s ly, that we shall be able to ascertain, that \\ie 
 aw of the elect, whenever we have pxpeiienced tht woik of 
 regeneration in our hearts, b)^ the ettectual operations oi the 
 spirit : for it' so, the sinner would be saved before he believed ; 
 and the experience of this salvation would becon)ean t vidcuce 
 for him to believe. Thi- scriptures deciart , that a man is jus- 
 tified by taith, Rom 3, 28 ; and that u thout faith it is im- 
 possible to please God. Heb. 11, 6. Now if I must have 
 experienced the work of regeneiation, in order to have an in- 
 ternal te'^timony ; so th.it I may believe, then I must ht justi- 
 fied, whilst an unbeliever, and as such please God, which is 
 unscriptural. It would also lollow, that the prtaching oi tie 
 gospel is not an eft'e tual means to kindle taith in sinners ; that 
 an extraordinary intlu- nee of the spirit must be added, ot which 
 the word of God is destitute. This i- nothing short of fanati- 
 cism. How can he be said to preach the gospel, or joyful 
 news to sinners, when he is not able to inform them, whether 
 they are of the number of the redeemed ; and even declares, 
 that they never ean find it out, until the spirit reveals more to 
 them, than they can ascertain by hearing the mere -jutvv ard 
 preaching of the gospel ? But the gospel is to be preached 
 unto every creature ; hence it must contain a premise to all ; 
 for Christ gave himself a ransom for all, 1 Tim. 2, 6 Every 
 sinner thereiore, when he hears the go'^pel, may rationally 
 conclude, that if all be redeemed, he p ust be one ot then' ; 
 for without him, all would not be all. Thus he may by hea<- 
 ring the gospel be enabled to believe. 
 
 FRAGMENT II. 
 
 It is shewn that there is a two-fold justification : the one, in the sight of 
 ^ God, and the other, before men. 
 
 Without this distinction, the subject cannot properly be il- 
 lustrated. There are sundry texts, which exclude all good 
 works with respect to our justification ; w hilst others include 
 such as necessary. This perplexes some minds, and to recon- 
 cilf" this apparent contrariety, they conclude that both faith, und 
 good works are necessary to justify a aiaja m the sight of God. 
 
 P 
 
ii'i 
 
 Nevertheless, this does not harmonize those difterent texts, 
 Fvn* such a te.vt as liiis — 'therefore we conclutle tiiata iiiat; is 
 justified by faith without the deeds of the law' — Ri.m. ^,20 — 
 does not. admit the least addition ot works in the article o » ur 
 justiiieaiion. Buf as the scriptures speaic O; ajustitiiati.'n in 
 tiie sight of men, as well as in the sight ol God, it is not diffi- 
 cult to d nc »ver a harmony between those apparent repugnant 
 texts. Tiiis is elucidated by the following specimens : 
 
 1 ' Therctore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be 
 justified in his (God's) sight : for by the law is the knowledge 
 o sin. R)m. 3, ^0, Zl. This text speaks of a justificauvn 
 in the sight ot God, which positively excludes all legal works. 
 
 2. 'F -r if Abiaham were jastilied by w^orks, he hath where- 
 of t) gl >ry ; but not before God.' cb. 4, 2. From this text 
 it may 'ie concluded that there is a justification by works ; but 
 n t before God ; hence it must be before men. As the justifi- 
 cation bi'iore God is without works, even so the justification 
 before men, cannot be otherwise, but by works. It is said 
 *God was manifest in the tlcsh, justified in the spirit, seen of 
 angels, &e.' 1 Tim. .S, 16. Christ was justified in the spir't- 
 bvUnotinthe siglUof God ; because he knew his son as just, 
 an! holy from eternity. Through the spirit he wrought mira- 
 Cie^, Matth. 1??, 28 ; which were cal.'ulated to justify hm us 
 tiie Messiah, ui the sight of men. He therefore s. ys, If 1 do 
 ii-y. the v/orks oi my Father, beiiev.- me not. But it 1 do, 
 though ye believe not me, believe the works ; that ye may 
 know, ;ind believe that the Father is in me. and I in hinu' 
 John 10, 37,88. Again, 'By thy words thou shalt be justi- 
 fied, and by thy vv yyds thnu shaU be condemned ' Matth. 12, 
 37. Now we know, that in the sight of God words are not 
 necessary, either to justi'y, or condemn us ; becau?e he know s 
 all se rets of the heart be'bre words are uttered. But that 
 men may be informed of the intt ntion of the heart, words are 
 necessary ; and by which we either stand justified, or else, 
 convicted of an error. 
 
 g. It has been supposed by some that St. James,, w hen he 
 insists upon good works, (ch. 2) as necessary, unto jusilfiea- 
 tion, contradicted St. Paul, who excludes such. But St. 
 James does not allude to the same justification. *Yea, a man 
 may say. Thou hast taith. and I have works ; sh w me thy 
 faith without thy works, and 1 will shew thee my faith h\ my 
 woi-ks ' eh.' 2, 18. As this text speaks of shew ing one's 
 faithby works, it must be a manifestation of our justification; 
 liMi *e such as is in the sight of men. For we need not to 
 shew otir faith to. God, because he is omniscient, Afeaiii— 
 
115 
 
 <Was not A^iraham our fathei justifictl by works, wlien tie 
 ha 1 oii"i-r.'(i is..a liis son upon tho altar r' v. *21. Al»ialiain, 
 li) yielding oncilie'nce to the divine nuindatetd vtici im- s«jl 1- 
 s*aac, could not aiiude to a justitication beiorc God. Abiaiiam 
 was circunieised pievious to thr birth of I;-aac, vshich is evi- 
 dent trom the sci iplures ; (see Gen. ch. 17) lience beloie i.e 
 could offer him upon the atai-. 'So\\ Abraham ' leceiveci the 
 sign of eircumcision, a seal of the righteousness ot the laah 
 which he had yet being uncireumciged.' Rom. 4, 11. Hen. e, 
 as Abraham was circumcised before he oHered his son Isaac 
 upon the altar, and as circumcision w as a stal ol the righteous- 
 ness of the faith whicfi he had, it is evident, that he was justi- 
 fied in the sight of God, before he was about to sacrifice hiS 
 son. As he was justified \n God's sight", before he perioimed 
 this work, it must be concluded, that he thereby shewed him- 
 self as just in the sight of men This is confirmed by St. Fcad 
 *F >r if Abraham were justified by works, he hath iuhc>e<J to 
 g'ory ; but not before Ged.' Rom. 4,2. Since Abialiam 
 might glory by his works ; yet not before God, the conclusion 
 is, that he might have a glory in the sight of men. 
 
 When St. Paul teaches, that we are justified by faith, ex- 
 clusive o al'! \e^d\ woiks, he docs not by it mean an assent to 
 any common truih • such as, that God created the world, or 
 the existence of angels ; but a faith in Christ, rctasameie 
 c eator, but as a saviour of sinners ; or, as he calls it 'faith in 
 his blood.' Rom. S, 25. But the faith which St. James de- 
 nies as sufficient to justify one, is not this faith ; but the faith, 
 that there is one God, which he also, represents as dead 
 without w^orks. 'Thou belie vest that there is one God ; thou 
 doest well : the devils aKo believe and tremble. But wilt 
 thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead ? v» 
 19, 20. What does St James call a dead faith ? Not the 
 faith in Jesus Christ, as a saviour : for he says 'My brethren, 
 have not t'le faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lor d of glory, 
 with respect of persons.' v. 1. This shews, that the faith in 
 J^sus Christ has no respect to persons ; hence it cannot be 
 dead , but living But the faith, that there is orie God. in itself 
 is dead Why so? The truth that on'y one God exists, in- 
 cHides no promise of salvation. Hence simply tp believe, this, 
 cannot engender a living principle. Unh ss a promise be 
 made, the creature does not ( T mean the guilty) expect a fa- 
 vour, and without which he has no inducement to love. 
 Whereas the timth, that there is a saviour includes a promise of 
 lite, and salvation ; the sinner that bf^ieves this must rfjoi-^e ; 
 and he has an in hieement to love God ; hence it must bt^caus^ 
 <>f this promise, be a living faiih. 
 
116 
 
 To prove that the faith that there is one God, is insufficient" 
 to justify, the apostle exhibits the example oi devils, \^ho are 
 neither just, nor happy ; notwithstanding they btlieve this 
 truth. According to the interpretation which the Jew s gave 
 oi the idolatrous worship of the heathens, and confirneci ! y 
 St. Paul, 1 Oor. 10, 19 21 ; it appears they invoked devils* 
 T.ie heathens did not consider their Gods as supreme bemgs, 
 bat as interior mediators, called Saiixovia ; nevertheltss, tin se 
 Sdkfiovia were devils. He must be an apostate spirit, that le- 
 q I ires divine honours from men ; or will accept i;f such with- 
 out reproving those, by whom they are offered Those de- 
 vils that were honoured by the heathens as Gods, do noi like 
 thsra believe the doctrine o' polytheism ; but are convinced 
 that there is but nnc God ; and in this respect, are as orthodox 
 as Abraham But as they delight in being worshipped by 
 men, they are so far from being justitied by this belief, thtit 
 th'ir ffuilt is amplified ; and they tremble, knowing that their 
 usiirped deities shall be destroyed, and they be punished* 
 That such a faith as this shou'd justii'y any one, St Paul ne- 
 ver taught. But St. James must have been acquainted with 
 some, who taught it ; otherwise he would not so zealously 
 have inveighed against it. 
 
 4. When our blessed Saviour shall come in his glory to 
 judge the world, he shall say to the saints — 'Come, ye blessed 
 of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared tor you from the 
 foundation of the world : For I was an hungred, and ye gave 
 nie meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a 
 stransfer, and ye took me in : naked, and ye clothed me : I 
 was sick, and ye visited me : I was in prison, and ye can.e 
 unto me.' Matth. 25, 34 36. In this text, good works are 
 exhibited as a justification of saints on the day of judgment* 
 B it this judgment cannot be intended for God to discover the 
 characters of men ; because he is omniscient, and thus needs 
 no information ; hence it must be to reveal the same to an as- 
 sembled world. The good works of the saints, will justify 
 them in the sight of inteligent creatures. Nevertheless in the 
 siffht of God, they are otherwise justified This is evident, 
 from our Saviour's declaration ; for he calls them the blessed 
 of his Father. But the ' Father has blessed them in Christ 
 •with all spiritual blessings.' Eph. 1. 8. *So then they which 
 be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.' Gal. 8, 9, 
 Thus as they were blessed of God by ftijlh, it is e^ idont, they 
 were justified by faith in his sight ; and as such, they inherit 
 4he kin-jdom. Hence this text beautifully shew s, how sa nts 
 are justified by works in the sight of an assembled world ; and 
 
11? 
 
 yet, how they were well -pleasing to God, because he had bles- 
 sed them in Christ by i'aith. 
 
 IMPROVEMENT. 
 
 All men are sinners, and as suoh only, they may be justified 
 before God : for a just person cannot be ju&litied ; btcaust ne 
 is such already. 'To him that workeih not, but beiieveth on 
 him that justifieth the ungodly, his laith is counted tor li^h- 
 teoQsness.' Rom. 4, 5. How clear y this proves, that God 
 justifies the ungodly ! But it might be asked, how can this be ? 
 must a sinner not repent, and believe in Christ, beiore he can 
 bejistified? I answer this is the reason, wl»} God only jus- 
 tities the ungodly. A penitent sinner is one, who is sensible 
 of his sins, and justly fears the wrath to come, if not relieved ; 
 and as a believer he depends on a h» Ip not his own ; heiice 
 upon Jesus Christ. Although, God justifies one that is peni- 
 tent ; yet does he justify one that is ungodly. The penitent 
 sinner, only differs from the impenitent in so far, that he is 
 sensible of his guilt, and is willing to accept of pardon ; w here- 
 as the other is insensible of the same ; and hence, does not 
 perceive the necessity of a saviour. Should the person that is 
 sensible of his guilt, not be guilty ? To be sensible ot one's 
 guilt, necessarily presupposes one, that is guilty *If ye were 
 blind, ye should have no sin : but now ye say. We see ; there- 
 fore your sin remaineth.' John 9, 41. If we were blind in 
 our own estimation, we should be sensible ot our guilt; and 
 thus perceive the necessity of being saved by Christ ; but 
 whilst we imagine we see, our guilt must remain. 
 
 Where is the man, who does not stand in reed of this jus- 
 tification ? Who is he, that is not ungodly ? Those who ap- 
 parei'tly are the vilest, may be justified : for in the sight of 
 God there is no difference : for all have sinned How erro- 
 neous is the opinion, which many entertain, that they must 
 prepare themselves with sundry good works, and a thorough 
 reformation of the heart, betore they are entitled to believe ; 
 or, hope to be clothed with God's righteousness If this should 
 be correct, then they would as just men be justified. How 
 inconsistent ! 
 
 Faith works by love. Gal 5, 6 ; hence ffood works are 
 the blessed result, by which we are justified before men, who 
 will glorify our Father in heaven. The man who boasts of 
 an abundance of faith ; and yet is destitute of philanthropy, 
 mav be pronounced a hypocrite. But let no one conclude, 
 yiaL because the scriptures reconunend good works s and be-- 
 
eause they demonstrate our motives to others, that therefore 
 they are iieces-^drv c j i^stiiy us beioro God. Tht-y are proper- 
 ly tii'^ blessed effects oi our justification before God. ' W hen 
 ye shall have di)iiedli th -se tilings which are commanded vou, 
 say, vVe are unpiofitable servants: we have don' that which 
 was our duty to do ' Luke 17, 10. If alter doing all that we 
 are commanded, we are to acknowledge ours*'lves unpiofitable 
 ■servants, it is evident that we are not thereby justified before 
 G 'd ; h mce we must be clothed with a righteoubness, vvhicU, 
 Jie himself has prepared. 
 
 FRAGMENT III. 
 
 tt is shewn that upon the principles of Christ's meritorious obedience, Gd 
 is just, when hejustifies a sinner. Sundrv objections answered. 
 
 It is impossible for God to do wrong, because he is just^ 
 and holy. But how can he be just, when he justifies a wicked 
 person ? T le correct answer cannot bo given, without keep- 
 mg in view the atonement ot Jesus Christ. 
 
 Tnere may be sundry la", s matted to suit the peculiar cir- 
 cumstances of nations. But as the circurn stances to which 
 thvy are adapted, freqaeruly vary ; ht^ncc they may be altered, 
 amended, or repealed. Snch laws, though they may not be 
 repugnant to ; yet, are they not the law of nature. Hence 
 all nations have not the same laws. Laws of this description, 
 were even imposed upon the Israelites by divine authority. 
 Such were their civil and ceremonial laws. 
 
 But the moral, or a-^ it is sometimes called the law of nature, 
 is rlifferent in this respect. Its moral precepts are unchange- 
 ab'e : for their theme is love ; and hence, rest upon Gori's 
 in>ral perfections of justice, goodness, and holiness. Tbty 
 are adapted to all men. in evry I'lime, in all ages, and under 
 aU circumstances. This law being a perfect rule of moral 
 rectitude, ^ m neither be altered amended, nor repealed. For 
 it is out of tlie q\iesr!on, that God should ever release maa 
 from the obHjration of love, or grant him liberty to do wrong. 
 
 Whnvas the civil laws o;' nations are changeable, it some- 
 times may he nc'^essary to release some of the citizens from 
 all obligitons to th -m ; and under some peculiar circumstan- 
 ces, even to pardon transgressors of the same. This also ap* 
 
ai9 
 
 |»lies to the ceremonial laws, which God had imposed upoo 
 the Israelites. A^ lor instance : God cen niundeci that all the 
 male-children should be circumcised on the eiglitlrdaj, and 
 declaring in the meaiiwhiie, in the case ot lion obseivaiice, 
 (liat such should be cut oft' horn his people. Gcii. 17, 12 14» 
 This law was mutable, and sersed a tei. poriiiy puipobe ; 
 otherwise it would always have been in)pobeci upiu all nen ; 
 neither could it ever have been abrogated under the Jsew 
 .Testament dispensation. The children of Isiael that \sere 
 born in the udderne^s by the >%ay, as their fathers came 
 forth out of Egypt, were not circumcised ; notwithstanding, 
 they were n>t cut oiF from God's p.ople. Josh. 5, 5, 7, 
 Hence as circumcision w as a mutable law, God could as he 
 circumstances might render it expedient, either punish, or le- 
 lease the transgressor of the same, without violating the truth, 
 or justice. 
 
 I5ut as the moral law is unchangeable with respect to its 
 moral precepts, no man can be released from being under ob- 
 ligation to fulfil it. A law that obligates no one to lulfil it, can- 
 not be moral, and uncha'.igeabe. But it men migh tians- 
 g-ess this law with imounity, they then would be released 
 from all obi gations of obedience. But as it is in possible for 
 any person to be re'eased from the ob'ijiaiions to this taw, it is 
 evident, that the transgressor n'ust fulfil the law by suffering 
 a pmalty. If he were not subject to a penalty, it would be 
 the same, as if he had not at all been under obligations to o- 
 b^y it. Neither can a transgressor be released by an arbi- 
 trary act of pardon : for that would release him fi-oni the obli- 
 gation to the law, and thus he would ne ther have fulfilled it 
 by his obedience, nor by suffering the pena'ty, which would 
 make it void, and of no effect. Hence no transgressor against 
 an nnchangeable law can be pardoned, without doing injustice. 
 
 The scriptures denounce this pena'ty — 'Cursed is every one 
 that continueth not in all thins^s that are written in tht bock of 
 the law to do them.' Gal.' 8. 10. D>ut. 27, 26. If every 
 man that does not omply with the law be cursed, how then 
 can he be pardoned ? Should he be pardoned, then this 
 divine denunciation would be falsified. But this cannot 
 be. The mere repentance of the culprit cannot obtain a 
 pardon : for thiit cannot obliterate his former crimes, nor 
 remove the scandal, which he thereby brought upon divine 
 government. If this repentance could remove the curse 
 pronounced by the law, th'n the culprit wonld be blessed ; 
 and thus he would be both blessed and cursed under the 
 same law. I repeat it, if the transgressor, who i>? cursed 
 hy the la\Y should upon his mere I'epentancc be pardoneds 
 
no 
 
 then would he be both blessed, and cursed under the same 
 law. In the hrst instance, he would be ciu'sed as a ti ansgies-' 
 sor, and in the next, he would be blessed by being pardoned.- 
 Thus a curse would not be a curse, and God would have 
 thieatened it, when he did not intend to execute it. This all 
 would be inconsistent, and highly derogatory to divine vera- 
 city. In the denunciation of this penalty no exception is 
 made, that up:)n the culprit's repentance it is to be vuid . but 
 it is absolute — 'cursed i.s every one that continucth not in all. 
 things that are written in the book of the law, &c,' Accor- 
 ding to this, there is not the least prospect for a transgressor 
 lo be pardoned upon his mere teprntance. 
 
 It is impossible to reconcile the justification of a sinner to 
 the divine justice ; unless we consider the sufferings, and 
 death of Jesus as an atonement tor the guilty. Christ was 
 crucified Nevertheless, he is and was holy, and immacu- 
 late. Why was such an august personage crucified ? Al- 
 though, the couraged Jews conspired for that purpose ; yet 
 could they Ui^ver have performed ihe same, without his volun- 
 tary submission. For he might easily have escaped their 
 snares, or, else hurled them into destruction. Hence he says, 
 'Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my 
 lii*e, that I might take it again No man taketh it fron) me, 
 but I lay it down ot" mysel I have power to lay it down, 
 and 1 have power to take it again ' John 10, 17, 18 The 
 scriptures also d'clare that 'it pleased the Lord to bruise him ; 
 to put him to grief, and make his soul an offering for sin.' Isa. 
 5S, 10. But how could God, according to the principles of 
 justice, deliver Christ as an innocent being to suffer this igno- 
 minious, and painful death ? The answer is not sufficient, 
 that he suffered as a martyr to confirm the truth. There is no 
 doubt, but what he was also put to death by the Jews, be- 
 cause he would not abandon his confession ol the truth. A 
 martyr indeed mav be persecuted by wicked men, but can ne- 
 ver be cursed of God fir vindicating the truth. As it is evi- 
 dent that the Lord br-iised him, and put him to grief,it must have 
 been for a different purpose, than merely to establish the truth. 
 Christ was circumcised, anr! 'every man that is circumcised is 
 a debtor to do the who'e law.' Gal. 5, 3. comp. Rom. 15, 8, 
 '^God sent forth his son, made (born) ol a woman, made (put) 
 under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.' ch- 
 4, 4. 'For he (God) hath made him ( Christ) to be sin (or us, 
 who knew no sin.' 2 Cor 5, 21. 'Christ hath redeemed us 
 from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is 
 written, Cut sed is every one that hangeth on a tree.' Gal. $- 
 
121 
 
 18 These texts plainly shew that Christ was put under the 
 luxv, that he was made sin tor us ; and hence that lie was curbed. 
 N jw since Christ was made sin for us ; hence upon this ground 
 it was just, that he sht uld be cursed, and sufter the death of 
 the cross. He that condescended to be 'the lamb oi God to 
 take away the sin of the v\or!d'; also became liable to sutler 
 the penalty due to sin. A man who by his o\^n consent be- 
 comes a surety for another, makes himseli liable to dischaige 
 h:s debts. Although, Christ perfectly innocent in hini?eii ; 
 yet because he voluritari!} assumed the guilt of n ai^kind. it 
 was compatible with justice that he shouh! sufter. In so far 
 as Christ assumed the guilt of all iii-n, he may be considered 
 the greatest malefactor in the world ; and as such the •nise 
 that was laid upon him ^^as urparalehd ; and his sufieiii gs 
 without a precedent, or a model. As he ^^as made a > uise 
 for us, all our sms were punished in I im . 'F^t the low of 
 Christ constraineth us ; bi caus< va e thi s juc'gt , tba; il t re di- 
 ed for all, then all s\ere dead.' 2 Cor. 5, 14. Thus if Christ 
 died for all, it is viewed the same, as ii«al! had died thim- 
 selves. 
 
 Whether the crimes be punished in the persons of the gni'ty, 
 or, in that of their substitute, fbe law leceivts its den i rir^s. 
 When the substitute for the guilty has been ptnished, it is not 
 repugnant to justice to justify the sinner. 
 
 A though, the scriptures plainh teach thatthe death of Christ 
 is an atonement tor the guilty ; y< t ther& are sundry w ho pi o. 
 fess Christianity, that deny it, and* allege some appaient pir- 
 plexing objections. I shall here state son e oi the piincipal 
 objections, with my unswers. 
 
 Objection 1 God is love ; hence there can be no wrath 'n 
 him. Should he have wrath, then there would be brth, 
 wrath, and love in him, whiih are contrary principles ; and 
 thus God would be against himself, which would be hig'hiy 
 absurd. Upon this ground it VAOuid also be absurd to suppose, 
 that his only begotten Son should sufter, and die, to appease 
 his wrath. 
 
 Answer. The wrath of God is not like that of man. The 
 wrath of man frequent "y arises from his disordered passions, 
 which cannot be said ol God. God indeed is Love, cut Love 
 itself, cannot love that which is not v\orthj to be 'oved It is 
 impossible for God to love that which is evil : for if he did, 
 he must hate that which is good : because good, and evil are 
 more opposite to each other, than light and darkness. Evi' is 
 injurious to Gnd'^ works, and as he ^oves that which he has 
 made, and as he is a consist-nt character, be cannot lov€ 
 
123 
 
 both good, and «vil ; hence he must necessarily hate the lat- 
 ter. If he loved both gojd,and evil, then indeed in him ihere 
 would be twj contrary principles. Now since an evii being 
 cannot enjoy the good emanating from Love, the same be- 
 comes extremely miserable, and this is called wrath. As lit- 
 tle as the sun is darkness, and light ; because the night bird 
 cannot bear his beams, whilst the eagle, high mounted, basks 
 in his lustre ; so little can it be said, that there are two con- 
 trary principles in Gjd ; because evil creatures are disquali- 
 fied to enjoy tlie e.nanations of his Love, whilst the innocent 
 >valk in its beatitude. Hence love, and wrath are not two 
 contrary principles in God ; but only two difteivnt relations, 
 towards two different objects. Sin is an evil ; God cannot 
 love it ; thi^refore, the creaiure that is infected with it, cannot 
 enjoy the blessings oi' Love, until it be morally obliterated, 
 G )d indeed loves man, in so far as he is his creature ; but as 
 he is involved in sin, all the avenues are obstructed, that love 
 can have no access to him, to make him happy. Sin cannot 
 b" removed, and naturally made, as if it never had been com- 
 mitted ; yet it may morally be blotted out by the atonement 
 of Christ. When the sinner is viewed in connexion with the 
 atonement, then only can God cause him to participate the be- 
 atifick flow of his love. 
 
 Objection 2 If Christ be our surety, and has fully atone- 
 ed for our sins, how then can it be grace in God to forgive 
 us? We are taught to pray, 'Forgive us our debts as we 
 forgive our debtors.' Matth. 6, 12. Now if God does not 
 forgive us, until our debts are paid, and as he is our example, 
 we cannot forgive our debtors, until they have satisfied us, 
 I ' our surety discharged our debts, though we be free from 
 our creditor ; yet then would we be in debt to our surety, 
 who also cannot forgive us ; because he only must forgive as 
 God forgives, i. e. not until we have repaid him. On this 
 principle there can be no forgiveness in the universe. 
 
 Answer. If the sinner had procured the surety himself, it 
 might with some propriety be said, that there would be no 
 grace in God to I'orgive. But the sinner contributed nothing 
 towards procuring this surety, but he w as sent by the Fathei — 
 *For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten 
 Son. John 8, 16. Now since God himself procured this 
 surety, who made the atonement, is it not strange that it should 
 not be grace in him, when he pardon*- the culprit ? It is an 
 unparalleled grace, whtn the offended party, who have it in 
 their power to render the offender miserab'e ; and yet conde- 
 scend to furnish asiu-ety, by whose mediation they may for 
 
123 
 
 give upon principles of justice. We must forgive those that 
 tiv'spass against us. Bat this does not prove that therefore, 
 our debtors must render us a particular payment. We must 
 forgive as God forgives. But how does he forgive ? He lor- 
 gives for the sake of Christ's atonement ; and this is the 
 ground, which justly obligates us to forgive those that tres- 
 pass against us : as the aposile says, Morgiving one another, 
 even as God for Christ's sakehatli foigiven you.' tph. 4, 82. 
 
 Christians live in the kingdom of Christ ; hence in that of 
 grace, and iorgiveness. It is therefore necessary, that among 
 all the subjects thereof, there should be a reciprocal fcrgive- 
 ness. The man that will not forgive, cannot be a suliject in 
 this kingdom where th're is forgiveness ; because he wishes 
 none to trespass a2:ainst him, without making them suffer lor 
 it ; hence he must be associated to such an assembly, a 
 mong whom every one receives what he merits ; and as he 
 himself continually sins, and upon his own principle!-, which 
 are, not to forgive, he must necessarily lay himself liable to e- 
 ternal damnation. 
 
 Sin^e Jesus Christ has redeemed us, it is evident that we 
 are indebted to him ; and it is also admitted, that it w ould be 
 unjust, if for all his agonies, and death, he should not be re- 
 warded. This consideration has led some to assert, that the 
 redeemed must perform so many good works, until they have 
 repaid Christ. But this is out of the question. For if the re^ 
 deemed by all their good works, could remunerate Christ for 
 his sufferings, they would cease to be under any obligatinns to 
 him as a mediator : for the man who has repaid his surety, 
 cannot be considered the surety's property ; but he thereby ac- 
 quires his independence. We must ever remain Christ's own ; 
 tor *the heathens were given to him for his inheritance, and the 
 uttermost parts of the earth for his possession.' Ps. 2, 8. To 
 Christ simply considered as Jehovah, no inheritance could be 
 given, as he is the sovereign of all creation ; but in so far as he 
 was made man, and is constituted a mediator, he acquired a 
 peculiar dominion over all men. *For none of us liveth to 
 himself, and-no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, 
 we live unto the Lopd ; and whether we die, we die unto the 
 l«ard ! whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 
 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that 
 h- might be Lord both of the dead and living.' Rom. 14, 
 7 9 comp. John 5, 22 27. Thus to Christ, as a God- 
 mm the world of mankind was given, and whether dead, or 
 alive they are his own. This is also a reward for hi"- suffer- 
 jjags, and ii wili afford him unspeakable joy, one day to buhoi<? 
 
1S4 
 
 his spiritual seed, numerous like the sand upon the sea-shore, 
 iuiidbting tiie reguns of heaven ; and in each ot tbi-m tne 
 trop.i /s o\ liis sud.; mgs, and the beams othis-love : lor 'he 
 s'la see o! the lavail of his soil, and sha 1 be satistied.' Isa. 
 5 >, [L Tills ,J is i-^ as a surety has a re \ard, and as his a- 
 to lement satisfied justioi, it is not absurd, wlien he pardons 
 sinners for the sake of the same. 
 
 O jje-tion g. ii Gid loved sinners, so as to provide a sure- 
 ty i tr them why could he not have forgiven them at hr»t ? 
 Wiiat d )es it signify, when tne creditor himse f gives the debt- 
 or the m )ney o pay thj debt ?— is it not the same as if he re- 
 ceived no payment ? 
 
 Answer God ought not simp'y to be viewed as an individ- 
 ual, private charact.r; but as the creato , judge, and governor 
 of the universe. He created all things good, Gen. 1, bl; 
 hence were calcula ed to produce good effects; so that good 
 might proeeed to g )od ; iijht to Ight ; virtue to virtue ; order 
 to order ; harmony to harmony. But sin does not only injure 
 the creature that commits it; but also reverses this goodl} . iiar- 
 m nim- chain: for vvhen on^- important part thereof is disor- 
 dered, it must he felt by the whole ; hence evil effects are pio- 
 dueed ; divine g ivernment is scandalized, imd holy, intelli- 
 gent beings offended. If God forgave sinui rs w ithout an a- 
 tonement, his conduct would be paitial, as he would bestow 
 favours upon the guilty, as we 1 as upon innocent, and lu \y 
 beings. Thus the guilty would enjoy life and salvation, us 
 we'l as the innocent. VVou'd not thi'^ be partiality. ai;d injus- 
 tice, when a civi' government equaMy prot cted an in an ous 
 vil an, AitH an honest, valiant patriot ? It \^ould be tanking 
 the base with the honest, and virtue and vice v\ould be treat- 
 eH a'ik-. What justice woukl there be in God, if he granted 
 lif", and salvation to the guilty, the same as to those that never 
 had sinned ? — would he not therrh} p ace the guilty, and iimo^ 
 cent upon the same ground : — and make no distint tion be- 
 tween viee, and virtue? Ifgud'y man was the on'y intelli- 
 gent creature in the universe, God \\ouId not equalize him 
 ^vith the innoc nt : provided, he pardoned him without an a- 
 tonement. Yet m this case, it would not be just in itself. 
 But is man the on'y intellgent creature ? No. There 
 are innumerab'e myriads of holy, and happy beings in 
 celestial reoions ; and who knows, but what the theory 
 pf some oi the philosophers may not be correct, (hat many 
 p t e stars are v^orlds superior in magnHude to our earth; 
 ^nd inhabited by ratona' beings ? All holy, and happy be- 
 mgs might justly consider thei^- rights aggrieved, at bthoidiiig 
 
125 
 
 die ffuHty favourcfl. When jufl^ement is to be executed upon 
 mv-itick Babylon, it is said, 'RJoice (»ver her, thi^u lieawn, 
 and ye holy aposrles and prophets ; for God hath avi-nged y(.u 
 on her.' R'V. 18, '^0 Wiien heaven is rejoiced, v\hat cun 
 otherwise be imphed, but that the ho y, and rational inhabit- 
 ants thereof rejoice, at beholdinj; the impaitial distribution of 
 justice ? If (he judgment, executed upon mystick Babylon, is 
 to rej)ic? heavon, it is equally consistent, that when God pun- 
 i<he 1 the guilty world in the person of Jt'sus Christ, all ho y 
 be ngs sh )uld also rejoice, at the manifestati« n ot his Justice, 
 in the restoration of the guilty. Thi'y saw, tiiat although, he 
 would pardon the guilty ; yet that he thereby did not equalize 
 th m with the guilty ; because he manifested his hatred against 
 sin by the death of Christ. Had the atonement not bet n 
 mad^, and yet God pardoned the guilty, the rights of holy be- 
 ings would have been slighted ; and vice, and virtue made e- 
 qud. To slight the riglits of holy beings, and to coniound 
 vice with virtue ; in order to shew a favour to the gui ty, 
 would be unjust, and abominable, which conduct may not 
 with )ut blasphemy be ascribed to God. 
 
 St. Paul sa th, 'And having m.ide peace through the blood 
 of his [Christ'-] cross, by him to reconcile all things unto him- 
 self ; by him, / say, whether they he things in earth, or things 
 in heaven.' C >l 1, 20. Why does the apostle say, that 
 Carist by his blood reconciles all things unto himself : wheth- 
 er in earth or in heaven ? It is easily understood that the 
 things on earth are gui'ty men, who also have been redeen^ed. 
 B'lt the things in heaven are holy angels ; nevertheless, they 
 coul 1 not like guilty men have bem redeemed, as they wt re 
 notunier the sentence of condemnation. Neither can it be 
 supposed, that things in heaven ever had been at enmity 
 w th Christ, that he on that account needed to reconci'e theni 
 unto himself. But as the apostle s;iys, all things in heaven 
 are recon iled unto him, the conclusion must be • that when 
 he reconciles sinners unto himself, holy angels, who be'ore 
 must have abhorred them, in consequence of their !?uilt. be. 
 come reconciled to them ; so that when he pardons the sinner, 
 they are so far from being dissatisfied with him for doing it, 
 that th :*v are reconciled to him. and rejoice when sinners are 
 saved by virtue of his atonement : for 'there is joy in the pres- 
 en^e of the anar^^ls of God over one sinner that repent«» ' Luke 
 It, 10. Or Christ is the great object, in whom every ag- 
 g'ieved right is restored, to whom every holy bein? is united, 
 bv whom sinners are reconci'ed ; and union, and harmony 
 restored amoDg th«se that wereat variancef This interprc' 
 
takion is correct, because it is confirmed by the apostle him- 
 sel — Eph. 1, 9, 10. — • Llavmg made known unto us the mys- 
 tery ofnis will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath 
 purposed in himself ; that in th3 dispensation of the fulness 
 oftanes he might gather together in one all things, both uhich 
 are in heaven, and wkich are on earth : eve^i in him.' If 
 C irist shall gather together in on ', all things in heaven, and 
 on earth, what will he otherwise do than unite men to men, 
 and angels to m ^n ? T iroagh the atonement of Jesus, God 
 b 'holds the odijus stain, which sin introduced into the world 
 miraily obliterated, and the obstacles removed ; so that the 
 emanations of hs love may visit the guilty, and cement earth 
 and heaven. VVh^n G )d is viewed as a judge, and governor 
 of the universe, who treats all rational crt^atures agreeable to 
 the relation they sustain towards one an)ther ; hence with jus- 
 tice, and impartiality, the above objection vanishes. For it 
 supposes God as a private character, who like an angry man, 
 that is insulted by another one, seeks for revenge to cool his 
 passion : or like a merchant, that has an account of a few dol- 
 lars agiinstone of his customers sues for the payment. But 
 no such groveling views, are entertained by any rational ad- 
 vocate for the doctrine of the atonement. 
 
 O 'ejection 4. The penalty threatened to sinners is eternal ; 
 hence if Oh 'ist suffered ior them as a substitute, the punish- 
 ment which he received mu-<t a'so have been eternal ; and 
 thus h^ would yet be suffering, and hereafter to all eternity. 
 Bat we know that his sufferings have ended long ago, and 
 that he is entered into glory • 
 
 Answer if Christ WM'e a mere man, this objection would be 
 valid. AUhouajh Christ be a real man ; yet is he also, the su- 
 preme Filial G)lhead. [See IJohn 5, 20.] This God- 
 Iiead was mad'^ flesh, J >hn 1, 11 ; hence in this flesh, or hu- 
 man niture 'all the *"uln 'ss of the God head dwells bodily.' 
 C)\. 2, 9. Thus the G >i-head not only being united to ; but 
 als) b'ingmade man ; thi" man not simply as such, but in 
 this wonderful state, must have all divine perfections, though 
 not phvsica'ly ; yet really assimilated to him. For if the di- 
 vme perfections be separated from the human nature, then 
 G »d is also a sp.paratc person from the same ; because God 
 W'>uld not be Gjd, unless he possessed all supreme pc fections. 
 Bit the scriptures plainly toach, that the Word was made 
 flesh Christ thus viewed, is an infinite, eternal, omnipotent 
 person. With a mere creature, eternity consists in a duration ; 
 but with God it is a perpetua' present, an infinite magnitude ; 
 hence no past^ nor future« Christ being Qod-mm, hig 6vSer- 
 
127 
 
 ings, though apparently transitory ; yet were eternal in mag. 
 nitude ; because they piocecdeti In m an infinite person ; < nd 
 thus were superior to the sufterings, which all sinners would 
 have had to endure in an eternal duration. The above objec- 
 tion can only be brought against those, who advocate the 
 doctrine of the atonement ; and yet deny thai the supren e di- 
 vine perf'ctions, by the incarnation ol the Filial God-head 
 have been assimilated to the human ni-ture ; so thai it was ca- 
 pable of sutfering infinitely in a shorttime. It is onl^ too tiue, 
 that m.iny of those who ^lep lorth as champions tor the 'doc- 
 trine of the atonement, roundly deny that the hunanit) ol Je- 
 sus Christ Is so inseparably one with Jehovah, that it is there- 
 .by dignified with the divine perfections «'t infinity, on.nipo- 
 tence, omnipresence, &c. and thus must necessaril} conclude, 
 that his sufferings were only those of a mere maij ; and thus 
 the objection of the Socinians acquires a great vahdity. li is 
 hi vain to say, that although the sufferings ol Christ w ere not 
 infinite ; hence not equivalent to the penalty against the smsof 
 all sinners ; yet God has put an arbitrary value upon them ; 
 so that they are to be counted tor infinitely more, than they 
 are in themselves. For it is impossible, that God should ac- 
 count thai a real infinite atonement, which was not so in itself; 
 because he would have to count the spurious lor the genuine ; 
 it would be a mere sham, and a niockery to justice. If the 
 sufferings of Christ are not infinitely valuable m themselves, 
 but only to be counted so, because God had a social con- 
 nexion with him, and upheld him in his sufferings ; why was 
 it necessary for God to be incarnate, since he has a social con- 
 cexion with every saint, and upholds all things in the universe ? 
 Again — If the sufferings of Christ v ere not infinite ; but only 
 Co be counted so, then the death of the animals under the Le- 
 vitical priesthood might have been a sufficient atonement for 
 the sins of the world ; because God might have put an arbi- 
 trary value upon the same, and account it infinite, w ithout be- 
 ing 9o itself. Why could the blood of animals under the law, 
 not be a sufficient atonement for sin ? Because it had no m- 
 trinsick value, and God could not consistent vi'ith his veracity, 
 count that infinitely valuable, which was not so in itself. This 
 blood of sacrificial animals was a type of the blood of Jesus ; 
 h -nee of God's own blood. Acts 20, 28 ; hence possessing in 
 itself an infinite value to atone for all crimes ; and virtue to 
 cleanse from all iniquity. The inspired writer concludes — 'If 
 the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer 
 sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh ; 
 how much more shall the, blood of Christ, who through the e. 
 
128 
 
 ternal spirit oftered himself without spot to God, purge your 
 conscience from dead works to serve the living God.' Htb. 
 9, 13, 14. 
 
 That m t only the mere flesh of Christ, or his human na- 
 ture ; but the whole person was a partaker of sufferings, is il- 
 lustrated by the following text : — 'For Christ also hath once 
 sud'red for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us 
 i God, being put lo death in the flesh, but quickened in ihe 
 spirit.' 1 Pet. 8, 18 This text shewing thut Chrit-t was put 
 to leath, the question may be asked, who is Christ ? Is he 
 mere flesh, or man ? Ii he were but flesh i. e. man, it would 
 be absurd to say that he \\ as put to death in the flesh : for 
 who would not know that il a man be put to death, that he 
 would be put to death as a man ? Hence he must have an- 
 other nature, which is that of God. He did ntt suffer, and 
 die as a mere n an ; becnuse he was put to death in the flesh. 
 ]N.)vv if the mere humatiitv o Christ, which i> understood by 
 the term flesh, (See John 1, 14. 1 Tim. 2, 5 Rom 9, 5.) 
 had only been put to death, what need would there have been 
 to say. he was put to death in the flesh ? What sense would 
 there be in saying, the flesh was put to death in the flesh ? 
 S nee this text declares that Christ was put to death in the 
 flesh, it must be cone uded that this death, is the death of the 
 whole person of the God man; or that the God man died ac- 
 cording to the flesh. God as God could not have died ; other- 
 wise it would not have been necessary to have assumed hiim.an 
 nature Whereas God was made flesh, it ibllows that what- 
 ever happens to the flesh, the God head partakes of it; hence 
 it may properly be said, when the human nature died, God 
 died; because that nature died, which he assumed; and thus 
 also, it is said the Lord of glory was crucified.' 1 Cor. 2, 8. 
 Let this not be deemed ab-urd For even if one of the hn bs 
 of a man be woundf d, it is accurately said the man is v^ ounded ; 
 because the limb is a part of himself. Although, the lin'b be 
 a part of the man ; yet it cannot be said , that the man v^ as made 
 the lin.b. the same as the scriptures declare, that the W^ord. or 
 Filial Deity was made flesh, John 1, 14 ; which shew s that 
 the 'imb of a n an has not so close a connexirn with himself, 
 as God has with his flesh, i. e. with the humanity he assumed. 
 Now if even the wound that has been inflicted upon the man's 
 li 1 b may be said, to have been inflictcl upon the man him- 
 self, because of his connexion with his limb ; w ith how much 
 more propriety may it not be said, that God died according 
 to hi'; flesh, when he is not merely connected w ith it, as ihf? 
 man is with his limb ; but himself was made fiesh» 
 
i5>9 
 
 The subject thus viewed, there was a real, and perfect a- 
 tonemeiit macle tor all sin, without involving Cl-rist to suffer 
 eternally in duratic n ; hence the above objectKn vamsl c:-. 
 
 Objection 5. Temporal death vsas aKo a penalty o! the 
 law ; hence it Christ made an atoncn ci.t ior all sin, why is 
 this penalty not removed ? Death itigns o\ti all. 
 
 Answer That this death was inc uded in the penalty is 
 admitted. But through the at< nen ent v\ Chrisr it is con- 
 verted into a blessing ; bei ause by it v\e get (ieUveied ot sun- 
 dry evils which ure peiuliai t(. the bodj in its fallen state. 
 This obj. ction would be tormidable : piovidcd, c\r b< dies 
 should eternally remain the victims oi the giave. But Chiist 
 shall raise up the dead, and death be sv allowed up ii. Victciy. 
 1 Cor. 15, 54. Thus the glorious resurrection of the bf dy, 
 does more than remove this part of the penalty. 
 
 Ail afflictions are not to be considered punishments. There 
 is a difference bet\^ een a punishment, and a chastise mert. As 
 for instance: a man be conv cted ot a crime, and sentenced to 
 receive a few stripes : this would be a punisbnient. not sin ply 
 because of the transient pain ; but rather because of the judi- 
 cial sentence, which attaches a disgrace to the cu'prit. W here- 
 as a surgeon through tender conipassion to his patient, rright 
 amputate one of his morbid limbs, to preserve his systc m Iron^ 
 putrefaction. 'Notwithste.ndirg. this cpnaticn wculd be more 
 painful than the few stripes the culprit is adjudged to bear ; 
 yet it could not properly be called a penalty : beiause it ^s not 
 performed in consequence of a judicial sentence ; but it is in- 
 tended to result in a blessing A divine chastisf ment pro- 
 ceeds from fatherly love, but a punishment from a judicial 
 sentence. Hence sicknesses, all other afflictions, together 
 with death, because of the atonement of Chnst, become so ma- 
 nv blessings to the believer. Or, as the apostle expresses it 
 *We know that all things work together for good to them, that 
 love God, to them who are called according to his purpose,' 
 Rom. 8, 28. 
 
 Obj. 6. The scriptures declare that the blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven. If the death of 
 Christ atoned for all sins, why is this sin unpardonuble ? 
 
 Answer. The sins of all men in the universe, cannot be 
 equal to the atonement of .Tesus Christ : hence even exceeds 
 that which is commonly called the sin against the Holy Ghost, 
 * Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound ' Rom, 
 5, 20. If grace abounds more than sin, it is evident that it 
 cannot be exc eded bv the sin against the Holy Ghos . 
 
 Our blessed Savioui' bavin jr cast out a devil ; whereupoij 
 
 R 
 
some of the Pharisees paid — 'This fe'low do-h not cast out dev- 
 il-., jutbv tiL-i/iejub Mie prine of devils.' From Ciin;-t^ t.v. n 
 argument it appear!*, that the Phaiiseet ha i the most glaiii;g 
 evideii. e, thai Satan would not cast uut Satan. Malth. 12, 
 24. 26 AkhiiUgh, Chris; ejected ('evils b\ the agency o. itie 
 H ■ y Spir;^, and tae Pnarisees kn.>\ving it ; yet thuy most 
 maheioLisly represented tliis ag'-ncy «.f the Holy Spirit, that of 
 B ;lz -bub ttie p ince of .leviis. In this manner they comnht- 
 ted ilii- sin. Tn^s is the more evident fiom the description 
 given by St Mcirk, ch. §, 28 - 80— 'Verily I say unto you. all 
 sins shall be iorgiven unto the sons ol men, and blasphemies 
 wh^-rewith soever they shall blaspheme : but he that shall 
 b aspheme against the Holy Gnost hath never forgiveness, 
 bat IS m danger of eternal damnarion : because they said. He 
 hath an unclean Spirit.' Obst^rve : because the Pharisees 
 said he had an unclean Spirit, and by whom he cast out dev- 
 ils, he call-, this the blasphemy aiiamst the Hul} Ghost. Je- 
 sus in order to prove himself the Messiah, that the people 
 might believe in him^ he wrought miracles through the H< 'y 
 Soirit. But as the Pharisees representtd the oftice of the bo- 
 ly Ghost, by which only they could be led to believe in Christ, 
 that of Belzebub, they v jluntarily placed themselves into such 
 a situation that they coul 1 not be pardoned. Not that unbe- 
 lief is this sin, for many, who otjce were unbelievers embra- 
 ced the faith in Christ, and were eminent Chi-istians. As 
 this blasphemy consists in calling the operations of the H' iy 
 Spirit, those of the devil ; hence such as have committed it, have 
 rejected the only agency by which they could get to believe. 
 The office of the spirit is to revea! and iiloriiy Christ — 1 Cor. 
 12, 3— "2 Cor. 3, 6 8 — Avithout which no r an could ever get 
 to believe and be saved. Ko marve' therefoie, that such as 
 have by so horrid a b'asphemy rejected the Holy Ghost, can- 
 not be pardoned Men by conmitting othcf sins, do not so 
 dire-tly i-eject the agency of the Holy Spirit ; hence he may 
 eff 'ct repen'ance, a pardon, and salvation Some indeed ii Jiy 
 ge' lost, A ho never committed this sin, in cons-equ nee of their 
 impenit'^nce ; yet not because it was impossible lor them to 
 have be-n Siived. .« 
 
 St, M itthevv says, 'And whosoevrr speaketh a word a- 
 gainst th • S'>n of man, it sh .11 be foraiven him : but \Ahoso- 
 ever soeak' th against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be foriiven 
 hi "H, nether in this world, neither in tl-e \^orld to come.' eh; 
 32, .S2. What is to he understi^od by this id rid. and Iht 
 ton V/ to com ? M mv may understand by fhh ivxrld. the 
 present state, in which men now Jive^ and by tht ivortd to 
 
come, eternity after the day of judgment. It is admitted that 
 ill some to ^t->, thewurld to come b.giiiiifs et rnity aUei the 
 day ot judgment. But it cannot siyiiity this in tiie text, \^ liu h 
 I t'lave quoted The word ai^v sigiuties an age ot a Imoied 
 duration, as well as eternity alter the day of judgment. As 
 for instance in Mutth. 28, "/O, the word world evidently ul- 
 lu les to th'^ age of the gospel dispensation. This world, and 
 the world to come, was a Jewish phrase, and denoted tlie 
 aire before, and that a:ter the Me»siuh. Now if %\ e under- 
 stand this world, and the world to con.e, to relate to the a{.e3 
 before, and alter the Messiah, the conelusiun mustbe,theie 
 is no pardon for this sin. ne.ther under the old testan^ent dis- 
 pensaiion, which was then at its eve, nor under the new, 
 which was near at hand. 
 
 Su'h as suppose thut the phrase -the world to come,' in this 
 text aliudestothe state after the final judgn cnt, mustalst , and 
 necessarily conclude that sins mny then be lOrgiven ; because 
 the sin against ihe Ho'y Gnost is parti.-ulariy excepted, as 
 not to be forgiven. I no >^in at all should be forgiven in the 
 world to ''Ofne, it wou'd be use es> to ■ xeept thiS one sii as 
 unpardona^^le. He tbut excepts on<" sin as unpaidonahle in 
 th • world to com-', wishes to be understood that;.li other sins 
 may be pardoned. But who can b-.'iieve, that any sin shall 
 be pardoned a ter th* da} of judgn cnt ? Al! v\ho vseie iiot 
 p-.-eviously pardoned will bo puni-hed, and he that is punished 
 for a crime, is not forgiven. St. Mark says, 'But he that 
 shall bla.sph'me against the Hol\ Ghost hath never orgive- 
 ness, but is in danger o! eternal damnation.'' ch. g, 29 The 
 word cvoxoi, which is translated danger, a'so signifies to be 
 subject to, or deserving o', or gnilty oi. Now he that is sub- 
 jc'zt to. or deserves eternal damnation, is certainly in danger of it. 
 If the b'asphemer against the Holy Ghost sha'l have no torgive- 
 ne~s, neitht r in this wi rid. nor in the world to come, but is 
 in dang' r of eternal damnation ; and if the world to come 
 meant the state after th< day oi judgment, how could any one 
 be in danger ot eternal damnation ? A 'ter the judgement no 
 one will be in dansier of, but all unb< lieveis then, wi'l expi ri- 
 en -e et«*rn»' damnat'on To be in danger of meeting with a 
 iflisTortune, and to experience it is not the same. Or to be 
 subject to, and really to experience eternal damnation is not 
 the same. A man may be in danger, and yet escape ; and 
 so may a culprit be subject to be executed, and yet, by som.e 
 means escape. 
 
 Th"re were sundry sins under the Mosaic di«ppn«:ation, for 
 which the offender could not be pardoned. See ISuin. 15, §@ 
 
132 
 
 gl. eh. 35, SI. Lev. 20, 10. 1 Sam. 2, 25. But it appears 
 there is only one sm under the gospel, that is unpardonable* 
 As the unpardonable sins under ihe law, were only punished 
 in the b> ly of the otfender, mercy might be extended to the 
 soul. The unpardonable sin under the gospel dispensation 
 must a.so subject the oftender to a bodily punishment, which 
 he cann Jt escipe ; not withstand ;ng his soul may be saved, be- 
 cause he is only in danger of eternal damnation. The text 
 thus viewed the blasphemer against the Holy Ghost had no 
 pai'di)n uniier the Mosaic dispensation, nor under the gospel, 
 but met with an awful bodily pun'.shment, and withal was in 
 danijer of eternal •Umnation. The majority of the Jews re- 
 jected Jesus ; n )twithstanding the miracles he wrought ; hence 
 the undeniable testimonies of his Messiahship. But did they 
 not meet with the most awful, temporal judgments ? Let 
 this be verified by the tragical scenes of the destruction of Je- 
 rusalem. Si. Paul delivered Hymenius and Alexander unto 
 Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. 1 Tim 1, 20. 
 See Heb. 10, 26 - 31. As the world to come in this text im- 
 plies the dispensation of the gospel, it is evident the blasphe- 
 mer against the Holy Ghost is punished already before the 
 day of judgment ; hence he must receive bodily punishments ; 
 and though he is in danger of eternal damnation ; yet is he 
 not beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ v\ith re- 
 spect to the eternal state, because one, who only is in danger^ 
 j33ay yet escape. Nevertheless his escape may be difficult. 
 
 JMPROVEMEHT. 
 
 What dishonouring views many entertain with respect to 
 ihe moral law of God ! They imagine, if they do as much 
 towards its fulfilment as their corrupted nature allows them, 
 that God will forgive their former crimes. But as they view 
 the law according to their sinful imagination, they conceive 
 their supposed good endeavours are sufficient. This is the 
 reason, why the atonement of Jesus is so little valued ; ^^lly 
 his amazing love in laying down his Hie for the guilty meets 
 fvith so few returns of gratitude. 
 
 JMany of those who deny that Christ made an atonement, 
 consider sins, as natural actions, from ^^hich arise nothing 
 but natural consequences. Hence imagine if the sinner only 
 repents, and turns from his evil ways, the consequences v> ill 
 .cease, 3,i)(i all he amended. They suppose that God treats 
 
1S3 
 
 the sinner like a physician his patient — the physician is not of- 
 fended at his sickness, but gives him medicine, and picsciip- 
 lions of his regimen ; and if lie use the raedicuie as prescribed 
 he may recover ; but otherwise he must die i'lius God is 
 not offended at a man's transgressions, but views him v\ ith ten- 
 der compassion, and devises means to change his mind ; and 
 if he obe\ s he may become happy, but otherwise he must re- 
 main miserable. 
 
 This supposition is true in part, as it is evident that sin pro- 
 duces such natural eftVcts as render the sinner miserable., e\ en 
 if no other punishment should be inflicted upon him ; yet that 
 no other consequence should fallow sin, is erroneous. 
 
 Let us suppose that a man accidently threw a tile from a 
 building, and by it killed another one. This action uould on- 
 ly be attended by natural consequences, i. e. the death ol the 
 man, the widowhood of his wile, and the orphanage ol his 
 children. But suppose the tile to have been thrown with a 
 malicious design to kill, the natural consequences would be 
 the same, but would not also other consequences foUou ? 
 The man that threw the tile with this design, would be view- 
 ed as a murderer ; the consequence of this act vsoiJd be ot a 
 moral nature ; for he would be adjudged to sufter a legal pe- 
 nalty. As the law of God is a rule of moral rectitude, those 
 that transgress it, must meet with moral consequences, i. e. 
 such punishments as are to be inflicted by a legal sentence. 
 
 If sinners were not subject to suffer a penalty pronounced 
 by a divine judgment, and if the natural consequences ol sin 
 were the only punishment, it would be useless for the penitent, 
 when he prays for a new heart ; also to pray for the forgive- 
 ness of his sins. A man who by his intemperance has disea- 
 sed his body, does not beg the physician for pardon, but sim- 
 ply for his advice, that he might recover his health. Would 
 it not be absurd to say, because the physician cured his patient, 
 that therefore he had forgiven his sins ? If God only treated 
 the sinner, like a physician his patient, it could not with any 
 propriety be said that he pardons crimes. David the king of 
 Israel, did not merely beseech the Lord to create in him a 
 clean heart ; but also, to blot out all his iniquities. Ps. 51, 9- 
 12. The latter he calls the forgiveness of transgression, the 
 sin covered, and the iniquity not imputed. Ps §2, 1, 2. 
 
 There are sundry words in the scriptures, which represent 
 a punishment due to sin originating from a judinal sentence* 
 In the old testament the word D{J»{<, and HOtJ'N signifies 
 a trespass, which deserves God's \\ rath and punisnment. See 
 ^en. 26, 10. % Chfon, 28, 18. Hence this word is also ap- 
 
134 
 
 plied to a sacrifice, by which guilt is removed. See 1 Sam. 
 Q. % i. L'^v. 7, 1, 2. In the new testament we iiave ipoxoi^ 
 an I vrtoSfcxoj. The ibi raer is used by St. James eh 2, 10 — 
 'F)!" whosoever shall keep the wh >le law, and yet uttend in 
 one point, he is guiity of all/ This plainly indicates that the 
 transgressor is under a legal sentence. The latter occuis in 
 Rjm 3, 19 — 'that all the world may become guilty wnobixog) 
 before God.' Wliich the apostle ch. 5 16, calls the juugmcnt 
 unto condemnation Judgment and condemnation are ioren- 
 sick tprm^:, and vrfoSixoj properly si<^nifies one arraigned, or 
 impleaded -in judgment. 
 
 A.S all men are guilty, hence they are all under condemna- 
 tion ; and ha 1 not Oirist be.'ome a sacrifice forth( ir sins, they 
 could never be a-quitted. But what a nazing Uao uas mani- 
 fested by Jesus C iirist in this respect ! O my soul ! love hinw 
 who first loved thee ! 
 
 FRAGMENT IV. 
 
 f^ IS shewn that the sinnsr is justified by the imputation of God's righteous* 
 nesd ; hence not by an implanted gvace. 
 
 When we speak of the righteousness of God, we mean a 
 righteousness which is distinct from that of the law. 'F-t 
 Moses describeth the righteousness which is oi the lav\ . that 
 the man which doeth th^^se things shall live by them.' Rem, 
 10, S. The law is a ru e of righteousness, hence if a man 
 would keep it, he would be righte<>us ; and thus he would be 
 justified by the righteousness of the law. And as the obedi- 
 ence to the law would be a man's own act, it is therefore, also 
 called his own righteousness. 
 
 Bat we read that the 'righteousness of God without the law 
 is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets ; 
 even the righteousn 'ss of God, ivhich in by faith of Jesus 
 C'irist unto all, and upon ail them that believe, &c.' Rom. 
 8. 21, 22 God is righteous from eternity, and righteousness 
 is essential to his character. But he being righteousness in the 
 original, would n )t bi^ a sufficient ground to justify a sinner ; 
 it would rather result in his condemnation ; lor rightcousncis 
 an 1 guilt are far op-i^site to eaeh other. The apostle snith 
 'Butof hiin are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God ji> made uoto 
 
135 
 
 us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and re- 
 dcniption.' 1 Cor. i, SO Christ beiii^ n ade unto us wis. 
 do , and righteousnts^, &c. shews that he v^as not always 
 from eternity our nisdini, and rightiousmss ; &c. because 
 that which is from eternity has no c'dniirinctment ; hence can. 
 not bo made in the progress ot tinic. In the lulness ot time 
 the Si)n of God was made flesh, put him^el! under the law ; 
 aud by his obedi nee wrought oui a righteousness. He be- 
 ing J.^hovah, hence supreme, eternal righteousness in the self- 
 original, his obedience to 'he lav\ could not be to adorn, and 
 justify his own character, either in the sight of his F.ither, or 
 in that of holy angels : for what act ol obedience can justify 
 self original righteousness? Htnce as his obedience to the 
 law was not necessary to justify himsel!, it is evident that it 
 was rendered to justifj' sinners. Whereas God prepared 
 Ciirist as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and he being 
 G » 1 himself, and as his meritorious obeditnce in his incarnate 
 state procured a righteousness ; it is therefore, properly called 
 God's own righteo(isne<HS The prophet speaks of this righte- 
 Gusness — 'In his days Judah shall be saved, and Isiael shall 
 dwell sa'ely ; and this is his name vs hereby he shall be cal- 
 led, THK LoauouR RIG HTEou s^ Ess,' J rem. 23,6. That 
 this has an allusion to Christ as a Saviour, is evident from the 
 preceding verse: — 'Behold, the days come, saith the I^ord, 
 that I wi'l raise unto David a righteous Bianch, and a King 
 shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment in the 
 earh.' 
 
 The doctrine of imputation is founded in the scriptures, as 
 well as in the common affairs of life. One man's deeds, 
 whether they be g>od, or evil may be impu ed to another: 
 provided he consents to the same ; and when they are impu- 
 ted they are considered as if they w ere his own. St. Paul 
 exhorts Timothy *not to be a p irtuker of other men's sins,' 
 1 Ti n. 5, 22. This may be done through official negligence, 
 improper silence, and advice. Even the crimes of those, that 
 lived in former ages may be imputed to succeding generations. 
 Our Saviour sa3's *l send unto you prophets, and wise riien, 
 and scribes : and some of them ye shall kill and crucify ; and 
 507716 ol them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and per- 
 secute them from city to city : that upon you may come all 
 the righti ous b'ood shed upon the earth, from the blood 
 of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias son of Bara- 
 chias, whom ve slew between the temple and the altar/ 
 Matth. 23, 84, 35. Now Abel, and Cain who murdered 
 him^ lived many centui'ies before the Jews, whom Christ ad^. 
 
136 
 
 dressed ; yet he decUred that Cain^s sin should come apon 
 them. Why so ? Ans. The Jews manifested Cain's mind, 
 and works ; instead" of abhorring his example, they repre- 
 sented his person in 'their bloody conduct towards Christ, and 
 many others oi the holy martyrs. In this manner they be- 
 came partakers ot the first murder that ever was committed. 
 
 In like manner another's good deeds may be imputed. God 
 shews mercy unto thousands of them that love him, and keep 
 his commandments. Exod 20, 6 — comp. ch. 34, 7. Thus 
 the laudable deeds of ancestors may be imputed to their pos- 
 terity. This is done, when their posterity imitate them in 
 the same mind, by which they get into connexion with their 
 deeds ; and thus enjoy more ample blessings than they could 
 otherwise expect. Thus we read that the righteous deed of 
 Phinehas was imputed to his seed after him. ISum. 25, 7- 
 18— comp. Ps. 106, 30, 31. 
 
 Imputation frequently takes place in the common affairs of 
 Jile. As for instance : another's wealth, valour, and wisdom 
 may be imputed. I may have an other's wealth made my 
 own by an heirship — when vaiient heroes in the field of bat- 
 tle obtain the victory over their enemies, it is imputed to their 
 governments — the wise conduct of guardians is considered the 
 same as if it were that of the orphans. 
 
 As it is evident that the deeds of another person, whether 
 they be good, or evil may be imputed to us, it is not incon- 
 sistent to conclude that the meritorious obedience of Christ 
 may also be imputed to us. But this imputation takes place, 
 not by an imitation of Christ ; but by faith. 'For what saith 
 the scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it was counted 
 to him for righteousness.' Rom. 4, 3. In this respect the 
 imputation of Christ's, righteousness is somewhat different 
 from the imputation of other men's acts. 
 
 As Abraham believed God, it is evident that he believed 
 the promise made to him with respect to the Messiah ; thus 
 the object of his faith was counted to him for righteousn^•ss. 
 Again — v. 23 and 24 the apostle shews, that not only Abra- 
 ham was justified by an act of imputation, but that we also 
 may be justified in the same manner. — ^Now it was not writ- 
 ten for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him ; but for us 
 also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that 
 raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.' 
 
 This imputation takes place by faith, not because faith is an 
 amiable disposition of the mind, or an equivalent for the grace 
 that is given ; but because it is a condition of apprehension. 
 Faith has Jesus Christ for its object. In so far as it has a re- 
 
137 
 
 lation to him as its object, in so far, by it righteousfless is im- 
 puted. Faitii dpprelieiids Christ, hence by it ins lightcou&ness 
 IS iiiiputed. As !itt!e as the servant's petition, who owed bis 
 king ten thousand talents merited the remission oi his debt — 
 Math. IB. 2-i 27 ; so I ttle faith merits the ri«hteousness w bich 
 is imputed by it. Neither was the servant's ready consent to 
 accept this pardon, a meritorious cause thereof ; alihough w iih- 
 out it he could not have been a partaker of the pardon. ]So 
 deed can ju-itly b* imputed to another one, without his con- 
 sent ; nor can a isjift be possessed by another one, exce[)t it be 
 received ; yet the consent does not merit the deed, nor the. 
 mere receiving-, the oftered gift. By *aith we consent t( . and 
 receive the meritorious obedience of Christ. An unbehever 
 cannot be saved, notwi hstiinding he is ransomed by Chris', 
 an I invited to embrace him ; because he rejects the righteous- 
 ness, which would otherwise be imputei] to him — 'He that be- 
 lieveth not shall be datnned.' Mark 16. 16. As laith, in ^^o 
 far as it respects our justification, is a mere conditi( n o* tbe 
 imputation of Christ's righteousness, and that being perfect ; 
 for as much, as it is that ot God manifested in the tlesh we 
 are justified by, and clothed with a righteousness, so peifect, 
 an I beautiful, that the heaven'y Father can find no blemish. 
 
 In a social connexion, the virtues, or crimes of an' ther 
 may be imputed. Or to the members of a body, the pioptr- 
 tif'S of the principa' may be attributed. Christ is the head, 
 ani his church the body. Eph. 1, 22, 28. 'For we are t' em- 
 bers of his body, of his flesh, and of his b»>nes.' eh. 5. W. 
 T ms wt^ see, that ail the members are connected with C/h-isfc 
 their head. All the wisdom, and erudition in the head of a 
 man are ascribed to his whole body For instance we say, 
 this is a learned man ; a'though, we know that his hand's, 
 feet, and other members ate not the seat of his erudition as 
 th.it is in the head ; yet the connexion of all the meml>e s 
 with the head, causes that they are viewed together a? one, 
 and the properties of the principal i. e. 'he head ascribed to all 
 of them. All believers are connected with Christ, and \' ith 
 him constitute a moral, social person ; hence in him they are 
 viewed bv the Father, as a perfect man, rit hte< us and spotless. 
 Or, as the apost e expresses it — 'Till we all come in the unity 
 of the faith, and of tbe knowledge of the Son of God, unto a 
 pf^r^ect man, unto the measure of the stature of tbe li'nes of 
 Christ ' Eph. 4. IS Thu- it may easily be understood hovv 
 the perfect righteou-ness ot God is imputed by faith, and how 
 we are airayed with the garment of saHat'on 
 
 The sinner is justified by the imputation oi God's? righteous-^ 
 
 S 
 
138 
 
 ne&s. It so, he is not justified by any grace that the Holy 
 Sp'iiit may implant in the lieart to create it aneu ; l>ecause it is 
 a'osurd to suppose that the meritorious deeds of anoiher should 
 be implanted. T.iey only may be imputed. Whatever i^ im- 
 puted, does not take place in, but out oi the pe.son to whom it 
 is imputed The sumer is not justiiied by an infusiin ot the 
 gifts of the Holy Sj)irit, to ci¥eet the renovation ol the heart. 
 Let thi- be clearly understviod. The question is not, whether 
 tile iijiy Sp>;it in uses his gifts to renovate the heart, as this is 
 reaiily admitted ; bat whether by this infusion, and renovaticm 
 the sinner gets justified ? That a sinner is not justified by this 
 impiaiitcd grac^, is evident from the following rt-asons : 
 
 i G ) 1 is t'le jadg^" of a'l men ; hence he ju 'ges all either as 
 just, or unjust. He is omniscient ; hence can never be mis- 
 taken in his jadgin.mt. He is the fountain of truth; hence he 
 cann )i judge a thing to be what it is not. The grace that is 
 impUniel in the heart is resisted by the flesh, Tor the flesh 
 lustr.th against the Spirit. &c. Gal 5,17; and sin even easily 
 besets tiie saints, Heb. 12, 1. W hi!>t in a saint the Spirit, and 
 the fl^sh are at war with each other, the former has not yet 
 gained the victory over the latter; and thus the righteousness 
 in the heart is very imperfect. Now to sup})ose that God 
 should ju Ig^ this implanted grace, (which being resisted by 
 the tiesh does not work a perfect righteousness,) as perfect, 
 would be to suppose that he either was mistaken in his judg- 
 ment, or contrary to his veracity wou'd account that which 
 was s'lurious as genuine. To suppose either, would be absurd. 
 As G )d cannot judge such an imperfect work as perfect, the 
 ini'used grace cannot possibly be the cause of a sinnei-'s justifica- 
 tion. But the righteousness which Christ wrought out is per- 
 fect ; hence if that be imputed to the sinner by faith, he is cloth- 
 ed with a righteousness that is all-periect. 
 
 2» The apo-^tle argues 'that a man is justified by faith with- 
 out the deeds of the law.' Rom. 3, 28 — comp. Eph. 2. 8, 9. 
 As the-^e texts exclude all legal works in the aiticle of our jus- 
 tifi "ation, it follows that the implanted grace must be equidl}' 
 excluded. When the blf^ssed Spirit produces meekness, hu- 
 mility, love, &c. in the heart, they are works of the law. They 
 are pronerly called the works of the law, because it is the rule 
 asrreea^de to which they are performed. All those good graces 
 wrou2:ht by the Spirit,, agree with the law ; if they did not, 
 they would be wronff ; hence they are properly the work- of 
 the law. We are not justified by the works of the law, and 
 as (hose infused srraecs are works of the law, it is evident that 
 we arc not justified by such a gracious infusion. 
 
139 
 
 3. A siniiRr is not only under condemnation, but sin also,i.!9 
 Its natural consequenres renders hint extreme.}' n-iMiable.- 
 As little a> tiro thai iS nourishe<l by luel, can exti^gui^h ilseitj 
 s) litt;e the sinner by his own abiliiy, can bubdue his sinlu! de- 
 sires. To quench tlie fire lequires a diltereni elemtnt ; aiid 
 to subdu'^ so, anti arrest its baneiul eft'i-cts requires the Kt!y 
 SjDirit. H.' is the medicine tu cure this the wur^t oi ail n.ahi- 
 dies, which otherwise is incurable. Tt* giant and aj ply (his 
 medicine, to restrain, and finally to eradicate this distusc, is 
 the mi)*t invaluable ot'all blessings. But the man who is nofc 
 ju^titi'^d, is un ler the curse ; hence he catmot be blessed, as it 
 would be absurd to suppose a man at the sane time, and in 
 the same re'ation, to be both blessed and cursed. Heme, as 
 this implanted grace of the Si)iiit is an invaluable blessii'g ; 
 and it' it should be granted to an unjustified man, who as such 
 is cursed, it wou'd follow, tiiat he was both blessed and cur- 
 s^'d, which would be self-contradictory. Thus it is evident, 
 that this inward grace is not bestowed u})on an unjustihed 
 man. As he is an enemy to God, he must first be reconciled. 
 
 But to this it might be objected, that the Holy Spirit must 
 operate on a sinner by th' gospel-ministry, even beiore he 
 can believe, and thus be justified. 1 answer, although the 
 Spirit operates on a sinner by the gospel-ministry ; yet not to 
 infuse his graces, nor create his heart anew ; but only to in- 
 duce him to believe, and thus be reconciled to God ; and that 
 hence, he may be m such a relation, as to receive this inward 
 blessing. There is a diiYerence between offering an enemy 
 proposals of reconciliation, and granting him the blessings of 
 citizen-ship. Are not the ministers ol the gospel ambassadors 
 for Christ, in his stead to beseech sinners to be r«con"i'ed to 
 God r Even before the offer of reconciliation could be made 
 by the gospel-ministry, the redemption of Christ, by which all 
 sinners have a right to be justified, is presupposed. Sinners 
 must first embrace this right, and become triends to God, be- 
 fore this inward blessina: ""an be granted. 
 
 Where the Holy Ghost has implanted his graces in the 
 heart, there must be life and salvatiori. 'The fruit of the Spir- 
 it is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, 
 faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.' 
 Gal. 5, 22. 23. Now whi^n the Spirit in the heart has pro- 
 duced those blessed fruits, against which there is no ]a.v< , there 
 must already be a source of felicity, and the anticipation ol the 
 sweets in the regions o*" fflory. If we have those graces of 
 the Spirit, against which thi-re is no law, there can be no 
 eondenination ; and where there is no condemnation^ there 
 
140 
 
 must be life and salvation. Where the fruits of the Spirit are, 
 there is also, the kingilorn of God ; and that is 'righteousness, 
 and peace, and joy in the H »ly Ghost.' Rom. 14, 17. As 
 those in used graces of the Spirit, constitute the very essence 
 of )ur felicity : it is hence impossible for any one thereby to be 
 justified. Because if we were saved by this implanted grace, 
 it would be the same as to say, we must be saved that we 
 might be saved ; because this infused grace is the life of all 
 ou- j:)ys : for without it, the climes of glory would iifford us 
 n > fcficity. Those blessed fruits of the Spirit, enshrined in 
 the heait, are an immortal souice of bliss, and consolation ; 
 so that tne soul walks with God, in sweet communion ; not- 
 withstanding it is assailed by many temptations, and afflicted 
 by ouiward tribulations. As it wctuid be absurd to say, that 
 we must be saved to be saved, it is evident that no sinner can 
 be justified by the implanted giace of the Spirit. Hence the 
 sinner must be justified by having the righteousness ot Christ 
 imputed to him by faith, and then as a blessed consequence, 
 the Spi it mfuses his graces into the heart, which are lite, and 
 salvation. 
 
 4. The apostle says 'Being justified freely by his grace 
 through the redemption that is in Chiist Jesus.' Ron . S. 24, 
 In the original we have fiixatou^fi/ot gtopjav t*; aojirou xo-^'-^- 
 Ato^sar which is used as an adverb, is properly the accusative 
 of Sw^c-tt, which signifies a donation ; hence the obvious st n^'C 
 is, that we are justifii d by way of donation. The word xo-^is 
 which is trans'ated Grfce, alludes to a favour which implies 
 forgiveness. Thus the word is used in other texts, as for in- 
 st nice : 'To whom ye forgive any thins:, I forgive also : &c.' 
 In the original — 'siiSe it. xa^t^taSt. 2 Cor 2, 10 'And \\ hen 
 th''y had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave (ijia^Kjato) both,' 
 Luke 7, 42. Having forgiven you all trespasses.' In the o- 
 
 ri^?inal — ;j;agiflra/*ffOj v/xiv viavta, tfa rtapartttdftara. Col. 2, 13, 
 
 As this word signifies the favour or gra e of forgiveness, and 
 as the apo-.tle says that by it we are justified freely, or by 
 w^ay of donation, it is evident that we are not justified by an 
 infused grace, to create our hearts anevf. But had the apos- 
 tle intended to convey the idea, that God in'used his graces 
 into our hearts, by \> hich we might be justified, his phrase- 
 ology would have been different. He v\ou!d not have said, 
 that we are justified by God's grace freely ; but that God hisd 
 put his Spirit into our hearts, by which we should be justified. 
 The apostle to the Ephesians, eh 2. 4, 5 declares— ' But 
 iGod who -s rich in mercy, for his great love \a herev ilh he lo- 
 '^'^ed U5^ even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us 
 
141 
 
 together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved ) This shews 
 thai whilst a e were dead in sin, the rich mere , and the great 
 lovf of God preceded ; and is hence the cause, why his Spir- 
 it has quickened us. 
 
 Again — 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
 being made a curse for us : for h is wiitteu, Cursed is eveiy 
 one that hangeth on a tree : that the blessing of Abraham 
 might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we 
 might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith,' Gal. 
 8, 13, 14. How plainly this text indicaies that the promise 
 o'the Spirit is to be received by fath. By faith we are justi- 
 fied, and by faith we receive the promise of the Spirit ; hence 
 we are justified, before we receive the implanted gifts ol the 
 Spirit. See also Gal. 4, 6. 
 
 5 It has already been shewn that the grace infused into the 
 heart, is yet imperfect, it being resisted by the flesh ; hence 
 as it only gradua-ly subdues the flesh, so it also increases. But 
 as the justification of a sinner consists in an act oi pardon, it 
 cannot be increased ; because not only one, but all sins are 
 pardoned : for if one should be excepted, there would be a 
 ground for confjemnation ; if so, there could be no justification. 
 That justifi ation is not a gradual work, is also evident from 
 Sundry examples. I shall only mention two : 
 
 1 The publican. He prayed in the temple 'God be mer- 
 ciful to me a sinner' ; and we areiniormed, that he went dov n 
 justified to h's h juse rather than the Pharisee. Thus he was 
 immediately justified ; hence not by an infused grace, to cre- 
 ate the heart anew. It requires much time, before the new 
 man scets the ascendency over the flesh. The publican pray- 
 ed 'Gjd be merciful to me a sinner/ He must either have 
 believed that his prayer would be granted, or that it wou'd 
 not. Did he not believe it, how then came it to pass that he 
 was justified ? It is absurd to say, that an unbeliever's pray- 
 er will bv- granted. See James ch. 1, 6, 7. But did the pub- 
 liean believe that his prayer would be granted, it is hence evi- 
 dent that he was justified by the imputation of God's right- 
 eousness. 
 
 2. The malefactor on the cross When he was suspended 
 by the side of our blessed Saviour, he said M ord remember 
 me when thou comest into thy kingdom.' By this he expres- 
 sed his faith in Christ. Though he saw Christ in a dying 
 state, yet did he be'ieve that he was able to save ; hence he 
 must have anticipated his resurrection. The reply of our Sa- 
 viour was 'Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with 
 !i>e in paradise.' Luke 28, 42, 43. Thus as the malefactor 
 
142 
 
 (being confined to the gibbet) was in the lowest state of igno- 
 miny, and on the verge of eternal destmction ; and yet irom 
 thence, that same day was exalted into paradise, he must im- 
 mediately have been justified ; hen.*e not by the implanted 
 graces, but by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Al- 
 though it cannot be denied, but what the inward grace imme- 
 diately succeeded this act ot" pardon, and commenced its bles- 
 sed operations ; yet as that is never so perfect in this life, that 
 G ) t can find no fault in it, it cannot be a sufficient ground of 
 the justification of a siuner» 
 
 IMPROVEMENT. 
 
 Justification is a forens'ck term, and signifies the acquittal 
 of a person that is impleaded in judgment. It may either im- 
 ply a person that is acquitted, because he proved himself inno- 
 cent of the charge ; or he may be guilty, and yet, treated as if 
 he were innocent. Thus in the scriptures : — 'He that justifi- 
 eth the wicked, and he that con Icmneth the just, even they 
 both are abomination to the Lord.' Prov. 17, 15. 'Woe un- 
 to them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength 
 to mingle strong drink : which justify the wicked for reward, 
 and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him !* 
 Isa. 5. 22, 2S. Comp. E\od. 28, 7. Deut. 25, 1 
 
 All men are impleaded in the divine judgment, declared 
 guilty ; and are under condemnation — for 'all the work! is 
 guilty before G>d — Rom. 3, If^ — and 'judgment tt>a.v by one 
 to condemnation — ch. 5, 16. When God justifies a p«mitent 
 sinner, hr; absolves him from his sentence of condemnation : 
 thus he flees from the wrath to come ; or, he escapi s the final 
 execution of this sentence on the great day of judgment. 
 Notwithstanding, to justify a person in a temporal tribunal, 
 signifies to acquit him of the crime with which he had been 
 charged : and in this respect the justification in the divine 
 judgment is the same ; yet the latter includes something more, 
 which is superlatively benign, and glorious. When in a tem- 
 poral tribunal, the culprit is even acquitted, and hence under 
 no dread of punishment ; yet he may afterwards be reproach- 
 ed, an indelible disgrace remains affixed to his character ; 
 hen'e enjoys no moral felicity. But when God justifies the 
 guiltv, he does not simply absolve him from the sentence of 
 condemnation ; so that he needs not to fear any future pun- 
 ishments ; but he also, removes every disgrace^ which would 
 
14^ 
 
 •thenvise indelibly be fixed upon his character, in consequence 
 of his tormer Hansen ssions. Ihiis ihe sciipimet^ oecliiic — 
 'Blesseii arc they whose iniquities are tti^ivti), anciwl^csc 
 sins are covered.' Rom. 4, 7 — ccnp. Ps. i2, 1, 2. 'As;ar 
 as the east is liom the west, 60 iar hath he len ovecl oui tians- 
 gressions trom us.' Ps. 108, 12. ISow il cur siiis aie not 
 only pardoned, but also covered, and as far rtmoved Inn us 
 as the east is trom the west, nc disgiace lai bt aitr>buteo tt us 
 on their aeeount : lor what is eovi red, and lar ren cvtd, is cut 
 of sight. Again — 'Who shall lay an} thing to the charge of 
 God's elect ? It is God that jubtiiieth : v\ ho is he that con- 
 demneth ? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen a- 
 gain. who is even at the right hand ot God, who also niaketh 
 intercession for us.' R( m. 8^ Sy. §4. 
 
 The ground upon which the siiiner is justified, is the meri- 
 torious obedience of Jesus Christ. It was uninterrupted and 
 perfect. It being imputed to the sinner by laith, he is not on- 
 ly acquitted from the sentence of condemnation, but is also 
 viewed as if he never had been guity. Ii as it 1 as already 
 been shewn the deeds of another person may be in;puted to 
 us, we must then be viewed as innocent, when Christ's right- 
 eousness is imputed. It is inspossible natuia iy to vitw sin, 
 as if it never had been committed ; hence it can only morally 
 be considered, as if we never had committed it, when Christ's 
 righteousness is imputed. Although sin yet remains in us, 
 and its natural consequences may only measurably be arrested 
 in their progress by the influence of the Holy Spirit ; yet all 
 the moi-al consequences cease, i. e. there is no condemnation, 
 no disgrace attached to our persons ; we are viewed as inno- 
 cent ; and are privileged to associate with the innumerable 
 hosts of holy angels. 
 
 Since we are justified by the imputation of Christ's right- 
 eousness, it requires no longer time to complete it than is ne- 
 cessary to believe. It must therefore be erroneous to spend 
 much time, in seeking to be good, or preparing ourselves 
 with legal endeavours, before we dare venture to apprehend 
 Christ by faith. 
 
 What multitudes of people, who for a number of years have 
 been seeking salvation by the most sincere endeavours, and 
 yet, have not obtained it ! What may be the reason thereof? 
 Is it because God has not received a sufficient recompense by 
 their good works ; so that they must perform more, to render 
 themselves acceptable ? No. As little as a corrupted tree can 
 produce good fruits, so little they as unjustified sinners, can 
 do such works, and even if they could, their former transgres. 
 
144 
 
 sions could not thereby be obliterated* Is it because God is 
 not always rea.iy, when the gospel is preached to grant tins 
 salvation ; so that they must wait lor a certain time, lor him 
 to make the means eft'ectual ? No. Whenever the gospel is 
 preached to sinners, God is ready to save, to-day is the ap- 
 pointed time : tor 'Today if ye will hear his voice, haiden 
 not your hearts' — Heb. 4, 7. The apostle saith 'the goFpel 
 of Christ is the power o God unto salvation to every one lliat 
 believeth.' Rom. 1 16. He does not. say that the gosptl 
 will be made, but that it is the power of God unto salvation ; 
 hence his blessed S )iiit always, and inseparably accompanies 
 it ; so that there is no deficiency to be supplied m it. See Isa. 
 5, 1-4, The word ot faith is nigh the sinner, it is even in 
 his mouth, and in his heart. Rom. 10, 8. How can it be 
 brought any nearer ? The reason why such have not obtain- 
 ed salvation, is because they imagine they must become new 
 creatures ; or that they must have the fruits of the Spirit, before 
 they can be entitled to believe in Christ; or they cannot con- 
 ceive that this salvation is within more than their reach. 
 
 The renewa', or sanctification of the h-^art never precedes, 
 but aUvays, and infallibly succeeds justification. 1st, The Ho« 
 ly Ghost creates faith by the hearing of the gospel, by \^h.ch 
 we apprehend the righteousness of Christ. 2d, By thij- our 
 persons are justified. 3d, Because we are justified the Spirit 
 renews our hearts. And 4ih, Because we are in a stale of 
 renovation, our hearts get filled with the good graces of the 
 Siiiilt ; or we have such spiritual abilities to do good works* 
 
 Whf'n T say, the sinner is saved \^ ithout the renovation of 
 the heart, I mean he is saved from the curse of the law. that 
 every moral obstiuction is removed ; so that the Spirit may 
 commence his sanctifying operations : but 1 do not n can, 
 that this renovatif-n is not necessary to save him from his na- 
 tural, sinful corruptions. We are not only under the cujse of 
 the law, hence obnoxious to future legal punishments ; but sin 
 is also attended with such natural consequences, which len. 
 der us miserable ; therefore this renovation becomes indis- 
 pensably necessary, to arrest them in their pernicious progiess. 
 
 When I say, the implanted graces, or fruits of the Sprit 
 are a source of felicity, the blissful anticipation of the sweets 
 in the regions of g'ory, I do not wish to be understood, as if 
 the renovation of our nature was not previously necessary ; 
 but I mean that those fruits of the Spirit are not the renova- 
 tion itself ; but the blessed consequences thereof There is a 
 dififercnee between the renewal itself, and tho=e blessed fruits 
 produced by it» In the exercise of those graces, there ap- 
 
145 
 
 pears to be a happiness. The apostle says *Tt is more b1es«;ed 
 to give than lO receive.' Aets 20,255. To g ve, is an act .f 
 g >.Mlness. in which aS the ap stlc say;:, there is a blessedness. 
 God is tile greatest of all benefactoi s, and he takes delight in 
 diti'using his gi-odness: tor 'the eartli is tuU oi the goodness of 
 tlie Lord.' Ps. 33, 5. The man w ho as a Christian exci ci^es 
 goofiness, faintly imitates God, in which there is a gre.t bl s- 
 sedness. What are all the good uorks of a Christian, but a 
 d< light to hin> ? St Paul delighted in the law of God after 
 the inwanl man, Rom. 7,22. Whatever is a dilight to a 
 man, also becomes a motive for persevering in t. No mar- 
 vel therefore, that the Christian is busy in domg all he good 
 he can, \\ hen he finds in i; a great le^iciiy. 
 
 Although the renovation of the heait succeeds justification ; 
 nevertheless ue must perpetually be kept by faith ; because 
 our renovation in this lite remaiiis imp rtect, it being assailed 
 b^ the flesh, the world, ani! Satan. Not only he, tha; is ^et 
 unjust, is to be justified by laith ; but he a so, who is already- 
 justified must live by faith — *th(; just shall live by faith.' Gal» 
 3, 11. Thus because the believer is tViquently captivated 
 by the flesh, that he sins, he cannot remain just, without V\e 
 intercession of Jesus Christ. * My little children, these things 
 wrte I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, .ve 
 have an advocate with the Father. Jesus Christ the righteous.* 
 1 John 2, I. From this text we learn that we have not on- 
 ly a pardon for our sins, when we get juStifiid ; but also, be- 
 cause we are constantly assailed by ou spiritual enemies, and 
 frequently overcome, we must avail ourselves of the interces- 
 sion of Christ, who lives for ever; and whose righteousness 
 is our perpetual ornament. 
 
 Although the renovation of the heart be necessary ; yet as 
 we are justified by, imd. eonstant'y I ve by faith ; and be- 
 cause of this justification, God commences this blessed work, 
 it is evident that faith is the on'y condition of our salvation : 
 for he that holds i'ast to the condition, will also find the b'es_ 
 sed consequences, O my soul ! do not imagine because God 
 h IS fommenced the work of renovation in thee, that thou shult 
 for the sake o! the same, be able to stand in his judgment ; 
 but give all sjl >ry to Jesus, thy mediator ; constantly fold 
 fas^ to his righteousness ; wrapped in A^ thou wiH be pleading 
 to thy heavenly Father* 
 
Uti 
 FRAGMENT V. 
 
 •rhe impossibility of a sinner being justified by the deeds of the law, argu- 
 ed from his depraved nature. Also from a few other testimonies. Sun-^ 
 dry objections answered. 
 
 By the deeds of the law such are meant, which are per- 
 formed agreeable to it. They are also called good works. 
 There are some who believe^ that although a sinner may not 
 merit any thing by the deeds of the law ; yet that such aie con- 
 ditions by which the grace of justification is granted. Hence 
 it is frequently affirmed, that sinners ought to endeavour to 
 keep the law; and though not any thing should thereby be 
 merited ; yet that such is the condition of our justification. But 
 that such is erroneous, will appear when we view the depravity 
 of man's nature. 
 
 Man was created in God's own image. Gen. 1, 27. An 
 inage must in some respect resemble its original. Ot this im- 
 age, God himself is the original. But this image in man, was 
 n )t substantial like the original ; otherwise it could never have 
 been effaced. Christ only, is this substantial image — 'he is the 
 image of the invisible God'; Col. 1, 15 — 4he brightness of 
 the father's glory, and the express image of his person.' Heb. 
 1. 3 Nevertheless, man must have resembled God in some 
 of his moral perfections. 'God is light,' 1 John 1,5; hence 
 his understanding is pure, and unclouded. Man's understand- 
 ing, though limited ; yet it had no erroneous views, and pos- 
 sessed such knowledge which was an element of felicity. This 
 niay be concluded from Col. 3, 10: — 'And have put on the 
 iiew man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of 
 him that created him.' To be renewed in knowledge after the 
 image of God, implies afoimer image endued with knowledge: 
 for what did not once exist beTore, cannot be renewed. A- 
 gain — 'And be renewed in the Spirit of your mind ; and that 
 ye put on the new man, which after God is created in right- 
 eousness and true holiness.' Eph. 4, 23. 24. To be renew- 
 ed in the Spirit of the mind, presupposes such once to have 
 been in man ; and the new man created in righteousness, and 
 holiness is nothing else than a restoration of a former image. 
 From this it may be concluded, that the image of the first 
 man, resembled God's moral perfections ; hence an intellectu- 
 al ornament. But as the soul was united to the body, it also 
 possessed a proportionate beauty, and was in a state of immor- 
 tality. 
 
 Bu4 when man transgressed, he was bereft of this image ; 
 
147 
 
 .hence it was impossible for him to communicate it to his pow 
 ' tcrity. Tills loss, is the cause of ilie depravity ot ail men. 
 Thus the want of knowledge, is the cause of ignojance; of 
 righteousness, unrighteousness ; and of holiness, pollution. 
 The sciiptui-es represent man after the lall, as 'dead in tres- 
 passes and sins;' Eph. '2, 1 — as 'having the understanding 
 ciarken<'d, being alienated from the life of God through tlic 
 ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their 
 heart.' ch. 4, 18. The prophet also says 'Circumcise your- 
 selves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart.' 
 Jer. 4, 4. As this text represents the heart as having a fore- 
 skin, it is evident that the same covers the intellectual powers 
 of the mind with darkness. Thus we did notj^etto be sinners 
 by our own practices, but by the disobedience oi one man the 
 divine image was lost ; hence we are sinners by inheritance, 
 Rom. 6, 12. 
 
 This inherited depravity does not simply consist in bodily 
 infirmities, or such properties which are essential to constitute 
 man's limited nature : as if that was the cause of his lusts, and 
 inordinate desires ; but in an intel'ectual ignorance with re- 
 spect to spiritual things, and an enmity against God ; and it is 
 the source from whence flow all actual transgi-cssions. Per- 
 haps, because this sin is called the flesh, and its works the 
 works of the flesh, some may conclude that it is merely a phy- 
 sical defect ; which therefore, cannot be so criminal as to de- 
 serve eternal condemnation. Though it be true, that the word 
 ^e.sTi in sundry sacred texts denotes the human body ; yet is 
 it also evident, especially where it is opposed to the Spirit, 
 that it signifies the depraved heart. We read of the 'carnal 
 mind that is enmity against Gsjd, and not subject to his law ;' 
 Rom. 8, 7— and of 'the fleshly mind.' Col. 2, 18. To this 
 flesh, there appears to be a mind ascribed. The works of the 
 flesh are 'adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 
 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, 
 seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, "cvel- 
 lings, and such like.' Gal. 5, 19-21. Now sundry of these 
 works of the flesh : such as idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, vari- 
 ance, &c. do not originate in the body, but in the soul ; hence 
 it is evident that the flesh denotes the depraved heart. 
 
 Our Saviour said unto Nicodemus 'tliat ^^ hich is born of 
 the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spir- 
 it.' John 3, 6. In the §d v. he insists upon the necessity of 
 regeneration. Because man is born of the flesh, he is flesh ; 
 hence he must be born again of the Spirit, before he can en- 
 berinto the kingdom of God. Now the soul is the particular 
 
148 
 
 obj(^ct of renovation : for the body as such cannot perceive the 
 ope itiins oftne Spirii ; hence as the soul is mepaiuouiar ob- 
 je t ot"renoviit>on, it is evident that Ciiiist means it, in so far 
 as it is depraved, when he speaks ol the flesh. Cmldren do 
 n*»i only derive tiieir bodies, but .ilso their souls trom tiiei* pa- 
 rents ; because that vvhn h is born of the flesh is flesh, and tlie 
 fiesh, as is al eady sliewn, s the dtpi avcd soul ; eonsequently 
 thifc. corruption is piopagaied by natuial generation. 'Behoid, 
 1 was ^h ipt'n in in quiiy ; and in sin did my mother conceive 
 me ;' Ps, 51, 5— 'and were by nature the children oiWrath, 
 even as others '■ Eph. 2,3. 
 
 The word nature is sometimes u?ed to denote the essence, 
 or substance ; and also sometimes the disposition of, or the 
 condition in which a ihing may be. In so tar as man's nature 
 den >tes a substance consisting of a body, and soul, it cannot 
 be original sin itself, nor any part thcre( f. God may be cal- 
 led a substance, and so may all his creatures ; yet it cannot 
 be supposed that sin is a snb-tance. What may it otherwise 
 be called, but a transgression of the law ; or an opposition to the 
 divine order ; oracf^ntingency arising from the illegal conduct 
 of creatures ? God is good, and holy ; hence it would be a 
 blasphemy to ;^ppose that he was th(> creator of sin. Nev- 
 ertheless, he is man's creator, and preserver, since as well as 
 bef)|.nhe faM. See Job 10. 8 11 Ps. 189 14, 15 Acts 
 17, 28. Now if man's nature itself was sin, God would be 
 its creator. But as this is out of the question, sin cannot be 
 .nuiUre itself. The Son ot God, by the supernatural energy of 
 the Holy Ghost, as unT^d human nature. Heb. 2^ !4- 16. 
 But he even accordin." to this nature, \^as in all respects h. ly, 
 _and immaculate. H' nee if he could assume the nature of 
 man vvithout being si ful^ it is evident, that sin cannot be na,- 
 twei^st'V, Again — 'The blood of Jesus Christ his (God's) 
 Son cleanseth us from all sin.' 1 .John 1.7. Ii we were 
 sinitseb, it would be the same as if the apostle had said the 
 • bl >od of Christ cleansed sin trom a!I sin, which would be ex- 
 tremely absurd. 
 
 Aithough sin be not a substance, but a contingency ; yet it 
 bas so depraved human nature, that the understanding is dar- 
 kened, as not to be able to discern spiritual things ; the will is 
 licentious, and filled with aiMtnosity against the law of God*- 
 xWht^rein this !)aneful contingency in all respects consists, 1 do 
 liot venture lullv to describe ; it is incomprehensible to man's 
 a'eason, and we can only acquire some knowledge of its turbi- 
 ,tode by thi- di^Mi revelation. 
 
 'Sh-Q actions of men^ if it were possible to view them with- 
 
149 
 
 0ut a motive, would be neither virtuous, nor vicious. To ren- 
 der tUein so, lequiies a choice, and a choice piesupposcs rta- 
 soM. If not, vice, or virtue might be ascribed to an uratiLnal 
 animal. Thus we might >ay the hicni 1^ s>paniei, in shevvu:g 
 his lidelity, was virtuous ; whereas the suily niastih, in as- 
 sailing his master's friend was vicious. But who would con- 
 clude tiiat the pleasant, or unpleasant actions Oi an animal 
 were eitiier virtuous, or vicit us. The same actions of men, 
 may either be virtuous, or vicious according to the rai.tive. 
 A> tor instance : the act of killing a man. may either be vi- 
 cious, or virtuous He t at kills an other thruugh enmity is a 
 murderer ; whereas if the civil officer execute him agreeable 
 to the judicial sent> nee, does not only no w ong, but lulhls an 
 important duty Although the piincipal design oi a civil gov- 
 ernment in punishing, is to preserve external order, and to 
 protect the citizens egainst thr injuries uf base libei tines ; yet 
 it does not merely aim to punish an ir juiious action, but the 
 motive from whence it proceeded. Thus if a man killed ano- 
 ther through an accident, the action intleed, would be injuri- 
 ous , yet would he not be adju !ged as a murderer, because 
 there was no vicious motive. Now it even in a lemporal judg- 
 ment, a particular atienfion is paid to th« motive, how nucli 
 more when God judges, who is omniscient, and is acquainted 
 with every secret ? 
 
 Since the actitms of men, only are good, or evil according 
 to the motive, it is wrong, always to conclude, that when a 
 man performs such works as would be laudab e, it they pro- 
 ceeded from a right motive, that thereioie he is doing g"od 
 works. Hence we are not to conclude in every instance, rhat 
 when men utter nicely polished words an<l phrases, which 
 thty call praying ; give alms t© the poor ; and peribrm other 
 acts which appear laudable, that there ore they are works, 
 which are good, or well-pleasing to God. They are so ;ar 
 from being good, that they become sinful in consequence of the 
 base motive, from whence they proceed. What are the pray, 
 ers of an unbeliever ? They are a profanation of God's name: 
 because he is wicked, so must be his motive ; hence his pray- 
 ers cannot be otherwise. The apostle concludes, that 'what- 
 soever is not of faith is sin.' Rom. 14, 23. This conclusion 
 is rational, because as man in his fallen state is bereft of God's 
 image, his motives must be wicked ; hence all h s actions pro- 
 c eding from the same are equally wicked ; as it is out of the 
 question to suppose a good effect to be produced by an evil 
 c iuse. Whilst a man is destitute of faith, he is unrenewed ; 
 hence can have nothing but wicked motives for all his actions. 
 
ISO 
 
 Not only such works which are directly forbidden by the kiw, 
 but also all such as would otherwise be commendable are sin- 
 ful, when performed by an unbeliever. When I say the unre- 
 generated man can do no good works, I do not mean that he 
 cannot do all the acts which a saint can do ; as for instance : 
 if he be a man of education, he may form a prayer ; and if he 
 be wealthy, he can give of his substance to the poor ; and if 
 he possess the love of fame, he may apparently live a moral 
 life ; but I mean, when he does all this, it is nothing but sin ; 
 because he as an unbeliever can have no right motives. Thus 
 it was, that the offering of Cain was rejected. Gen. 4 5. 
 It cannot be supposed that his offermg, when externally con- 
 eidered should not have been of as good a quality as Abel's. 
 Neither was that the reason why it was rejected ; but because 
 he was wicked. See v. 7. When the Pharisees prayed, fas- 
 ted, and gave alms; yet were they pronounced by Christ vvor- 
 kers of iniquity. The manifest reason is, because their mo- 
 tives were corrupted. He justly said *a good tree cannot bring 
 forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good 
 fruit.' Matth. 7, 18. As the tree is, so must be its truits ; be- 
 cause the fruits partake of the nature of the tree ; hence if a 
 man be wicked, how can his works be otherwise, though they 
 should appear ever so laudable ? A man endued with natu- 
 ral reason, acts from certain motives ; hence as they may be, 
 so must also be his actions. Now as man is a sinner by na- 
 ture, it is out of the question that he, before he is regenerated, 
 could have any motives, but such as were sinful ; hence no o- 
 ther actions. 
 
 As it has been shewn that men are sinners by nature, it is 
 impossible for them to keep the law, how then can they there- 
 by be saved, even as a condition ? He that would be saved 
 by g)od works, must also not merely endeavour, but also per- 
 form such legally perfect. But this no man can do. As even 
 such works : as praying, giving alms, &c. when perlbrmed 
 by an unbeliever are sinful, how can we conclude that any one 
 should thei'eby be justified ? It is impossible unless we could 
 conclude, that a man might be justified by sinning! What 
 an absurdity this would be ! 
 
 All men are not only sinners by nature, but they are equal- 
 ly depraved : 'for there is no difference : for all have sinned, 
 and come short of the glory of God.' Rom. ?, 22, 23. 
 Where there is no difference, one sinner is not preferable to 
 another. However it might be objected, that some men com- 
 mit more, and greater crimes than others, that therefore, they 
 must be more deeply depraved. But to this I answer, that a 
 
151 
 
 vicious man, for various reasons may be prevented from com- 
 mitting immoral actions ; as for instance ; the want of oppor- 
 tunities, of ingt-nuitj ; the love of popularity ; the dread ot pu- 
 nishments. Some are prevented by a superintending, gracious 
 providence. The serpent that does not wound us, w e trust as 
 little, as one otthe same kind that does ; because it possesses 
 the same venomous nature* Does it make the man preferable 
 to an other, because he is prevented by some means from com- 
 mitting the same crime ? Does it constitute a belter nature ? 
 By no means. 
 
 The apostle does not simply declare that all men are sin- 
 ners without any difterence ; but also that they came short of 
 the glory of God. What glory is it, of which we came short ? 
 It is the glory, which the Lord would have given us : provi- 
 ded we had been righteous and holy ; hence not that glory 
 which we could give him. This is evident, because that glo- 
 ry is hereby indicated, which is not to be found in us. The 
 g'ory which Grod receives from us, may always be found, 
 whether we be innocent, or guilty : tor he is glorified, either 
 in our salvation, or condemnation. That glory is indicated 
 which is opposed to the unmerited grace of God, which may 
 be seen from the context. But there is nothing opposed to 
 this unmerited grace ; except a perfect righteousness and ho- 
 liness, with which God would be pleased, for the sake of 
 which he would give us a glory. The expression ^glory of 
 God,' is peculiar to the apostle's phraseology ; for in like man- 
 ner he speaks of the righteousness of God, ch, S, 22 ; which 
 does not denote that divine attribute ; but such a righteous- 
 ness, which he grants unto us. The glory is the testimony, 
 which he would give the man that had his image. Comp. 
 1 Cor. 11, 7. Thus if all men be sinners alike, and if they 
 came short of the glory of God ; it is impossible that they 
 should be justified by works of righteousness. 
 
 We are justified without the deeds of the law, that all boast- 
 ing may be excluded. 'Where is boasting then? It is ex- 
 cluded. By what law ? of works ? Nay ; but by the law of 
 faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith 
 without the deeds of the law.' Rom. 3, 27, 28. As the law 
 of works does not exclude boasting, nothing remains but that 
 of faith. The law of faith, does not signify a new law given 
 by Christ under the gospel dispensation, similar to the deca- 
 logue, but not quite so rigorous. For such a law, like the one 
 to which it would be similar, would also be a law of works ; 
 hence would not exclude boasting. The phrase laiu of faith, 
 is a Hebrewism. A doctrine was called a law by the He- 
 
153 
 
 brews. As for instance t 'out of Zion shall go forth the law, 
 an I the word of the uord trom Jerusalem.' l>a, 2, S. It is 
 known that the m.Jial law proceeded trom mount Sinai. 
 Mount Zion is opposed to Sinai, ihe >i.me as the law is to the 
 go>pel. See Heb. 12, IS . '2^. comp. Gal. 4, 22 - 26. Thus 
 it may properly be concluded that the la\^ \\ hich goes lorth 
 out ot Ziori, is the doctrine ol the gospel. Neither can it pro- 
 
 f)er!y be supposed, that when he excludes v\orks,that his al- 
 usion is to those of the ceremonial law. All boasting is ex- 
 cluded. But there would be a gieater rea^on foi- boasting, in 
 consequence of performing the deeds ol the moral, tlian uf the 
 ceremonial law, because it is sup- rioi. 1 he deetisol ihi.t aW 
 are exc ud 'xi by \ hich 'ever} mouih may be stopped, an;' all 
 the world na l-^gunty before G»d.' v. h). B} thecerem' n al 
 law every m )uth may not be stopped, nor all tiie world made 
 guilty bei'ore G.>d ; as it was not imposed up -n all nations, but 
 only upon the Israelites. It is therefore evident, that all the 
 deeds ofthe noral law are excluded. See R m 11,6. Tit g 5. 
 
 If it were possib'e ior any mmi to be just.hed by the deeds 
 of the law, beyond all dispute St. Paul, whilst a Pharisee 
 wou'd have been justitied. Whilst he nas an enemy to the 
 Christian Rrligion, his zea' for maintainii g the righteousn-«s 
 of the law, -.vas unrivalled. This he himself testifies — Thou h 
 I night also have ct)ntidence n the fiesh If any other uaii 
 thinketh he hath whereof he might trust in the fiesh, I moie: 
 circumcised the eighth day, of the flock of Israel, ot the tri'ic 
 of Benjamin, an H.brew o; the Hebrews ; as touching the 
 law. a Pharisee : conoeining zi al, pi rsecuting the church J 
 touching the righteousness which is in the *a\v, blameless.', 
 Phil. §, 4 6. Notwithstanding, by all this he could nt t be 
 justified ; and after he got acquainted with the righteousness 
 of Jesus Christ, he loathed this legal righteousness, and view- 
 ed it like a filthy garment. He says 'But what things were 
 gain to me, those I counted loss for C irist. Yea doubtless, 
 and I count all things but lo^-s for the excelleney of the knov\ I- 
 edge of Christ Jesus my Lord : for whom I have suffered the 
 loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may 
 win Christ, and be found in him, not having my own liL-ht- 
 eousness, which is of the law, but that which is through 'he 
 faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.* 
 V. 7-9. 
 
 St. Paul also bore the testimony of the Jews, 'that they had 
 a zeal of God. but not ai-cording to knowl<-dg.' — that t' ■ y 
 vere going about to establish 'heiro^' n righieousness ' Rom. 
 10, 2, o. But what did it avil that t^iey did their utmost to 
 
153 
 
 keep the law ?— for they were not justified. Hence if the po- 
 pular doctrine was true, tliat it is suincient ii men did as well 
 as they knew, and use their sincere endeavours ; there is not 
 a iloubt, but what the Jews would have been saved. But as 
 they failed, it must be concluded that this opinion is erroneous. 
 Not all who sini-erely endeavour, shad ihereiore be saved. 
 Our blessed Savi >ur said 'strive to enter in at the strait gate: 
 for many, I say unto you, wdl seek to enter in, and fhali not 
 be able.' Luke 13, 24. All the laborious seeking in the im- 
 proper depository, will not discover thr desired object. Many 
 men have sought a long time, and toiled very hard, to enter into 
 the kingdom of God ; and yet, they tailed in their de>ign. The 
 reason is, because they attempted to enter in by the deeds of the 
 law. But such as counted all their deeds as siniul, dispaiied 
 of their own righteousness, and embraced Christ as their light- 
 eousness, were immlsdiateiy clothed with the garment of salva- 
 tion. No man ever failed, who persevered in faith. Now 
 every man may judge, whether he seeks salvation by the law, 
 or in Christ. If he seek it in Christ, he needs not to be at it ma- 
 ny years : for Christ is not only very ready to be found ; but 
 he himself diligently seeks the sinner. 
 
 That a sinner is justified without the deeds of the law, is a 
 doctrine that is clearly revealed in the scriptures ; neverthe- 
 less, there are sundry objections alleged against it. Some of 
 those objections, I shall here state, together with my an- 
 swers : — 
 
 Objection 1. If sinners are to be saved without the deeds 
 of the law, or good works, then it is in vain to exhort them 
 to attend to the preaching of the gospel, and the use ol the sa- 
 craments ; baptism, and the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Answer. This objection principally arises from not under- 
 standing the ditference betwei'n the law, and the go^peL 
 There are many who suppose that hearing the gospel preach- 
 ed, and using the sacraments, is performing legal duties. 
 Whilst men view those blessed institutions in this legal man- 
 ner, they must either conclude that in the use of them, they 
 are saved by good works ; or that they are not essential to 
 sa'vation ; and that when a sinner is saved, it is by an abso- 
 lute, unconditional decree. 
 
 The moral law existed before those institutions, I mean the 
 preaching of the gospel, and the administration of the sacra- 
 ments. The law was perfect from the beginning ; hence ad- 
 mits of no additional commandments. The sacraments are 
 appendages of the gospel. In using them, it cannot be said 
 that we either eerve God, or our neighbour ; but God serves 
 
«s ; because they are administered by a ministry, by which 
 the L.n'd grams the Spirit, and liie. 2 Cor. §, 6. Tht- law 
 is not ul" faith, bat by hearing the gospel preached we get faiih; 
 and without laith, the sacraments are not profitable Now 
 that which requires faith, is not the law , but the gospel. E- 
 ven by hearing the law preached, we do not keep it, but only 
 get convinced of our depsavity. Healing the gospel,' and ii^e- 
 ing the sacraments, requires no ability to do good works. 
 There is a dift'erence betw een doing good work^, and believing'. 
 ^ sinner before he is renewed, can do no good works ; yet he 
 may believe. And though he cannot believe w ithcut the a- 
 gency of the Holy Spirit ; yet who would deny, but what he 
 could hear the gospel, and pay so much attention to it, as to 
 compare its truths as far as his rational faculties extend ? 
 Though his reason be darkened by the fail, so as not to be able 
 to discern spiritual things ; yet when he attends to the gospel, 
 which is administered in a human language, which is adapted 
 to his capacity ; by this means the Spirit will effect iaith in 
 him. If men in this age, <lid not like the blinded Jens, con- 
 found the law with the gospel, they would not conclude that 
 hearing the gospel preached, and using the sacraments, was 
 performing It gal duties. 
 
 Objection 2. li sirmers were not able to keep the law^, 
 why did God impose it upon them ? There would be no jus- 
 tice in giving a law, which they could not keep. 
 
 Answer. Had God created man wicked, and then given 
 him a holy law, which he could not keep, it indeed might be 
 considered as unjust. But God created man in his own im- 
 age ; and had man persevered in his loyalty, his posterity 
 would have retained the ability of yielding an uninterrupted 
 obedience. That man lost this blessed image, by which he 
 rendered all his posterity delinquents, is no reason that they 
 should be absolved from legal obligations. Does a just debt, 
 therefore become unjui^t, because the debtor by some misman- 
 agement, has rendered bin self unable to make payment ? 
 
 Let no one suppose, that because we nowhere read that the 
 moral law was given to Adam in a formal manner, the same 
 as it was to Moses on mount Sinai ; that therefore, he was 
 not under its obligations. Or, that when he did eat of the 
 fruit of the forbidden free, that he did not also thereby trans- 
 gress the moral law. The moral law is founded upon the im- 
 mutable principles of justice, and holiness, from which no ra- 
 tional creature can be'exempted All the various parts of the 
 law concentrate in lovk. Had Adam complied with that 
 particular command which God gave him, it would have 
 
155 
 
 been a manifestation of his love, and fidelity. But what di^ 
 he, by eal ng of the lorbid<len tree otherwise, than act contra- 
 ry Id the principles of Love ? 
 
 ' The apostle says 'For until the law sin was in the world : 
 but sin is not imputed when there is no law.' Rom. 5, IS — 
 'But sin. that it might appear sin, working death in me by 
 that which is good ; that sin by the commandment might be- 
 come exceeding sinful.' ch. 7, 1?-^ — 'For by the lav\ is the 
 knowledge of sin.' ch S, '^0. These texts shew that sin 
 was in the world, before the law ; or before it was given in a 
 formal manner to Moses ; and yet that by ibis law sin .& re- 
 vealed, and condemned. If the sin, that w as in the world pri- 
 or to M ises, was not a transgression of the moral law, how 
 could it reveal, and condemn it ? When a law is opposed to 
 a particular sin, it is evident that the same sin, must also be op- 
 posed to the la\\ . Now as the moral law reveals, and con- 
 demns the sin, that was in the world prior to Moses, which is 
 the original transgiession of Adam, it is evident the same is a 
 transofression ot the moral 'aw. In Adam all men transgres- 
 sed this law. In him tiiey once had the ability of keeping it. 
 That they by the fall lost this ability, is no reason that they 
 should be absolved from their obligation to it. 
 
 Objection 8. St. Paul says 'work out your own salvation 
 with fear and trembling.' Phil. 2, 12. And St. Peter 'If 
 the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and 
 sinner appear?' 1st Epist. ch. 4, 18. ?5ow if we must 
 workout our own salvation with fear, and trembling,, does it 
 not follow that we must do all the good we can, if we would 
 be .caved ? And if a righteous man scarcely shall be saved, it 
 requires all our diligence in doing good to render ourselve ac- 
 ceptable. 
 
 Answer. The Philippians whom the apostle exhorted to 
 work out their own salvation, were already regenerated. In 
 the clause before of this same verse, the apostle bears them the 
 testimony, that they always were obedient, not only in his 
 presence, but much more in his absence. And in v. 15, he 
 calls them shining lights in the world. Hence they that are 
 obedient, and shine as lights in the world, must certainly be 
 God's children ; and as such they are already in a slate of 
 salvation ; thei efore they have no need to do good works, to 
 render themselves acceptable to God. But if the reason be 
 asked, why should they work ? the answer follows from the 
 succeeding verses : — 'For it is God which worketh in you both 
 to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without 
 murmurings and disputings : that ye may be bhinieless and 
 
156 
 
 harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of 
 a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as 
 lights in the world ; hold ng lorth the word oi lite ; thai I 
 may rtjoice in the day of Christ, &c * v. 13 - 16. One thing 
 is to work, in order to be justified before God : but another is 
 to work, in order to appear, and be blameless, and harmless, 
 without rebuke in the midst oi a crooked, and perverse nation. 
 jN )t the fo- mer, but the latter, is the reason, why the apostle 
 exhorted tie Pliilippians to work out their own salvation. 
 
 Notwithstanding, a Christiiin may be fully persuaded that 
 he is one o\ the lavourites of the Almighty Father ; but as 
 he lives in a wicked world, and is suirounded by false proph- 
 ets, who come to him in sheep's clothing ; and v\ho peihaps 
 guide many of his family connexion, he n)ust always tear, and 
 watch, lest he be drawn aside, and participate in their lalse 
 dt)ctrines, whieh they exhibit under the disguise o. truth. 
 Thus on the day ot P- ntecost, St Peter exhorted the con- 
 verts : Save yourselves Irom this untoward generation.' Acts 
 2, 40. There is no d.*ubt, but what those Jewish converts 
 were connected with the Stiibes.and Pharisees, the lues to the 
 truth under the disjjfuise oi" virtue ; hence it u as necessary that 
 they should separate themselves from their pernicii us errors ; 
 or to cease all ecclesiastical connexicn. See 2 Cor. 6, 14 18* 
 
 The context will shew, why the apostle Peter said 'if the 
 righteous scarcely be saved &e.' 'For the time is come that 
 judgment must begin at the house of God : and if it tirst be- 
 gin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gos- 
 pel of God r And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where 
 shall the ungodly and sinner appear ? Wherefore let them 
 that suffer according to the will ot God commit the keeping 
 of their souls to hbn in well doing, as unto a faithful creator.' 
 V 17-19. This plainly she\\s, that the apostle spake of a 
 persecution that was coming on the church. In the time of a 
 persecution, the professors of Christianity are severely tried : 
 and as those that are genuine hold out with difficulty, the con- 
 clusion must be, the ungodly will be unmasked, and join the 
 company of infidels 
 
 Objection 4. Our Saviour says ' Strive to enter in at the 
 strait gate : for many, I say unto jou, will seek to enter in, 
 and shall not be able.' Luke IS, 24. Matth. 7, 13, 14. 
 !Now if one is to strive, if the gate be strait, the way narrow ; 
 and if but few will find it, does it not become necessary to do 
 good works ? to use all diligence ? 
 
 Answer. These texts are so far from proving, that any 
 jaersou is to be justified by good works, that they prove the 
 
157 
 
 contrary. Many of the Jews strove very hard by their 
 uoiks to enter into the kingdom ; and yet they lailed in their 
 attempt. They indeed strove to enter in, but not at the gate 
 and the way. It the law was the gate to heaven, then it 
 would be necessaiy, to strive in this manner. But the law is 
 not the gate vvhii h opens into paradise. It is the key to bind 
 the culprit over to damnation. Jesus Christ is tlie gate that 
 opens into heaven, and the way ihatleatis thither. He says 
 *I am the door ; by me if any man enier in, he shall be sa- 
 ved, and shall go in and ou', and find pastuie.' John 10, 9, 
 A door is the same as a gate. And ch. 14., 6, he cails him- 
 self the way. Christ is not apprehended by the deeds of the 
 law, but by faith ; hence to strive to enter in at the gate, which 
 is Christ himself, can imply nothmgelse than to believe. All 
 such as strive to enter in by the deeds of the law, do not en- 
 ter by the door : for that is Christ, but they seek to climb up 
 some other way ; hence they are thieves, and robbers. They 
 by their supposed good works arrogate the honour of justifi- 
 cation unto themselves, and rob Jesus of his mediatorial dia- 
 dems. 
 
 Whereas it might be asked, why Christ exhorted his hear- 
 ers to strive ? and why but few enter in at the strait gate ? I 
 would observe that the believing in Chiist is not difficult in it- 
 self. But the reason seems to be stated in the next verse — 
 ' Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's cloth- 
 ing ; but inwardly they are raving wolves ' (Matth. 7, 15.) 
 Such therefore, who do not valiantly hold fast to the truth, 
 will easily be led captive by false prophets. Christ is so clear- 
 ly revealed in the scriptures, that if sinners were not interrup^ 
 te I by false teachers, they would get to believe without muclfi^. 
 difficulty. In our Saviour's days of humiliation, there ^^ ere 
 many false teachers : such as the Scribes, and Pharisees. 
 They were the teachers, and leaders of the people, who held 
 them in great veneration. They were the most inveterate en- 
 emies to Christ, and his doctrines. Now because they rejec- 
 ted Christ, many of the people merely depending upon their 
 judgment, without examining the truth, would not receive Je- 
 sus as the promised messiah. Such in all probability said 
 within themselves : if Jesus of Nazareth was the Saviour of 
 the world, certainly such pious, well meaning, and learned 
 mon as the S'Tibcs, and Pharisees would believe in him» 
 Whilst others to avoid their indignation rejected Christ. Sec 
 Matth. 23, \S. John 12, 42. ch. 7, 48. 
 
 Objedion 5. If sinners be taught that they are to be saved 
 without good works, they will the more be indulged in their 
 
1S8 
 
 wicked practices* In short it is a doctrine which will lead to 
 licentiousness. 
 
 A.iiswer. Such as allege this objection, are the true succes- 
 sors of the ancient calumniators ot St. Paul. See iVom. 3, 8. 
 
 A work cannot be considered either as good, or laudable, 
 unless it proceeds from a proper and tree choice. It good 
 works were a condition of eternal lite, then the sinner w. uld 
 know it' he did not perform them, he would be eternally dam- 
 ned. The dread of eternal damnation would compel him to 
 do works, in which he would not otherwise delight. Now if 
 this dread co npr>ls him to do those works, they cannot pro- 
 ceed from a free choice ; hence they cannot be good works. 
 Such as allege the above objection, might as well at once say, 
 if it was not for the dread of eternal punishments, they would 
 do no good works — if not, why do they conclude, that the 
 doctrine of justification without works, would lead others to 
 licentiousness ? In this they show themselves like incarnate 
 devils. For devils would do more harm if they were not re- 
 strained. 
 
 It has already been shewn, that when the sinner is justified, 
 G >d renews his heart ; so that it becomes a pleasure to him 
 to do good works. They tlow from a voluntary principle* 
 When he is justified, he realizes the previous superabundant 
 love of God. Love beorpts love. ' We love him, because he 
 first loved us.' 1 John 4, 19. Where there is love, no com- 
 pulsion is necessary to produce good works. 
 
 IMPROVEMENT. 
 
 It is necessary to obtain accurate views of our original de- 
 pravity. Without such, we cannot understand the doctrine of 
 justification. 
 
 Inrjeed the most who profess Christianity, acknowledge 
 that our nature got corrupted through the fall of Adam ; so 
 that we now have many evil desires, and physical infirmities. 
 Oi- rather, we only share some of the consequences of his 
 transo^ression. But many will by no means admit, that Ad- 
 am's sin was brought upon us ; so as to render us criminal, 
 and worthy of eternal damnation. This I conceive to be a 
 radical error. They attempt to maintain it by what the pro- 
 phet says : 'the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father.' 
 Ezek. 18, 20. From whieh they conclude^ we are not to 
 bear the transgression of Adam* 
 
159 
 
 To this I answer, when the prophet says that the son shall 
 not bear the iniquity ol his father, he has no allusion to ihe sin 
 committed b}' Adam. A man's father is not the tirst cause, 
 why lie is a sinner. Our iathers as well as we, inherited sin 
 from Adam. Not by the disobedience ol our fatheis, but on- 
 ly by that of one man sin entered into the VAorld. TLhe suc- 
 cession of so many generations frcni Adam to us, is only the 
 channel in which this original depravity has reached us. There 
 is a difference between asserting, that the sins of a man's fa- 
 ther should not be visited on him ; and that by the disobedi- 
 ence of one man, sin came upon all men. The prcphet asser- 
 ted the former, but not the latter* 
 
 If only by the tall of Adam, sundry sinful desires have been 
 implanted in us, and some physical infirmities resulted, but 
 not that we are such partakers of his sin, as to render us crim- 
 inal, and worthy of condemnation, then there is no propriety 
 in saying that we inherit Adam's sin : for it would be only 
 some of its consequences. To inherit a sin, and not to be 
 criminal it contradicts itself. A sin necessarily involves the 
 idea of being criminal. To say a man may be possessed of 
 a sin, and yet not be criminal, is a glaring absurdity. 
 
 The apostle says 'Wherefore as by one man sin entered in- 
 to the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon 
 all men, for that all have sinned.' Rom. 5, 12. This text 
 does not say, that the effects of sin entered into the world by 
 one man, but Sm. And further, that death entered by sin. 
 He positively declares, that because all have sinned _, death 
 parsed upon all. Now if by one man sin entered into the 
 world, if death by it came upon all men ; and if it can be said 
 that all men have sinned ; it is evident that all men may, and 
 are justly viewed, not only as partakers of the consequences, 
 but of the original transgression itself. 
 
 In various ways the will and conduct of one person, may 
 be imputed to another. As for instance : if the superinten- 
 dence of a man's alfairs be committed to an agent ; the ag 
 ent's choice, and conduct must l^e considered as his own : 
 whether it be proper, or improper Or, a child may be repre- 
 sented by a guardian : his will, and management must be con- 
 sidered the same as if it were that of the child. 
 
 In either of these cases, if the choice, and management 
 should be improper, it would be just that the persons, who are 
 represented should be considered as if they had committed 
 the error ; and in consequence thereof share the ill effects. 
 The reason is obvious : because the same would apply, if the 
 choice, and management had been proper. 
 
160 
 
 All men descend from one man : Adam, Acts 17,28 ; and 
 even the first woman was bone of his bones, and tiesh of Ins 
 flesh. Gen. 2, 23. As he is the progenitor of all men, 
 
 the prerogatives, commands, and institutions given to him by 
 his creator, did not merely concern himself, but also all his 
 posterity. 'So God created man in his oiun image, in the im- 
 age of God created he him ; male and tea ale created he them. 
 And G<»d blessed them, and God said unto them. Be fruitful, 
 and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it : and 
 have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl 
 of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the 
 earth. And God said, B hold, I have given you every herb 
 bearing seed, which is upon the lace of all the earth, and ev- 
 ery tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed ; to 
 you it shall be for meat.' Gen. 1, 27 -29. " Adam and Eve, 
 in their own persons could not have exercised this dominion : 
 for it was not possible for them to have subdued the fish of 
 the sea, the fowl of the air, and to have ruled over every 
 beast of the earth, as this requires a numerous society. Thus 
 it is evident, when God granted his image, and the preroga- 
 tive of being a ruler over this lower creation unto Adam, that 
 the same in his pers<m, was granted to his posterity. 
 
 The first institution of marriage concerns Adam's posterity, 
 'Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall 
 cleave unto his wife : and they shall be one flesh.' Gen. 2, 
 24. In the beginning Adam, and Eve were no parents ; 
 they only got to be such after they had children. But by 
 these w^ords Moses indicates, that among Adam's posterity 
 marriage should be the same ; so that every man should con- 
 sider his wife as his own flesh. This interpretation is estab^ 
 lished by St. Paul — 'He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 
 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh ; but nurisheth and 
 cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church : for we are mem- 
 bers of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause 
 shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined 
 unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.' Eph. 5, 28 31. 
 
 Since it is evident that God acted with AHam in behalf 
 of his posterity, it is very congenial to the analogy of things, 
 to conclude that the prohibition of the tree, called the tree of 
 knowledge of good and evil. Gen. 2, 17 ; also concerned his 
 posterity. God crowned man as the monarch of the earth* 
 His dominion as it respects this globe, was almost unlinutcd. 
 Had God not excepted one tree, over which man should have 
 no dominion, he might have been led to forget that God was 
 his Sovereign. Since man received so great a dominion, it 
 
lei 
 
 Was necessary that this one tree shoukl be excepted, to keep 
 hi ;i in mind that lie was nut the pioprietor Oi the world, but 
 only Gjd's Vicegerent. As the same dominion was granted 
 to his posterity, it also became necessary iliat they shoul. hve 
 under the same prohibition : that is, the\ should not eat ol this 
 one tree : because the conierring ot the same priviicji^e, ncees- 
 sarily includes all things that are excepted in the original graiitj 
 also to he excepted, when conierred to another on- . 
 
 Now it" G)d gave th jse prerogatives, commands, and insti- 
 tutions to Adam as a guardian, his conduct in regard to the 
 same, is with p-)priety imputed to his posterity. Although it 
 be i>roper to imoute the conduct of an agent, or a guardian to 
 the persons whom they represi nt; yet as all men sustained nea- 
 rer r^l ition to Adam, his conduct is imputed to them w ith more 
 propriety. In Adam, beloie and after the fall, ad men accor- 
 ding to the r nature were concealerl, which by natura' genera- 
 tion maniiested itself in many persons. By generation human 
 nature is brought into personalities. It is like a ump ol clay 
 formed into many vessels. Though every n an constitutes a 
 separate person ; yet none has any other nature than that of 
 A'iam. Whereas all men were concealed in Adam, there can 
 be but one nature; hence when he fell, it was not sin ply his 
 person that fell, but human nature. All men must therelore, 
 be as closely connected with the fall, as they are with nature 
 itself'; or more properly, as they are with themselves. Thus if 
 Adam's fall was criminal, and deserved everlasting punish- 
 ments with respect to himself, the very same applies to nis pos- 
 terity. 
 
 That Ad im managed in such a manner as to render us guilty, 
 and t) Cause us to share the baneful consequences, is h\ no 
 means an unjust permission: because if he had managed wel', 
 w • should have been righteous, and enjoyed the concomitant 
 blessings 
 
 That this original sin is not merely a physical defect, or an 
 imperfection as a consequence ; but also criminal, is evident : 
 because we by reason thereof are obnoxious to eternal dam- 
 nation. The apostle says ' Taerefore as by the offence of one 
 judgment came upon all men to condemnation ; even so by the 
 r'ghteou*^ness of one the free gift came upon all men onto 
 justification of life.' Rom 5, 18. Here we see, how that by 
 the offence of one judgment unto condemnation came upon all 
 men, is contrasted with the justification of life, which is by 
 Je>us Christ. As the justification of life is an efernal bies--ing, 
 even so the conrlemnation which came by the offence of one, 
 i, Ct Adam must olso be eternal. From hence it may be con- 
 
 V 
 
162 
 
 eluded, that because we are under condemnation in conse- 
 quence of ihis onguial sin,tiiat theic mastbea butiticient ground 
 for imputing thj same to us us eriiiMnaL Hence iet no one 
 conclude ihiu we have only ndierited ihe effects of this i^in, but 
 al^o tile sin itr-elt. 
 
 Such as deny original sin in us to be criminal, and wonby 
 of a legal malediction, necessarily view inf..nts as innocent. 
 But it they be innocent, how comes it that all as soon as the}' 
 can exercise their reason, choose, and do that which is evil ? 
 It is in vain to say that they learn it hom the bad examples of 
 others. For if this sliould be the case, why do they ad with- 
 out any exception sm: — why are there none so v\ ise, as to 
 avoid those pernicious exan.ples ? The vari<-.us nations of the 
 world are vustly liiti'erent in their customs, and languaiics. 
 The most polished nation, could never as yet, by their exam- 
 ple influence the whole world to adopt their customs, and lan- 
 guage. Bui. is it not strange, that ail nations are prone lo evil, 
 that there is such a strdcing si.ni'arity bet.^een iheir vices ; so 
 that they in this respect answer to each other, like the accurate 
 portrait to its original? What example had Cain to imitate, 
 when he murdered his brother Abel ? He w as the first, who 
 committed murder. Or what examj)ies of imitation had the 
 first thie*", adulterer, or any ot,her inmioi al character. It was 
 impossible for the first to have learned those \a iclced deeds 
 from examples. It can therefore, not be otherwise than that 
 every child possesses a wicked heart, which manifests itself by 
 evil deeds, (if not prevented by grace) as the body grows, and 
 as the faculties of the mind get expanded. 
 
 Such as deny that mfants are gui'ty, and under the curse, 
 must if they argue consistently, also deny that they are redeein- 
 cd by Christ ; or that they ever can be saved. What an ab- 
 surdity it w^ould he to suppose that Christ suffered, and died, 
 to redeem innocent creatures ! None but the guilty, and lost 
 can be redeemed. But who can believe that Christ did not 
 also, come to save all infants ? If ho. did, it is evident that they 
 must be guilty : for only such can be saved. 
 
 There are many men, w ho would rather be saved in any- 
 Other way , than by ^aith without the deeds of the law. Though 
 they confess that they are to be saved by faith in Christ ; yet 
 how thev labour to join with it their sujvposed w ell meaning 
 legal deerls ! Could t'ley be justified by any laudable work, 
 how freely t^»ev would und'rtaKe it ; though it should be ever 
 so arduous ! Under the pretext of 'ove for ho'iness. \hv\ allege 
 many obiev-tions ;icfain«t thf doctrine of justification without 
 good works. Sometimes they misrepresent certain texts, 
 
163 
 
 which sppak of the f.-uits of justification ; and at other limes 
 tht-y coiiteud tiiui it leads lo licentiuiibiiess. bui Uic uut; eau -e 
 why they hute ii, is their diu'iolieal pride, and their enuiUN a- 
 gainst the erueified Jesus. It they cuuld be saved by doing 
 sume good work, they could take it tor granted that tliey v\ere 
 not so fur depraved, as to deserve eternal damnation ; thry 
 would only view theni'^eivcs as somewhat naturally deticient 
 in c )nsequenee of the fall ; so that by the help of God with 
 their o\N II sincerity , they might achieve their suivation. Where- 
 as sueh an one when he is told that all his deeds avail nothings 
 he knows if he should believe it, that he must lat^k him&eif 
 with the vilest of culprits, against vvliich Ins proud lieart revolts. 
 Now whilst a man imagines that his works are good ; so that 
 they contribute something towards nis salvation, he is upheld 
 in his pride, and is well contented to do all vvoiks, which have 
 a good external appearance. Hence as the doctrine ot justifi- 
 cation with lut works, strikes at the root of his pride; contra- 
 dicts his own righteousness ; condemns all his works, even 
 such as by the world are esteemed good, and luudabe ; and 
 ranks him with male actors ; and gives all g ory to Jesus the 
 ei*ucified Lord : he hates it ; employs all his ingenuity to render 
 it infamous ; and though he knows of no tounded reason or 
 persecuting" the ministers who preach it; yet he does it with 
 dehght. 
 
 FRAGMENT VI. 
 
 A brief view of Repentance, in so far as it is a condition of justification. 
 
 That repentance is a thinking, after the deed ; that it consists 
 in sorrow for sin, and faith in Christ has already been shewn. 
 See pases 68 and 69. See also Ps. 6, 2, 3—38, 4—51, 17— 
 Matth.^11,28. 
 
 There are sundry who add to repentance, a love to God, 
 hating sin for the sake of its o;liousrie>s, and a reformation of 
 life, and condui-t. Such i they th nk it expedient, to use the 
 word repentance in so extended a sense, as to include ali the 
 fruits thereof, I will not upon this ground contradict. It m.ust 
 be confessed that those blessed iru tsr such as love to God, ha- 
 ting sin,&c. are the immediate result of repentance. But to 
 speak accurately upon this subject, repentance, ^r\(\ hsjruits 
 ought carefully to be distinguished. The distinction is made 
 by the scriptures: — 'Brine forth fruits coeet for repentance,' 
 Matth, 3, 8« See Acts ii6, 20, 
 
164 
 
 Rppentance is a condition of justification. Acts 2^ 28« 
 Tli'iigii lie word i epentance siioul i be use.t in su e.\ten*icu a 
 si lib , as to include tlie truiit. thereo ; yet when it is a}j|jiieti to 
 d.Mioie a e >nditiun oi justitication, it is erroneous tu uuniii of 
 this addition ; as it then can on y consist m s rro;\ tor siu, and 
 faith in Christ 
 
 If repentance as a condition oi justification, also consisted in 
 hating sin ^or the sake of iis odn.usl)e^s, and u love lu G. d, it 
 would require j man not only to be justified, but aiso lo bt- in 
 a Slate of sanctification, belore he eouKi repent ; because such 
 a hatred agaiii>'i sin pitsupposrsa hoiy pruicipK , and a lo\eto 
 G) I, a confoinnty to the !avv. Bu; is there such a huiy pi ;n- 
 ciple in an unregenerated sinner r No. Hence it is not pussi- 
 b e for such a prrson to hate sin for the saK.e of its odiuusn^ss, 
 or to love God ; because such would be contrary to hih \Meked 
 e'ement. It would be absurd, to suppose that an unregentia- 
 ted sinner should hate sin in \> hich he deliglits, and conlor m 
 to a law, agains' which he is filled with enmity. But \Aho is 
 t repent, in order to be justified ? — is it the one that is justifi- 
 ed, an I ill a st ite o* san^tifii-ation ? No. For how should 
 the justified be justified ? It is the unjustified sinner, v\ho is 
 to repent if he would ••njoy the grace ol justification, as our 
 blessed Saviour said 'I came not to call the righteitus, but 
 sinners to rept-niance.' Mark 2, 17. Luke 15, 1 - 10. 
 N vv as the unjustified sinner is to re})ent ; yet as he is des- 
 titutt^ of all holy principles, he cannot hjite sm ibr the sake of 
 its odiousness, nor love God ; hence it must be concluded that 
 neither this hatn d against sin. nor love to God. nor any other 
 good work, Constitutes a part of repentance. To suppose that 
 a sinner should possess these holy prini iples, be ore he could 
 Ife in a state of repentance, presupposes him to be a saint, ^^ ho 
 as --uch would be justified. Such an idea ccntiadirts itselt. 
 
 It has b 'en "-hewn that a man is justified \^ ithout the deeds 
 of the law. But if repentance as a condition of justification 
 had to flow from love to God, \Ahat would it else be, but a 
 (iee(\ ol the 'aw ? for lov: is its principal precept. Love is no 
 condition of justification, but repentance is ; hence repentance 
 and love must be different It is somewhat astonishing, that 
 many preach that a sinner is justified by grace without the 
 deeds of the law ; and vet when they describe repentance 
 a« a condi ion. they will have it to proceed Irom love lo God, 
 and to be a hatred aga nst sin. for the sake of its odiousness. 
 This is a pal)) ible contradiction : for if a sinner be justified 
 by grnce without the deeds of the I.jw. how can repentance as 
 a condition, proceed from love to God, v\ liich is the fundameu- 
 
# 
 
 169 
 
 tal precept of the law ? Hence he that asserts, that repeii« 
 tance as a condition ol'justifivaiion, must piocted trom 1o\l to 
 God, and other holy prineip<es , anii yet that a man is jus.iti- 
 ed without the deeds ot the law, contradicts hmiseii, auu y>er- 
 pi.'xes the minds of his audience It sorrow for sin, doi s not 
 flow from love to God, and other upright principles, it might 
 be asked : why is it at all necessary r L is not necessui) as 
 a sutieiing, to atone for our guilt ; iror as a good \\oik, to ob- 
 tain the grace of justification. Whdst the sinner is instnsille 
 of his sinful depiMv-ty, he does not knov, that he is undei the 
 sentence of condemnation, nor the need of a Saviour ; and the 
 ©ft't^r of a pardon would be no more regarded, than that which 
 might through mockery be offered by a govcinour to an hin- 
 est man, who could not be convicledof lelony. Or, it is l.ke the 
 person who is not hungry, he will either not accept, or not relish 
 the otYered viands — Or, the man that is not weary, will not 
 d<'sire repose. Though lor the sake of the atonen.entoi Christ, 
 heaven announces an abundance of pardon ; yet v\ hilst sinneis 
 view themselves either as innocent, or only a little defective, 
 they will not accept it. Would they think God for the par- 
 don of ail their sins, when they did not c<)n>ider themstU s 
 g'li'ty of all, with which they are charged ? Thus we find, 
 that in the scriptures the hungry, the thirsty, the \'-eary, and 
 the heavy laden, &c. are particularly invited to partake the 
 pardon, and the other divine blessings ; because by such the 
 same are highly appreciated. Hence it n ay easily be under- 
 stood, why no one can obtain a pardon without having con- 
 trition. See Isa. 66, 2. Matth. S, g, 4, 6. 
 
 It is nei'essary to know what Sin is, and its 'egal, and aw. 
 ful consequences, before one can be contrite There indeed 
 remains a vestige of the law, written upon the hearts of all 
 men, sufficient to convince them that they are not perfectly 
 pure, and ho'y ; but as they are full of blindness, they are not 
 able by this light to discover their real deformity ; neither 
 would it inform them of the transgression of Adam, by whi< h 
 th'y became guilty. H<nce a divine revelation is necessary. 
 The law must be revealed anew, by which is this know ledge. 
 
 By the law the Holy Spirit operates, to cc^nvince men of 
 their sins. This is evident from what Christ says : 'If I go 
 not away, the comforter will rot come unto you ; but if I de- 
 part, I will send him unto y( u. And whrn he is come, he 
 will reprove the world of sin, &e.' John 16, 7, 8 Tlis 
 besides many other texts shew, that the agency of the Holy 
 Spirit, is necessary to reveal to men their sin^l depravity ; 
 hence it must be so deep, and hidden a corruption, that no 
 
16^ 
 
 human reason can possibly penetrate ; otherwise the influence 
 of this oniiiiseient Spirit wou'd not interpose. It is easily 
 understood that all gross, inordinate desires, and external ac- 
 ti' ns, which are contrary to the law : such as the piolanauon 
 of God's name, adultery, theft, murder, peijury, und other, 
 immoralities are crin inal, without any particular reproot of 
 the Holy Spirit. It may be understood even by the letter of 
 the law, or the light of nature. Hence as all men may know, 
 that such unlawful actions are crimina without any particular 
 illumination of the Spirit ; and yet, as he is sent to i-eprovethe 
 world of sin, it is evident that there must be such sins in men, 
 of which they are entirely ignorant ; otherwise the necessity 
 of this supernatural illumination would be superseded. There 
 are not only many sins ot which i^en are ignoi*ant, but to speak 
 more properly, ignorance itself is criminal. He that is igno- 
 rant cannot know that ignorance is a sin, unless he be enlight- 
 ened by the Spirit ; because it would be absurd to suppose, 
 that the ignorant should be intel'igent. This ignorance, I mean 
 the ignorance with respect to spiritual truths, is the c.aise of 
 many a wrong choice ; of the blackest crimes perpetrated un- 
 der the garb of Reliiiion. As tor instance : St. Paul whilst 
 a Pharisee, persecuted the churcii of Christ through ignorance. 
 It is a-tonishing to hear, ho\v many who call themselves 
 Christians, utterly deny that ignur^nce with respect to the sa- 
 cred truths of Christianity, is ciYi^inal. They say many a 
 good Christian may be innocentlyMgnorant ol sundry things, 
 which are a part of the blessed Religion of Christ ; if he on- 
 ly means we'l, and is sincere in his way of thinking, all the 
 purposes of salvation are answered. Because there are many 
 different denominations who difler widely in their sentiments, 
 and as it wou'd contradict common sense itself, to suppose 
 that all when they are repugnant to each other should be 
 right ; yet in order to have, as it is vulgarly, and erroneously 
 called Charity for all, the diversity of sentiments is attributed 
 to ignorance, which they consecrate as innocent errors. * 
 
 * It is not mv intention in this little work, to descant upon the various sen- 
 timents ofthe diffe-ent denominations, or to sav wherein two may differ; & 
 yet both to be genuine Ch' istians. as this would require a separate volume. 
 But my intention simply is to shew that to be ignorant with regard to such 
 doctrines, as belong to Christianitv, is criminal and to check the spirit of 
 indiffe-enoe , that it is necessai v foi persons o*^all denominations to be open 
 for conviction an i not to comfort themselves in their i«:noiante It is evi- 
 dent that the cio' trines of all denominations cannot be true; for se^•eral 
 thnigs which contradict each other, cannot all he the truth. If they be not 
 founded on the truth, they rest on "alsehood which pioceeds from the Dev- 
 il. Let men theiefore, not be indifFereiit in regard to what tbey believe. 
 
167 
 
 If sach ignorance be no sin, or if nothing be criminal, but 
 ?«eh as we know to be wrong, what is leit for the bulj Spi- 
 rit to reprove ? Tliat which 1 know to be sin, of that 1 need 
 not to be convinced. Now to suppose, that the Ht ly ISpirit 
 would be sent to convince a sinner of i-ins, v iih v\ hich he was 
 already acquainted w ould be a burlesque upon divine w isdom» 
 Such men therefore, must either deny the opeiations of the 
 Spirit, or sec that their assertion, that ignerante is not a sin, 
 is erroneous. 
 
 Whilst men are ignorant, how do they know when they 
 mean wvll, or that they have a sincerity, \>hieh is unsullied ? 
 Ignorance will lead to mistakes ; heiice such may also be 
 mistaken with respect to their good meaning, and sincerity. 
 The Psalmist prayed 'Seaich n:e, O God, and know my 
 heart ; try me, and know my thoughts : and see if there be 
 any wicked \\d\ in me, and lead me in the way of everlast- 
 ing.' Ps, 1§9, 23, 24. This shews that the Psalmist did not 
 confide in his good meaning, or sincerity ; that he even was 
 not certain what were the intentions o! his heart ; and lest 
 some wicked way might be concealed in him, of which he 
 had no knowledge, he gives himself up to the scrutiny of the 
 omniscient Spirit. What a glaring difference there is between 
 this Old Testament Saint, who \Aas diffident with respect to 
 his intentions, and feared that some wickedness might lurk 
 within him ; so that he implored the divine illumination ; and 
 many of the present Self-idolizing professors, who put the 
 fullest reliance upon their good intentions, and sincerity ; not- 
 withstanding they be stupified by the most shameful ignorance. 
 How can they repent, whi-nthey deny that to be a sin, which 
 is a sin ? When they call ignorance an innocent error, they 
 might as well call guilt, righteousness. An error is a devia- 
 tion from that which is right ; hence to speak of an innocent 
 error with respect to religion, is the most vulgar nonsense. 
 It is the same as to say an innocent crime ! Whilst men deny 
 that ignorance is a sin ; and though they preach ever so much 
 concerning repentance ; yet are they the decided foes to the 
 doctrine of repentance. 
 
 The Psalmist aUo prays 'Who can understand his errors ? 
 cleanse thou me from my secret faultsJ Ps. 19, 12. He 
 that cannot understand his errors, and prays to be cleansed 
 from his secret fau'ts, thereby indicates that there are errors in 
 him, of which he is ignorant, and from which he conceives it 
 necessary to be cleansed. Our Saviour prayed for liis mur- 
 derers : 'Father, forgive them ; for they know not wiiat they 
 do.' Luke 23, §4. The Jews for whom he prayed, did not 
 
168 
 
 know they abused so august a personage, as the apostle de- 
 ci.ires .- ' x\ hich none of the prmces oi the vvorki knew : lor 
 had thoy known it, th; y would not have ciui itied the Lord of 
 glo;y.' 1 Cor. 2, 8. As they crucitied Christ through igno- 
 rance, the question is, why needed they forgiveness ii theii ig- 
 norance was noc criminal ? Where theie is a torgiveness, a 
 crime is necessarily presupposed. What foUy it v\ould be, to 
 frgive innocence ! Here we see that ignorance was to be 
 fo given ; hence as nothing but a crime can be forgiven, the 
 conclusion is, ignorance must be a crime. 
 
 Should the Holy Spirit by the law, reveal our sins to us in 
 thrir original deformity^ we should see eternal damnation as 
 just, and inevitable ; and if we had not also laith m Christ, 
 we would utterly d -spair. We read of such characters in ihe 
 scriptures, who for the want of faith, upon bemg convicted of 
 their sins, despaired. The knowledge of our smb would be 
 no benelit, if we did not see our renn dy in Christ. 
 
 Faith which is a purt of repentance, is a condition, by 
 Tivhich the righteousness of Christ is apprehended I'he word 
 faith is variously applied in the scriptuies. As for instance : 
 it is used to denote the Christian Religion, and conlession of 
 the doctrine of Christ. 1 Cor. 2, 5. Phil 2, 16, 17. 
 1 Tim. 1, 18, 19. Acts IS, 8. ch. If, 27. There is a 
 faith of miracles. Matth. 17. 19, 20. ch 21,21. Luke 17, 
 6. 1 Cor. 12, 9 ch. IS. 2. Th re is abo the belief of the 
 existence of 07ie God. James 2, 19, 
 
 Bat the word faith or belief, when applied in the article 
 of justification, implies a relation to the person of Jesus Chnst 
 in his mediatorial character. Or it is the act ot apprehending 
 his righteousness. Ii therefore implies, not only to be convin- 
 ced that such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and acted ; but 
 also that we are particularly interested in the same ; hence a 
 confidence. Or it is. when a man attributes to his ( wn person 
 the meritorious obedience of Christ. We read of believing on, 
 or in Christ : — 'W^hosoever belie veth ??z him shall not perish, 
 but have everlasting life.' John 3, 16. ch. 14, 1. As be- 
 lieving in Christ, is the distinguishingt haracteristicof a Chris- 
 tian ; hence to believe, is often put absolutely for believing in 
 Christ. Sec Mark 16, 16. Acts 4, 43. It certainly implies 
 considerably more to believe in, or on Christ, than simply 
 to believe that he existed, and acted. The prepositions in, 
 and on signify the re'ationthat one has to the person, and me- 
 rits of Christ ; whereas one may simply believe that such a 
 p rson existed, and acted ; and yet be without a conlidence. 
 It must however, be admitted that without being previously 
 
169 
 
 persuaded of the truth, that such a person as Jesus Christ eX- 
 isifd. and acted, it vvouLt be impossible for any one to apjily 
 his meritorious obedience to himself. To be convinced ol this, 
 is preparatoiy to contidetice. Nevertheless, it is possible for a 
 man to be convinced that there was such a person as Jesus of 
 Nazareth, and that he performed all what the Siicred histori- 
 ans relate ; yet he niay not go so tar as to draw the conclu- 
 sion, that Christ lived, sutiered, died, and rose again from the 
 dead for the purpose of saving his person. He may be con- 
 vinced of all the facts, as recorded by the Evangelists j but as 
 he may no be sensibe of his guilt, and his siate of condenuia- 
 tion ; because he does not perceive the necessity of a help, he 
 is not influenced to apply the obedience of Christ to his own 
 person. In order to believe that those facts transpired, it is 
 sufficient if the understanding be informed by credible testimo- 
 nies ; but to be personally interested in the same, the heart 
 must agree, or confide. It therefore, is not only an act of the 
 understanding, but also that of the heart, as we are informed 
 by the apostle : — 'If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the 
 JLord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart, that God hath 
 raised him from the dead, thou shalt be sav^d. For vAith the 
 heart man believethe unto righteousness ; &c.' Rom. 10. 9, 
 10. Thus it is not only, that the understanding is convinced 
 of the truth ; but it is aNo realized by the heart, which plainly 
 implies a confidence. That the ancient Samts by faith, appli- 
 ed the promises to their particular persons, or that they had a 
 confidence, may be seen from various texts. See Gal. 2, 20» 
 2 Tim. 4, 8. 1 J .hn §, 2. 2 Cor. 5, 1. 
 
 The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews gives this defini- 
 tion : — 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for. the e- 
 vidence of th'ngs not seen.' Ch. 11, 1. He defines it suita- 
 ble to his arguments, and in the following verses, produces 
 sundry examples of the exercise oi faith under the Old Testa- 
 ment. Faith agreeable to this, has a relation to invisible 
 things. In so far as faith rests upon invisible things, hope 
 corresponds with it ; yet hope has a relation to future 
 things ; whereas faith must not necessarily relate to that 
 which is future, but only to what is invisible : whether pres- 
 ent, or future. The word which is translated sitftsfance, in 
 the origrinal, is v/tojasij, from v^iga^ai, to be placed, or stand 
 under — from.t^rto, w/n/er, and i?)j/^c, or the passive tfajuai. to 
 stand, or to be placed It is userl for a basis, or founrlation. 
 This plainly shews that faith, though it relates to invisible 
 hings ; yet it must imply a confidence in the divine promises, 
 
 .Faith is a condition of justifi'^ation ; hence it is erroneous to 
 
 W 
 
170 
 
 suppose that it is merely necessary as an evidence, tiy which 
 we {.irL St iiqb c oi our iiitcre»l lU C u ist. To ki.ow tiuit 1 am 
 iu-tilied, IS n)t the reus n vvny 1 am jusLified. >iii iiian can 
 kiio>v )\ any interest in Carisi, wiihuut liaxing such p. eviiius- 
 ly. There is a dni'ieii-e bet/.'een laith itst-h, and the percep- 
 tion thereof, li fai ii and the perception tiitreot were the 
 same, no man coulsl be a believer, but otiiy wh^n he was sen- 
 sible Oi .t. Tiie a '0:. le says 'E.'iamine yourse'ves, wiieiher 
 ye be in the taitii ; prove your Ovvn-elves.' 2 Cor. Ig. 5. 
 By a S;>1;' es.aminatie.a a man may ascertain whether he pos- 
 ses>es, or IS destituie oiTaith. A seli-examination presu) po- 
 se>, that we may eitiiei- posses, or b- desitute o'.a thmg -Aith- 
 out being sensible oi' it. Tiie sell" examination is for the pur- 
 pose or' making the discovery. A man \\ ho knevA that he liad 
 no tuitn ; and yet exa-iiined himself, would be like one that 
 seeks for a thing, which he knows does not exist. \Vh( reas 
 he, who at a'l times was sensible of his faith, would be in hie 
 self examination like one that atteu. pled to ascertain, wheth- 
 er he was in existence. What one is sensible of, is seli-evi 
 dent ; and a self-evident thing needs no examinntion to ascer- 
 tain its existence. H' nee as Ciiristians are exhorted to exa- 
 mine themselves whether tl'.ey l)e in the faith, it must be con- 
 cluded that a man may have faith ; and yet in consequence of 
 many temptitions, and other causes may not be sensible of it. 
 Thus laith is not merely to make us sensible of our inteiest in 
 Christ, but it is a necessaiy condition of apprehending hie 
 righteousness, and applying it to our persons. 
 
 It is eri-oneous to teach, that for whomsoever Christ died, 
 must also in'"a(lib!y be saved ; yea that such are already saved ;., 
 and that faith is only necessary for such to become sensible of 
 th'"ir interest in him. Hence such as believe an uncondition- 
 al election, believe that Christ died for n nf", but for su h as 
 will be saved. Without faith it is impc-sible to please God. 
 Heb. 11. 6. If we cannot please God without faith, it is ev- 
 ident that by faith we may plea-e him ; hence faith is not 
 merely necessai-y to fiiul out that we please him, but by it we 
 please him. When God has chosen a sinner unto salvation, 
 we are not to suppose that he is chosen \> it bout a foreseen 
 faith in him. It is out of the question for God to elect a sin- 
 ner unto salvation, uidefs he please him ; and by fidth oidy he 
 can please him ; hence without faith hecann(;t be chosen. If 
 the sinner be elected from eternity, he must also have pleaded 
 God from eternity ; by faith only he can please him ; hence 
 God from eternity must foresee this faith ; othei'wise fiiere 
 could be no election. To suppose that the sinner p'eased God 
 from eternitv without faith ; so that he could elect him unto 
 
in 
 
 eternal life ; and yet that in time the sinner cannot please him 
 uiti'.out iaith, is at once saymi;" Gxl's nnnd is changeable : 
 that once the sinner pleased lu^n withont faith ; so that he 
 could he eh i.-en : an ! aguin that in time he could not he [)lea- 
 sed with the sinner, but by his aiith. Such a changeableness 
 cannot he ascrilied to a perfect su|)ienie beng. 
 
 The sacred scriptuies indeed teach an electionj but not such, 
 as is without a condition. When tv\ o tliini'S are aiike, neitlier 
 the one, nor the other can be chosen : loi- v\ here there is no 
 difference, there can be no prciercnce. Ii is not disputed, 
 but one, or the other might be accepted through an inditierent 
 chance ; but not by a ratinnal chnce : beccaij>e there can be 
 no choice w ithout a difference in the objects. All n\en are sin- 
 iieis al ke by nature — tbeie is i o d.fiercnce. Kcni. 3. 22,23. 
 N}u as there is no dilfercnee between suuiers, \vhat nsay be 
 the reason, that God chooses one in preference to anethei ? 
 Thet-e mu'^t certaady be some conditicn : for the \c\y idea of 
 an el-ction impli' s tlvdt thi> thing, or person chosen,- n:u«t ei« 
 ther he more valuable m itseli', or connected with an < I ject 
 which makes it so, than that \\ hich is not chc'Sen. It has ai- 
 re dy Meen shewn, that all nn r. are sinners alike by nature ; 
 hence God cannot choose one in preierence* to anoihei", be- 
 cause of any suMcrior moral exeebence. Jrsus Chiist !^ the 
 mediator brtween God, and man ; infitiiie'y valued by all the 
 holy angels ; the pe uliar delight (d his Father ; hence the 
 sinner who by faith is <onnected with him. stands in so super- 
 lative a rtdation, that there is a supcrabun'^ant reason, wh\ (he 
 divine wisdom choose-- hitn as an heir of salvation. Si. P.ul 
 represents believers, as being chosen in Chiist before tie fonn- 
 dati n of the world. Eph, 1, 8, 4 No loan can be in Ohi ist, 
 so as to be saved, nnlc-s he have aith ; h' nee to be chosen in 
 Clirist before the foundation of the worb', implies a foreseen 
 faith from eternity, widch is a sufficient ground of election. 
 Now if the Ca'vinistic doctiine O' un^ onc'itional ejection were 
 true, the sinner could not be chosen in Christ before the foun- 
 dation of the worltl ; because this do<-trine supposes the sin- 
 ner chosen unto faith, i. e. chosen not because of any foreseen 
 faith, but chosen in order to be made a believer. This doc- 
 trine supposes God to choose one sinner before another, with- 
 out having any regard to his relation to Christ ; hence with- 
 out viewing any difference as the ground of preference. This 
 of course cannot be an eliction, but the grasping of a sinner 
 out of a multitude by an inditVerent chance ; because it is im- 
 po-;sible 'or a choice to take place, unles there be a ditiferen- e 
 i)etween the several objects, or between their relations^ We 
 
178 
 
 are informed by the apostle, not that God by an indifferent 
 Cii.inoe liad grasped the Saints outui t^ie ij.ultiiude oi mankind, 
 but that he had chosen them in Cmist ; hence as they are m 
 him by fanh, faith is the condition oi their justification ; hence 
 ii :s not merely to make us sensible ot our inte^e^t in Christ. 
 
 It is contrary to the principes of justice, to mipute tht good, 
 or evil deeds ot" another to us, unless we consent to the same, 
 or are connected with his person. The transgression of Ad 
 an would not be imputed to us : provided we could not with 
 propriety he viewed as being connected wiih him in his C' n- 
 duct. Neither can the righteousness of Christ ^^ith justice be 
 imputed to us, unless we be connected with him by faith. 
 
 St. Paul contrasts Adam with Christ : he calls the former 
 a ftiiure of the latter. Rom. 5, 14. And v. 15, he says 'But 
 not as the oftence, so also is the free gift. For if through the 
 offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, 
 and the gilt by grace, ichicli ishy one man, Jesus Christ, hath 
 abounded unto many.' And v. 18, 'Therefore as by the of- 
 fence of one judgment cairie upon all men to condemnation ; 
 even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon 
 al' men unto justification of life,' It is to be observed, that the 
 contrast which is here made, is such : that as Adam by his 
 disobedience brought sin and condemnation upon al! ; even so 
 Clirist by his obedi-^-nce brought the justification ot life upon all 
 men. This contrast induces many to conclude, that if the 
 word all, as it is applied to the justifica'ion of liie could not be 
 restricted ; so as to signiSy all the elect only, that all men 
 would intallibly be saved, without having a legard to faith as 
 a condition : but as they do not believe that all men will be 
 saved, they limit the word all ; so as only to mean a part : 
 for they cannot conceive how Christ should have made an a- 
 tnnement for any ; unless they also be justified. This conclu- 
 sion arises from a wrong view of faith, and not ob.'-erving the 
 distinction between the meritorious obedience of Christ itself, 
 and the application of the same to one's own person. If faith 
 be a condition of our justification, then no sinner can be saved 
 without it, notwithstanding the perfect atonement made by 
 Christ ; whereas if by faith \\ e only get sensible of our inter- 
 est in him, then we are sufficiently safe without faith : provi- 
 ded we are of the number for whom Christ died. To be made 
 sensible of our interest in Christ, adds nothing to it ; because 
 to be made sensible of it, presupposes that we have such al- 
 ready. I*' we have an interest in Christ, we are just as safe, 
 as if we knew it. The culprit who is pardoned before he 
 knows it. is as little in danger of being executed, as the one 
 
178 
 
 who sees the pardon before him : all the difference is, tliat the 
 former is in a leanul suspense, whilst the latitr is hlied with 
 consolation. But as the scripiures in many texts prove, that 
 we are justified by faith ; (hence it is a c ndition, ) it n.ust be 
 a most fallacious conclusion : that for vvhumsoever Christ di- 
 ed will also be infallibly saved. This would be true, il laith 
 was not a condition, but only a perception of salvation : tor 
 then the death ot Christ would protit every one, lor whom it 
 was made ; and sooner, or later such would be made sensible 
 of it. The word all, as appl.ed to the justification of life, cer- 
 tainly includes the whole human famil} ; because it is used in 
 such a connexion that it can have no other meaning : ior the 
 text plainly shews that the same All, upon whom came judg- 
 ment unto condemnation, also can e the justiiication oi lite. 
 Now not only a part were under condemnation, but all with- 
 out restriction ; hence the same all are redeemed by Christ* 
 The text shews that the righteousness of Christ, came upon 
 all men in the same sence, that c* ndemnation can>e upon all 
 by the disobedience of Adam. But how does condemnation 
 come upon all men by the disobedience ol Adam ? Thty in- 
 deed are under the sentence of condemnation, but they are not 
 all eternally punished. They in consequence ot the fall are 
 sinners, and under the sentence of condemnation, which 
 would certainly be executed upon all, and they be punished, 
 if some of them did not take their refuj.:e in Christ. In the 
 same manner the justification of life came upon all men thiough 
 Christ : viz. if they through unbelief did not reject his right- 
 eousness, they would be saved. If they do not believe, they 
 will as little be saved, though Christ died for them ; as th( se 
 will be sentenced on the day of judgment to eternal punish- 
 ments, who believed in Christ, though they lell in Adam, and 
 were under the sentence of condemnation. If the doctrine be 
 true, that if Christ died for all, that all must necessaiily be 
 saved, it would be equally true, that because all fell in Adam, 
 and are obnoxious to the curse, that therefore they must also 
 be eternally punished But who can believe that all n en, be- 
 cause they fell in A'lam, wil! be eternally punished ? The 
 general atonement of Christ, does not yet prove a general sal- 
 vation. To prove a ijeneral salvation, it is necessary first to 
 prove, that all men will believe, and apply it to their persons* 
 If this can be done, then on'y it can he said, that there is a 
 general restoration A privilege offered to a thousand per- 
 s ;ns, will not benefit the individuals of this number, unless it, 
 be individually enjoyed. Neither va ill the general atonement 
 of Christ benefit any individual^, unless he by faith applies it 
 to his own person. 
 
IMPROVEMENT. 
 
 ■Repentance consists in a contrition for sin, and faith ia 
 Chiist. A contrition necessarily presuppf>ses a knowledge of 
 sin. A man is the nearest to him.sef : and yet trequently he 
 is better acquainted with other objects, than he is v^ilh hinsse f. 
 He dreads his enemies, because he conceives they arc deier- 
 mined on his ruin ; but if he properly knew himseh, he would 
 believe himself to be in a greater danger : lor none of his en- 
 emies are as near, as he -s to himself. 
 
 They who only consider unlawful actions as criminal, and 
 would repent for such, are like one that would stop the stream, 
 and yet suffer the flow of the fountain. All unlawful actions 
 proceed from wicked motives. I ven;ure to afliim, that if a 
 man could be placed in such a situation, as to be preventet 
 from committing unlawful actions ; that yet, he in the judg. 
 ment of God would be worthy of punishnT nt, in consequence 
 of his wricked heart and desires. A man may be an adulterer, 
 thief, murderer, &c. before he commits adultery, steals, n-ur- 
 ders, &c. because his h-art conceives ah such wicked de- 
 sires. It is horrid to hear some men, who boast of being per- 
 fect saints affirm. that thougli they should have wicked thoughts, 
 and desires ; yet if they did not commit the actions, to which 
 they are tempted, that they would lie innocent ! O blinded I 
 filthy ! self righteous Pharisees ! how will ye escape the dani- 
 n ition of hell, when ye will not own your wicked lusts to be 
 criminal ! St. James says 'every man is tempted, when he 
 is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.' ch. 1, 14. 
 
 When we get sensible of our sins, we must also confess 
 lh<^m. Under the Levitical priesthood, when the annual sin- 
 off -ring was made, the sins of the people were confessed. Lev* 
 16, ^l. The nious P-almist was ingenuous in his confession : 
 'I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I 
 not h'd. I said, I will confess my transgressions unt" the 
 I^ord ; and thou ^brgavest the iniquity of my sin.' Ps. 32, 5. 
 St. John says 'If we confess our sins, he [God] is faith'ul 
 and just to foro:iveus our sins, and to cleanse us from all un- 
 righteousness.' 1 Epist 1, 9. Thus we see how a pardon 
 inthedi.ine tribunal, succeeds the confession of sin. How 
 vastly different are the proceedings of an earthly tribunal ! 
 If the culprit before an earthly tribunal should confess his 
 crime, his confession would be taken as evidence against him- 
 self ; whereupon he would be sentenccfl to receive the merit- 
 ed punishment. But in the divine tribunal a confession oC 
 guilt, is a condition of justification. 
 
17i5 
 
 When our sins arc pardoned, not only some, but all with- 
 out except un are parduticd , as it would* be no benelit tu a 
 sinner, it only sonjcand not al were puidintd : lor only one 
 unpardoned crime would rauler htm cbiicxitus to punishnient. 
 If wc must have a pardon tor all our sins, it is equally neces- 
 sary that we should also conless them all, v^itlioui any excep- 
 tion. But as it has already been shewn, that v>e are guiiiy 
 of many sins, with which we are not atquainled, it night be 
 asked : how is it possible to contess evu^ sin ? There is no 
 dititiculty in it, w hen we cunicss that ail our thoughts, desires, 
 actions, and imagination, ever since we aie in txistence, in 
 so far as they have not been guided by divine grace, arc wick- 
 ed ; yea that we are natura iy dcpravtd. feuch a con essun 
 is replete, no sin, even such, va ith which we are not atquain- 
 ted will be excluded ; and we are in no danger ol conlet>stng 
 a falsehood ; as this is the character oi ail n.en by nature, 
 -which is attested by the scriptures. The reason \\ hy u any 
 persons are not benefitted by their confession, is, becaubc they 
 on:y confess some known, and glaung s.ns. feuch a confes- 
 sion is very deficient, and so superhcial, that it includes the 
 very least of a man's w ickedness. It is in vain lor a man to 
 attempt to particularize all his sins, and to OChciibe thtm with 
 words in an auricular confession ; becau^e ^uch woud he im- 
 possible. Such as deny that ignorance is a sin, require oi their 
 hearers a confession on!}-, of their known sins ; and thus they 
 examine them at stated times with the interrogation : what 
 known sins have you lived in since our last meeting r are you 
 willing to repent for such, and amend your life ? O blinded 
 Pharisees 1 filthy dreamers ! ought you not to be ashamed of 
 your patch-work I To confess only one's known sins, is no- 
 thing but nonsense i. e. if done with a view to be pardoned. 
 For if the sins committed through ignorance be not also con- 
 fessed, and pardoned, let no oneconiibrt himself: for he may 
 not expect any salvation. It is evident that if we sin against 
 our neighbour, that \n e should particularly confess our laults 
 to him ; (James 5, 16 ) so that he might forgive us, in so fat- 
 as he may have been offended. But to pardon all our sins, is 
 an act w hich belongs to God only ; hence no particular con- 
 fession of a few known sins will suffice; but the confession 
 must include every sin. If our confession be replete, equal-y 
 so will be the pardon. 
 
 It has been shewn that ij^norance with respect to spiritual 
 things, is criminal. St. Paul says '^ A wake to righteousness, 
 and sin not ; for some have not the knowledge of God : I 
 speak this to your shame.' 1 Cor» 15, 34» The prophet 
 
176 
 
 concludes, that such ignorant persons are beneath the stand- 
 ing ol beasts, when he says : 'The ox knoweth his owner, 
 and the ass his master's ciib ; but Israel doth not know, my 
 people doth nt consider.' l^a. 1, 3. 
 
 But there is u clitiert-nce between being ignorant, and illite- 
 rate. VVhtn-eas the holy scriptures chietly are written m a 
 piain, familiar language, unlearned persons, when they hear 
 them read, or doctrines mierred ti'om them by way ol'preaih- 
 ing, may by a careful attention obtain correct views with re- 
 spect to spiritual things. The bodily eyeof an unlearned man, 
 may be as sound as that of the learned, and is as capable of 
 beholding an object ; and if in case the eyes of the latter be 
 shut, and those of the former open, he certainly has a consii- 
 derable advantage. The same may be said with respect to 
 the mental lacuKies. The unlearned man has the same ra- 
 tional faculty as the leained ; hence is as capable of perceiv- 
 ing spiritual things. Whdst the mental faculties of the learned 
 continue closed against the light of heaven, he with all his li- 
 terary accomplishmtnts, cannot have as correct views ot spi- 
 ritual things, as the unlearned, who suffered the Holy Ghost, 
 by the sacred word, to open, and illumine the eyes of his un- 
 derstanding : for 'the testimony of the Lord is sure, makmg 
 wise the simple.' Ps. 19, 7. This is confirmed by our 
 blessed Saviour : 'I thank thee' says he, 'O Father^ Lord of 
 Heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the 
 w^ise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.' ^.atth. 
 11, 25. Although the unleaiiied, or babes are not able to 
 write, or preach the gospel to others, as this requires a pecu- 
 liar genius, the knowledge of letters, and the art of eloquence ; 
 yet they may perceive the spiritual things, and each of them 
 may (if without ostentation.) declare: '1 have more under- 
 standing than all my tea "hers : * for thy testimonies are my 
 meditation. I understand 'porp lh;in the :incients, because I 
 keep thy precepts.' Ps. 119,99, 100. Hence the complaint 
 of many who call themselves Christians, is most disgraceful. 
 They say, whilst there are so many teachers, w ho differ in th( ir 
 doctrines, we cannot know who teaches the truth ; hence do 
 not know whom we are to believe, or with whopi to associ- 
 ate. Such because they do not see all the teachers united, 
 cannot satisfy themselves with respect to the truth Fn m 
 what they say, it se ms if all, or the majority of teachers a- 
 greed in doctiiu's, they would believe the truth without any 
 difficulty. This plainly shews that they wish to found their 
 
 * That is, such teachera whose understandings are not enlightened by the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
177 
 
 faith upon the authority of men. They could then believe, 
 bec.iuse tiie leaclioi > agreed in doctniie, win out beirii; ai the 
 trouble of exanunmg lor themselves. V\ hat bareiaced idiUi- 
 ters ! How they seek to put their trusi in n en ! Let such be 
 in a proper situation towards tlie means ot giace, and pay as 
 much attention to the y;o>pel, as they do to niany other ihiiigs ; 
 and I here is no doubt but vvliat thei> intel'.eetual e}es sha i be 
 opened, and illjmiued by the blessed tiutli ; and tliey f>hai; be 
 anointed, and sealed by the Holy Ghost ; so that they will be 
 n > longer in suspense. Christ say^ 'My doctime is not mine, 
 but his that sent me. If any man v\ill do his will, he ^hall 
 know oi the doctrme, whether it be of God, or whether I 
 speak of myself.' John 7, Lb, 17. 
 
 It is in vain for a uian to nupp )se, that he believes in Christ, 
 when he never suffered himsell to be convinced by the law of 
 his deep vlepravity ; of liis state of condenmution. The law 
 was before the gospel, and it must needs perform its ofiice in 
 revealing sin, and shewing the wiatij of God, before the gos- 
 pel can impart its comforts. When the sinner is terrified by 
 the law, he may at hrst conceive God to be angry with him, 
 which would also be the case, if there was no mediator ; but 
 un ler his ever blessed dispensation, God only by this law 
 terrifies the sinner ; so that he may be in a situation to re- 
 ceive the most superabundant consolati<jn. Let him therelbre, 
 who got bereft o\ his imaginary righteousness, by the penetra- 
 ting flashes of the law ; so that his spirit feels wounded, na- 
 ked, and full of poverty be encouraged : for the L( rd de- 
 clares — 'to this mun will £ look, even to htm that is p' or, and 
 of a 'ontrite spirit, and trembleth at my w<>rd.' Isa 66, 2, 
 
 Although a hatred against sin for the sake of its odio ;s- 
 ness, does not accurately speaking, constitute a part O; rcp'n- 
 tance ; yet by discoverinj^the consequ-nces to which it leads : 
 the separation it has made between the cr< ature and the cre- 
 ator ; the eternal exclusion from all happiness ; the sinner 
 will leain to despise it ; because he has sufficient motives to 
 despise that which is the cause of his misery Whilst men 
 are of the opinion, that to live in sin, is a benefit to them, that 
 it affords them some satisfaction, and pleasure, it is in v. in to 
 exhort them to hate it : for who \yould hate that which he 
 believed afforded him a benefit ? 
 
 Although a sinner must repent, in order to be justified ; yet 
 even the believer must also daily repent, because he is fre- 
 quently drawn aside by the inbred corruptions of his nature, 
 H" that knows th tt a saint has yet to strive against the tlesb, 
 also knows, ihat he does not live vvithoui repentance, 
 
 -3^ 
 
V7& 
 FRAGMENT Vlt 
 
 It IS sliewn that in the person of a heliever. there yet i emaini sin : Or whilst 
 lie hvfs in iliis woild, ih-j =truc between -lie Hcshan,. liie spirit continues- 
 
 A j;istiH«'cl person is represented by the scriptures, as cue 
 that <ioei not commit sin; iunceas innueeni; and tuveitheiess 
 al-'O, a-, u Sinner. St. Jolin says ' V\ hofcoevt^r i» hern ci God 
 duLii noi comniit s n ; .or his seed remain^ til iTi him ; and he 
 c^nnjt Sin, bcvaiisti he is lorii oi God. 1st cpist. ch. 3, 9» 
 T lis together »vith sundry uther. texts, thai might hi- quoted 
 prjve i.ut a e:.;eiiera.od p^rsj i ,i-»esn.»t sin, because iie -.s pes- 
 se^se I OI ho y principles. Btii on the coniraiy ^veare also m- 
 ioimed, tiiai he is yet a sinnci-. Tlius : — 'Fo;- we kii« vv ti.at 
 th, law ij, spiritual: but 1 am carnal, sold un Itr sin. For that 
 wiii h I do I ai ownoi : lor what 1 wou'd, that do I net; but 
 wha; I :iatc, tliai do I. If then I doihat w hit-h I \\(;uhi not, 
 I L )ii-eni unto the lavv that it is ^ood. Nuv\ th n it is no nsore 
 1 that lo it, but sin that dwell th in me. F'-r 1 know that in 
 n\.^ (that is, in ^n' flesh.) d wt.llelh ju> ^ood thing : tor to u i 1 18 
 present with me ; but h uc to peitomi that whi^h is good 1 lind 
 not. For the good tiiat 1 would 1 do not: but the evi! which 
 I wou d not that I do. Now i 1 d.o that I would not. it is no 
 more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in n e. J tind then a 
 law, tliat. when I would do good, evil is present with me. 
 F >r I d "1 ght n the law of Ga.l after the inward u an. But I 
 see another law in my members, warring against the law of n j 
 niin I, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin whi(h 
 is in my members. O wretched man that 1 am ! uhi. shall 
 deliver me from the body o this deiith?' Rom. 7, 14-24. 
 Ho>v plainly this proves, that no Christian is destitute oi snful 
 propensities. Again — 'If ye through the spirit do mortify the 
 deeds of the bo ly, ye shall live.' ch. 8, lo. Now. an mirc- 
 generat; fl person wa'ks after the flesh, and is destitute of the 
 Spirit; hence it is out oi" the question for him to mortify the 
 deeds of the body. Oidy such in v. bom the Spirit dwells, run 
 tnorti*}' the deeds of the flesh ; hence none but the regenerat' d ; 
 c^Misr-qu'-ntly as the}' are to mortify the deeds of the flesh, it is 
 evident that they must po-sess sinful desires. Again — 'The 
 flesh Insteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against theflesh: 
 ani these are cojitrary the one to the other: so tliat ve cannot 
 do th" things t'lat ve would.' G::l. .^,17. See Ps 51, 10, 11. 
 
 That the scriptures represent a justified person as being w ithv 
 
179 
 
 out sin, hence as holy ; and yet also, as sinful and unholy, is no 
 coiiiradiction ; bocuuSi.' us these twu dir.tiiivi p iiuijj.es exist in 
 hiiii, it may with propriety be ^alll,lhat acci.ioui^ lu ilir hpirit, 
 or the new man, lie is without sin, and iiuly ; but uccurtiingto 
 the fle»h,or theoid man, he ts a sinner. Let it not be Mippi.sed 
 that only the spirit, or new nian t \\ells> m ihe soul, vNluiyt tlie 
 fl 'sh. or old man only exists in the natural body. 1^ has ai- 
 reafiy been shewn that the rteii, partieularly w hen it is opposed 
 to tiie spirit, sijjniHes a wi-ked principFe in the soul. Like 
 til irns and wheat grow upon the same ground, 6% en so the 
 flesli, and the spim bodi exist in the r-atiie soul ot a justified 
 p-rson ; and -s the tiiorns grow natiiially uitii.^ut anj cult:va- 
 ti )n, even so this wicked principle is nuiuial y ui e\eiy man ; 
 an I as the wheat >n!y grows when ihe ground i^ pr(.pcri\ (ul- 
 tivuted, even so the spiritual, and h' 1} piir;cij le is not n.ituruily 
 in th > heart o any nian , it is impl.itU'd I }"graee. 
 
 T li-i new piin .iple eal ed tlie -p; ii d'.es .lot choose, nor de- 
 sire :inv thing, but what is goo t,- and ho:y. because it deltgi:ts 
 in the law oi GofI Althoa.;h tiie soul oi a believer be brought 
 into captivity by «.iii. it eaiin;it be said that he accoiding to ibe 
 n '-\ man consents to the same ; h n -e in this respcd it is true, 
 that he does U'tt sin wiit'ujiy. Bit according to the fle- h, he 
 wishes in ! desires t • sin. Hence it is erionecus when >oiv:Q 
 m^Ml affirm, fe.at a regeneratcii person in noi-espeet sins wiiiul y. 
 Ti -y a Imit he sins, but not wiliul'y. Such as Sjcak in this 
 manner, do not piop.rly understand wherein a sin consists. 
 Without a choiee. hence a will, there could neither be a sin, 
 n»r a virtue. A 'awful choice is a viitue. and an unlawful 
 choice is a vice. If there could be eitjier viitue. or vice, w ith- 
 out a free choice, then an unreasonable bea«t might aUo eidier 
 be virtuous, or vicious. Bui as it would be absurd to asci ibe 
 virtue, or vice to a beast, it is evident that ihere can be no sin 
 without a will ; h-nce to say, that a n^an sirs, hot not wilti llv, 
 is a proposition which contradicts itself: for it the choice Ve 
 taken away, the idea either of vice, or viitue must vanish. To 
 sin vithout a w ill. is the same as to say a man does not ^In at all. 
 
 The spirit is opposed to the llesh ; y("t the flesh is not so ea- 
 sily, nor immediately eradicated, 'ihe aposde suys 'ihey that 
 are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the afl'eclions and 
 lu-ts ' Gal. 5.24. To express the opposit ( n against the flesh, 
 he employs the metaphor of a crucifixion : i e he re presents 
 the flesh as an ex'^erable malefactor, that is iuuled to the cross 
 by the spirit. To die on a cross, is no -^uddcn, but a lingering 
 death ; as crucified persons may live sun Iry days, beibre they 
 expire. Let no one therefore, suppose that because he ii?.5 
 
I8fl 
 
 crucified his fl^'sTi, that it is ah eady dead : for whilst snrh an 
 idea is chensned, ttie wo. Id, and Satuii, the foes to the mw 
 creatuie, may administer reiiei to the tksh, and preserve its 
 life, and even succeed in hberating it from the cross, or from 
 the state of its crucifixion. But whilst the saint watches the 
 fl 'sli, which is his neare^t enemy ; ir thix.ugh the Spirit he 
 keeps it perpeluaily crucihed ; yet though it be not dead ; yet 
 is it \n sucn a state, tUat it is slowly dying, and must necessa- 
 ri«y at the saint's exit, finally expire. 
 
 Again — 'Kni)wing this, that our old man is crucified with 
 him, that the body of sin might be destroyrd, that henceforth 
 we shouKf not serve sin.' Rom. 6 6. By the body ol sin, 
 the apostle cannot mean a man's natural body ; because that 
 is the work uanship of God, and though it must die ; yet it 
 shall rise again It is pecuhar to the apostle's style, to call 
 t!iat ivhich is composed of several members, a body. Thus 
 he calls the church a bodj', because it is composed of many 
 members. A body o! sin musttherefore, consist of many mem- 
 bers ; it is a olose combination of ah vices. Thus when 
 pride, angf'r, idolatry, falsehood, envy, tyratmy, hatred, mal- 
 ice, covetousne:-s, &c. are linke I together to obtain a carnal 
 en I, there is a bo ly of sin, vviich contradicts divine holiness, 
 justice, wisdom, goodness, and truth; hence it is something 
 unclean, unreasonable, foolish, huilfu!, and lying. Whilst sin 
 is in a body, it is powerful, and the creature is necessarily sub- 
 ject to its doMiinion But in a regenerated person the Spirit 
 has destroyed th^* connexi n, which vices naturally have w ith 
 each other ; hence the body is dissolved. It being dissolve d, 
 t'i.> creature is not un ler the neccssiiy of serving sin. But as 
 O'dy the body of sin is destroyed, are yet the several members^ 
 th tusJ^h dislocated, in existence. Hence the regenerated per- 
 son i-^ not a slave to sin ; but yet, is he not entii-ely destitute of 
 it. Herein consists the difference between the worldling, and 
 the child of God : the former is a slave to sin, the scope o. his 
 inind, is to do that which is vicious ; but the latter is no slave 
 to -^In, the body of sin does not reign in him ; but only its dis- 
 located membei-s move in him, and tempt him to do evil. 
 
 Although the saint according to the new man, is no sinner 5 
 yet is it a most pernicious doctrine v\ hich some men teach, viz ; 
 th it a s:iint can. and must become so perfect, that he neither 
 fee's, no\* does any sin They frequently produce sundry 
 texts, which repiesent the saint as perfect, and holy ; and 
 when they have done this, thev imagine their doctrine is irre- 
 fr;i!>ably estab|i>^hed All those texts prove that men, in so 
 far iis they are saints : i, e. according to the spirit, are witb^ 
 
181 
 
 out sin ; but they do not prove, that there is no flesh in the 
 p:ison oi ii believer. The texts wliicli are ahead^ quoiec., 
 shew that there lb the flesD, and the spirit in every believer. 
 
 Christ is an advocate vvitli the Father tor the biiieveis, 
 1 John 2, 1 But if tiiey in all respects were without sin, 
 why would they need Christ's advoeacy ? Such tliere.oie 
 who teach that a believer is without sn, must deny thu Christ 
 is an intercessor tor his people. Nevertheless, sime in older 
 to escape this charge, have recourse to this shift : viz. that 
 thoufj;h there be nothing criminal in a Chi isiian ; }et there aie 
 sundry imperfections in his nature, which would not enoure 
 the strict sruiiny of the perteet law of GotI, v. huh renders 
 the a Iv )cacy of Christ necessary. What a glaring ronuatiic- 
 tion ! Can they not see that whatever does not endure the 
 strict scrutiny of the law, is contrary to it ; and v\ liat is con- 
 trary to it, must be a sm ? for sin is the transgression ol the 
 law. If those imperfectit*ns of v\ hich they ^plak., are not 
 criminal, what a burlesque it would be to suppose Chris to 
 plead for such I Christ is to intercede ibr imjierfeciions, w hich 
 are not criminal, hence for innocence ! What an absurdity ! 
 Those proud, self important hypocrites, who vainly dieam of 
 being perfect, and without sin would rather either deny the 
 intercession of Christ ; or suppose w hich is the most absurd, 
 that he pleads for what they wickedly call innocent failings, 
 than they would own themselves as vile sinners. They know 
 that they sometimes manifest anger, impatience, impertinent 
 words, &c. but as they are determined to maintain the idea, 
 that they feel no more sin, and are perfect, they justify them- 
 selves, saying, we know that we have some little tailings, but 
 we do not count them properly sins ; hence not criminal, nor 
 damnable. O generation of vipers ! how will ye escape the 
 damnation of hell ! when ye deny your sins to be sins ; w hen 
 ye rail that innocent, which is criminal, and mock Christ as;.n 
 intercessor, in that ye will have him to intercede ibr innocent 
 imperfertions ! ! 
 
 If a believer were without sin, his nature would be tho- 
 roughly sanctified, and he would be altogether spiritual. Now 
 that whi h is born of that which is spiritual, is also spiritual; 
 for like engenders hke ; hence if believ«Ts were thus sanctifi- 
 e I, the chi'dren they would beget, would also be holy and in- 
 nort^nt. But is this the case ? No. Their children are sin- 
 ners. This plainly shews that their nature is yet sinful. 
 
 All brlievers must die. But why "^ The apostle says 'If 
 Christ be in you, the body is dead b'-eause of sin : but the 
 spirit is life because of righteousness.' jRoni, 8, 10. Because 
 
182 
 
 of sin the bidy is dead ; hence as believers die, it is evident 
 that they are sinners. 
 
 B^liev«n's are co;nm m led to pray, and particularly in the 
 L>rd's prayer : 'forgive us our trespasses' They also by piay- 
 er withstand the motions of the tlesh. But what ti)lly it wuud 
 be, for an uiuocent;, perfect creature, to pray frr ,orgiveiu"^s ; 
 for divine assistance against tiie vile temptations ol the flesh I 
 When such nen. who profess lo be without sin. pray for par- 
 don, they m >ck Gjd ; because a being who is witlioui sia 
 needs no pardon, 
 
 IMPROVEMENT. 
 
 Since the scriptures shew that in a believer sin, or the flesh, is 
 3'et to be found, as well as the new spirit, theic i- no difticultj 
 in harm )uizing the diverse texts which represent hmi as bring 
 "without sin, and yet being a sinner ; becau-e both are verifi- 
 ed in the same person. In a believer darkness, and light are 
 conten ling for vict )ry ; and if he persevere in striving aga nst 
 the flesh, light shall conquer, and he be crowned with heaven- 
 ly diadems. 
 
 To teach that a believer may live without sin during his sub- 
 lunary abode, is baneful, because such as believe it, and be- 
 lieve they are perfect, will n -t bdow after holiness, and with 
 them repentance js out of the question ; for u hat need they to 
 follow after holiness, when they are already perfect ? and why 
 should they repent, when they are no sinners ? It is calcula- 
 ted to lead to a direct denial of the office of Christ's interces- 
 sion : for what need would there be to plead for the innocL*nt ? 
 Whatever doctrine sets aside any of Christ's offices, is wick- 
 ed and A.ntichristian 
 
 Nothi )g is calculated to hu\?)ble a s?int more, than a lively 
 sense of his natural corrupti in which remains in him. Thcuiih 
 he may be assured t'lat he is justified, and adopted as a child, 
 and heir of God ; yet this high, and glorious state, in the midst 
 of a wick 'd worlrl.does not elate him with ptMde: for he must 
 yet daily feel the wicked tlesh moving in his -oul, and wove it 
 not for the H dy Gh )st, crying in the heart Abba' or Father! 
 to prevent him, w m\\ perpetrate the blackest crimes. Or 
 were it n)tfor the higii priestly prayers of Jesus. Satan would 
 sift him, that his faith wou'd fail, and he bethru^Jt into despera- 
 tion. This prevents him from thanking God that he is so far 
 superior in h diness to others: he is not Ike the silly, proud 
 fools, who never enter into themselves to discover their owB 
 
18f) 
 
 filth ; biit are constantly whining about the wickedness of other 
 people. 
 
 Tacre aiT many chiUiren of God, who are frtquer.tly seized 
 with drciiiiiul .cars ; bicau.-e a though thiy do ti.tn lltmo^t to 
 eradicate sin, by watchuig o\er tlimseAeSj and jia\iLgior 
 succour ; yet du duy not see ihat ihc) get need hm ml, yea 
 it often appc-ars as if it only abouniled the niore. Lut u luist 
 they think that no one can be a ci.ild oi Ood^as long as> he teels 
 sinful corruptions, their ieurs v\ill not vaMsh. But let such 
 consiiier: that tlie deeper root sanciificatitn lakes in the heart, 
 the more the light of the Spirit increases; and the moieiliat 
 increases, the more ot the wicked, mbied corruptii n will be 
 discovered. Sin is not as st: cng in them, as It w as befoi e ; but 
 only 'he lively view of it n;aKes it appear as it they (.id not in- 
 crease in sanctities tion ; and as an enem} never lights harder 
 than when he is violently opposed ; even so we need not think 
 it sti-an:j:e, that when we through the spirit assail the fiesh,thafe 
 it -houl I not coliect all its powers tor so important a ct-ntest, 
 to staiggle for life, and attempt to alarm the new creature* 
 The soul that feels no more sin, is full of darkness, and has 
 ma.le a league with the enemy. When those terrihed be- 
 lievers compare themselves with the per;ect law oi Gud, they 
 discover so many defects in themselves, that they hear its loud 
 thunders of damnation ; whilst they are impugned by Satan, 
 ■who whispers to them : ''if ye were saints, ye would teel no 
 ?in : for how can sin dv\ell in a holy person ; if ye VAcre 
 heirs of heaven, ye should never be disturbed, but would al- 
 ways abound with felicity ; hence it is evident ye are forsa- 
 ken of God. in whom ye vainly attempt to contide !" But let 
 such souls be c omforted. Let them make an able defence* 
 Let them say O good and hoy law ! we con ess that we are 
 giii'ty, and if we could no; enter a vali i plea ag in>t thy de- 
 mands, we would have to despair. — But look O righteous law! 
 on mount Calvary thereunder thy sentence, the filaii Godhead 
 inea- nate, groaned, bled, and expired, to redeem us, thy de- 
 mands were amply satisfied ; therefore it thou wilt not ctasc 
 to condemn u-;, we will arraign thee for demanding n'Orc 
 than what is ju'^t : for is it not sufheient. that we were once 
 puni-hed in the person of Christ ? Further — O law ! behold at; 
 the right of the Father, sits Jesus our advocate ; deny and 
 make void if thou canst his all powerful mediatorial plea ; and 
 th' n thou mayest condemn, and hurl us into perdition ; but 
 whilst thy justice cannot deny this plea, thou must leave us in 
 heavenly security. And as for thee O Satan ! thou accusest 
 us in vain ; thy suggestion is false : for thou thyseU* art the 
 
184 
 
 prototype of all s'nners anrl lies ; thou art an out-law ; hast 
 been hurled iroru lieav<n, and condemned hy divme ju^iice, 
 to suffer eternal damnation. li' sin did not dwell in us \\ hilst 
 we are in this world, we should not live by taith in Chnst ; 
 but by thi* dee !s otthe law , henee by our own righteou-ness : 
 thus it is n )t inconsistent tor sin to be in such a saint, who daiiy 
 lives by a Saviour. 
 
 Uiider h2avy temptations the believer is frequently not able 
 to p;ay with words ; yet thf pledge of his adoption, tht Holy 
 Ghost, cries in hi- h^art Abba, Father. Likewise the 8j)i- 
 rit also heljie h uur intimities : ior we know not what we 
 shoul I priiy lor as wi* ought : but the Spirit itself maketh in- 
 tercession for us with uroanings which cannot be uttered/ 
 Rom. 8, i6. L t the afflicted soul cNamine himself, whether 
 there be not a latent desire, an almost unfelt pantmg after 
 God, a wish for his assistuncc, and for the smiles of his coun- 
 tt nance : f'>r snch a silent interna] panting, is the most eff< ctu- 
 al cry of the H dy Ghost in behalf of the believer ; and Ci< 
 cero. and D "inosthenes, could not rival its eloquence. O my 
 soul ! though assailed by terrors within, and temptations and 
 p-^rsecution without ; yet whilst this jiraying desire is in thee, 
 tliou hast the Hoy Giiost, the pledge and witness of thine a- 
 doption, 
 
 T le believer's life is hid with Christ in God. Col. g, 3, 
 Though they live in this world ; yet as the apostle says ^our 
 conversation is in he;iven ; from whence also we look for the 
 Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ ' Phil, g, 20. It is a life 
 bv faith ; and so it must needs be whilst they dwell in the 
 body : but as soon as the body returns to dust, the soul will be 
 in a glorious vision, and emancipated from all spiritual foes } 
 and on the last day the body shall be laised. immortal, and 
 full of felicitv. *A.s tor me, I will behold thy face in right- 
 eousness : I shiM be satisfied, when I awake, with thy like- 
 ness. Ps. 17, 15. 
 
 FRAGMENT VIIL 
 
 The use of the Law. 
 
 Whereas it has been frequently shewn that no man is justi- 
 fied by the Iaw% the question may be put : what is tln' use of 
 it? St, Paul fuinisiies us with the answer: *1 had not 
 
185 
 
 known sin. but by the law : for I had not known lust, except 
 the law had said. Thou shalt not coveu' Horn. 7, 7 — and v* 
 13 — But sin, ihat it might appear sin, working death in me 
 by that which is good ; that sm by tlie commandnient might 
 become exceeding sinful.' This shew s that ue would not dis- 
 cover our depravity, without the law ; and without this discov- 
 ery, we should not know the necessity of a Saviour ; and. 
 %vithout that, we shouid never believe : hem-e the apostle pro- 
 perly concludes, that the law was our schoolmaster to bring 
 us to Christ. Gal. 3, 24. This is the use of the law, before 
 a man is justified. 
 
 The scriptures teach that 'af'ter faith is come, we are no 
 longer untler a schoolmaster' — Gal. §, 2*5 — that 'Christ is the 
 end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.' 
 Rom. 10, 4. See also ch. 7,1-6. Thus at the first view it 
 might appear, as if the law had nothing to do with the believ- 
 er, as if it were of no use to him. It is evident that the be- 
 liever is not under the law ; so that it can be the least bondage 
 to him ; it has lost its power to condemn him ; he does not 
 live by it, an;l it cannot reign with an absolute sway in his 
 conscience. Thus Christ is the end of the law for righteous- 
 ness : i. e. as it respects righteousness and life, tl)e law is at 
 an end : for Christ is the believer's perfect rightcous^ness. 
 But as by the gospel the Holy Spirit is brought into the heart, 
 the law again is established : i. e. the law is written upon the 
 heart : -For this is the covenant that I will make with the 
 house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my 
 laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts : and I 
 V ill be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people,' 
 Heb. 8, 10. See Rom 8, 4. Gal. 3, 21. The sinner be- 
 fore he was justified had the same law, but he could not write 
 it into his heart : i. e. he could have no free will to love it ; 
 hence he must have been in bondage. But after he is justi- 
 fied, the law by the Lord himself, is v^ ritten into his heart : i. e. 
 he now delights in it ; hence in him, it is a living, moving 
 rule of his life, and conversati)n : and if it were not for his 
 fle^h, he would never transgress it. All the moral precepts of 
 the law, concentrate in Love ; hence it is morally impossible 
 for any creature to be released from its obligations. Hence as 
 the believer for Christ's sake is justified, and viewed innocent, 
 he is on'y under the law, like a creature of God, that never 
 had transgressed. Now there is a very great difference, be- 
 tween being under the law as an innocent creature, and being 
 under it as guilty. The innocent creature does not tear the 
 law J whilst the guilty is in the most servile bondage, Christ 
 
186 
 
 aid not by the work of his redemption destroy the relation, 
 whii.rh CI- -atures have towards their creator ; but that which 
 sinners sustained t.»vvards God, as a judge, A man before and 
 after his jus iBcationisG.)ci's creature, and as such, his relation 
 towards G )d, is not altered by the redemption of Christ. But 
 a nan's lelation towards God, as a.sinner, is such as to be 
 under r^mdeiTination by the law. This relation is destroyed^ 
 when he is justified, and the condemning office of the law cea- 
 ses ; because it must view the sinner as an innocent creature; 
 notwithstanding the many imperfections, which are occasioned 
 by the flesh, because Jtsus ren^ains his advocate. 
 
 " Til "re is also a civil use of the law. it is to bridle the un- 
 ruly, &c, See 1 Tim. 1, 8 - 10* 
 
 F I H I fe 
 
187 
 
 REVISAL, ^c. 
 
 The following inaccuracies, and errors which the author discovered ip 
 thU wok, as fj; as he has i ead it since it is piintetl are heieby conected : 
 
 In the pr face ; Written in Jefferson county, Kentucky, in the month 
 o*" June, 1825.' When I co.umenced this work, I wa^ in Kentucky, and 
 contem )lated to have tinishel it in the month of June, 1825; but as the 
 Wi). k is much la <^er, than ' expected it to be. I must obsei ve that it was 
 nut all written n that time, noi" in the state of Kentuckv. Thisciay, which, 
 is the 29th 0* June, 182G, I fin shed this woik. 
 
 Page 3, in-tead o( j edic ./>.*, in the 29lh line from the bottom, read ridi 
 culoui. P i, line 20th from the top, instead of syn-nim u:, i ead* si/«o«i/- 
 mo ts P. 7 line 21 st from the top, instead of coudict. r. 6 ndu'tt — P. 8, Ist 
 line, instead of (/eiCfwfc^, r deacnded — p 14. 1. 12th instead of rfi*c/ z/j?jl'w 
 T. decriptiin —p 15 1 8ih, loi ge^.e-ote r xepuiale — p. 17,1. 2d, from the 
 bo. om. for we e r. wa.i — p 27, the Hebtew name El Soon, is v^Tong, it 
 ough' to be ,':/ J ion —and line 20th f'-om the bottom, instead of immutua/ v. 
 imm dable — p. 28 line 15 h from the top fov en oninusr. enoneui — p, 32> 
 1. 8th for de'nean£i r. demeanour, or d meanor — p. 34, 1. 3d from the bot- 
 tom, for pr 'pe^ati^in r, prapagition — p. 35 1. 16th from the top, toi an- 
 swers r. an we- — same p. I 37 '.h for subter. anions r. subtei ranema — and 
 for jewiT Jewi — p. 36, I 6th for fini/ad r. vine laid ~ smd 1 27th. foi in- 
 atantanio (.%' y r. ins'ant me asly — and 1 36th. for charactei i es r. chai'icler- 
 izci —p 39, 3d 1. omit ih - ' and sub.^titute a , <ir ; — and I 9th for mines- 
 ^ry r minist, y—p 40 1, 29. h, befoie the word punitive insert the art cle a — 
 p 41, I. 10th, foi miiterious r. rm teious — p. 42 9th 1. trom the botiom, for 
 di troy r. destroy —p. 45, 1. 15th from the top, for carnel r. carnal — and 1. 
 21st. for spi-e r. spire — p. 46, 1, 7th, for say r. saua—p- 51, 1. 24lh, for A- 
 chaid r. Achaia. P 52 the phra'e ['having just befoie quoted a few passa- 
 ge:- of scripture which speak of regenerati.;n | occurs, to which must be ad- 
 ded and of increannr in sanclification. Page 56, line 10th from the bot- 
 tom for dispuches r. dispu'ckes — p. 60, 1. 5th f' om *he top for cause r means 
 .—p. 64, 1. 6'h, for pianest r. plainest — p. 72, 1. \\\.\\, for prote.itand r. pro- 
 tectant —p. 76. 27th line for ever r. e'-en — p. 79 lo3d, for braking r. break- 
 in J- -and 1. 23d for parcaining r pertaininz- 
 
 Paie91, >t is said 'Accoiding to the idiom of the G'-eek language, two, 
 do not amount to i plural number. There ai« ihiee numbers . the singu- 
 lar, the dual, and the plural. The singular expresses one ; the dual two; 
 and the plural, any number above two ; so that nothing less than three, can 
 be phnal The text has baptism- n. the genitive case, and plural number. 
 Bapti.m in, is dual ; hence expresses two baptisms, &.C.' But I must here 
 observe . that although the dual number belongs to the precision of the 
 Greek lani^jua^e, and though it be stiictly grammatical, not to express any 
 number le.,s than three, by a plural termination ; vet after examining sun- 
 dry texts in the '^ew Testament, in which two things are expressed, I found 
 the words not to be of a dual, but of a pluial tei miiK^ion. f had no time to 
 examine all the texts on the subject, but as the 'oodly number which I did 
 examine ha' e not the dual termination, I am induceil to believe that it does 
 not at al! occur- in the new testament. Hence what is said wiih respect to 
 the dual number, and wha' is infcred uom it in the aforesaid page, is here» 
 by revoked. The argmnent stands independent 91 this criticism. 
 
18S 
 
 Pa»e 93, 1. 8th from the bcttom, for Pariians w Partktans. Page 95— 
 In my comment on Act- ch. 2, 38, I said that the gifts ot the Holy Ghost, 
 which the Jews received upon their i-epentaiice, and after beinr b piised 
 weve miraculous. This is strictly true, because the miraculous gifts were 
 jjeculiar to the ag;e ot the primitive apostles ot Christ. The text says 'Re- 
 pent and be baptised, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the rem ^siou of 
 sin, and ye shall receive the f^ift of the Holy Ghost.' Now the gift of the 
 Spirit succeeds repen;.auce, and the remission for sin. He that has the le- 
 mission ibr sin is justified ; hence aUhough the gilts of the Spirit promised 
 to the Jews were miraculous ; yet it is also evident from other texts, that 
 aflera sinner is ju«titied by faith, the common, sanctifying gilts of the Spirit 
 are implanted in the heart, to sanctify, and cleanse it trom the inbi ed corrup- 
 tions. Hence the gilt of the Holy Ghost, which the Jews received after 
 baptism, were not those by which they were justified : whether they were 
 mil aculous or ordinary sanclilying gifts; because they previously had the 
 remission ibrsin, hence were justified. 
 
 Page-97 . in the note, 1. 17th, from the bottom, for \ircumspectly r. circum- 
 spect/y — p. 101, 1 2 1, foi' green of heaven r. queen of heaven, P 111 the 
 expression 'It unlocks the t^ates ol paiadise, and exalts the sinnei out of 
 hell into heaven, ' occurs. Lest it be misconstrued, I shall qualify its mea^ 
 ning ; viz -bii Ihe gospel Ike s,nner is translated from a state of cnuem- 
 nation, into a state of salvation.' 
 
 f:^ There have only been 112 pages of this work forwar-ied by mail; 
 hence i could only revise so much of it. Whatever errors or inaccuracies may 
 occur in the remaining past., I request my nephew, the e<;iioi to note in this 
 catalogue ; as I may not have the ojiportunity to do it my-elf. before the 
 work shall be ready to be delivered to the publick There are also a tew er- 
 rors that are not important, and sundry inaccuracies with respect to punctu- 
 ation, which aie not noticed :n this catalogue, which the judicious reader 
 will plea.se correct himself. 
 
 Page 1 IC, 1. 10th, from the bottom, for infeligent r. intelligent — p 119, 1. 
 13lh. foro the top, for he r the — p. 126, 1. ITth, from the bottom, for if\ If 
 — p 139, 1. lOlh, from the bottom, for in r. into — p 152, 1. Isl, on the bot- 
 tom, for ai'il r. avail — p. 171, I, 2d, from the bottom, for iinlesr. unless — 
 same page, 1 -tfh, f-om the bottom, for eliction r election — p. 174, 1. 3d, 
 from the top foi- hinucfi. himself — same page, 1, 13th, from the top, (or pre- 
 rentet r. pi evented- 
 
/^ ')f^/< 
 
 ^ 
 
s^g 
 
 ivS;^ 
 
 
 «m 
 
 '.i^i^ 
 
 ^jt^.