ioP »-, f ,C •Ax^^^i >0^' (jt. ftt ^hcottr^,-^.,^ ^ ^ PBINCETOU, N. J. '"'S. Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. AgJieza Coll. on Baptism, No. ^^O^/ ^\ .^"f F . r' REVIEW OF dk. wardlaw s lectures ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT; WITH TRACTS ON THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. By ARCHIBALD "mc LEAN, ONE OF THE PASTORS OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH, EDINBURGH. ^ "Js^eh) (Btfition, EDITED BY WILLIAM JONES. LONDON: PRINTED FOR THOMAS TEGO, No. 73, CHEAPSIDE. 1828. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/reviewofdrwardlaOOmcle 4i ^^N. .^P s-*:rf:cT."i^ It " ^ REVIEW OF MR. WARDIiAW'S tECTURES ON THE ABHAHAMIC €©¥EMAMT, AND ITS (SUPPOSED) CONNECTION WITH IwfiJWl l^^iiigw^ 1 -^^ ■^- -xVV'^t '?> A OF Mr. WARDLAW's LECTURES ON THE ABRAHAIKEIC COVENANT. -**;>♦««*— Though I have not the pleasure of being person- ally acquainted with any of the teachers in the Taber- nacle connection ; yet I am happy to understand that they seem to be advancing in scriptural knowledge, and that they admit it as a principle, " That all Chris- tians are bound to observe the universal and ap- proved practices of the primitive Apostolic churches recorded in scripture."* So far as they teach and practise these things, I do most sincerely wish them success ; and if in any thing they are otherwise minded, it is my earnest prayer that God may reveal even this unto them. Meantime I cannot but observe with regret how much their views of divine truth are affected by their attachment to infant baptism, in support of which they are obliged to adopt such arguments and interpretations of scripture, as are not very consistent with their sentiments in other respects, when that point is out of view. God has, indeed, his elect among infants, as well as among adults ; but to distinguish and baptize them as visible members of the kingdom * Mr. Haldane's Viev/ of Social Worship, p. 36. B <% T/>-»tfV 4 Review of Mr. Wardlaiv's Lectures of heaven, is neither consistent with the spirituality of that kingdom, as distinguished from the Jewish Theo- cracy, nor with its true visible appearance in the world;, as in the days of the apostles. I have perused Mr. Wardlaw's three Lectures on Rom iv. 9 — 25. compared with Gal. iii. and find that his main design is to support infant baptism, and that too from two chapters where it is never once mention- ed more than in any other part of scripture, nor does it appear in the least to have entered into the mind or view of the sacred writer. But he finds circumcision there, and the covenant made with Abraham respect- ing his seed ; and from these, by a long train of ingeni- ous reasoning, he deduces a warrant for baptizing the infant seed of New Testament believers. Reasoners on this subject have often been reminded, that it is of such a nature as not to admit of reasoning. It is undeniable that Christian baptism is a positive institution, fomided entirely in the will of the Instituter, and therefore cannot, like moral duties, be deduced or inferred from any other principle whatever but the Di- vine will, as made known, either by express precept, (which is its very institution,) or by the approved ex- ample of the inspired apostles who were commissioned to administer it. It is also plain, that baptism is a. positive institution peculiar to the New Testament, and therefore cannot be deduced by analogical reasoning from any Old Testament institution, either as to its form, subjects, signification, or design. These things we must learn from the New Testament itself, to which alone this ordinance belongs, and in which alone we have any revelation about it. Therefore, in answering Poedobaptists, we are under no necessity to depart from the subject, and follow their reasonings back to On the AbraJiamic Covenant. 5 the xviith of Genesis, where there is not a syllable about baptism to be found > The Baptists, however, have never declined to meet them on that ground ; and though the institution of circumcision is ibreign to that of baptism, and difi'ers essentially from it in many respects, yet it frequently leads to a discussion of, the Abrahamic covenant, a subject of great importance, and well worthy of our consideration. As Mr. W. draws his arguments for infant baptism chiefly from that covenant, in order to judge of the propriety and conclusiveness of his reasoning, it wiil be necessary first to consider the nature of the covenant itself. Men have given different views of that covenant. Some, both Baptists and Fcedobaptists, differ only in the mode of stating their view, while they aoree in keeping clear the distinction between the Old and New Testament state of things ; but others confound that distinction, except in a few circumstantials, and present us with a kind of semi-judaical system, which agrees neither with the old economy nor with the new. Some are of opinion that more covenants than one were made with Abraham, and produce express scripture for this ; others think that these were only the different promises of the same covenant. Some consider this covenant as bearing two aspects ; one towards Abra- ham's natural seed in respect of the temporal pro- mises ; the other towards his spiritual seed by faith, consisting of Jews and Gentiles, in respect of the spirit- ual promises ; yet so connected, that the former as- pect was typical of the latter : But others state it as their firm conviction, '* That the promises contained in the Abrahamic covenant, both the temporal promise and the spiritual, were made to the same seed, on the same footing/' and so they make it to be purely and G Review of 3Ir. Wardlaw's Lectures altogether the same w ith what is commonly called the covenant of grace. Now this last is Mr. W's view of that covenant, p. 33, 43, 44. and also that of Mr. Hal- DANE * and Philalethes, f though they differ in se- veral particulars from each other. Before I state my own view of the Abrahamic cove- nant, permit me to transcribe the opinion of two Poedo- baptist writers, who seem to have paid a great deal of attention to that subject, viz. Dr. Owen and Mr. John Glas. The words of Dr. Owen are, ** Two privileges did God grant unto Abraham, upon his separation to a special interest in the old promise and covenant. 1st, That, according to the flesh, he should be the father of the Messiah, the promised Seed, who was the very life of the covenant, the fountain and cause of all the blessings contained in it. That this privilege was temporary, the thing itself doth demonstrate. " 2dly, Together with this, he had also another pri- vilege granted unto him, namely. That his faith, ■whereby he was personally interested in the covenant, should be the pattern of the faith of the church in all generations ; and that none should ever come to be a member of it, or a sharer in its blessings, but by the same faith that he had fixed on the Seed that was in the promise, to be brought forth from him in the world. On the account of this privilege, he became the father of all them that do believe : For they that are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham, Gal. iii. 7. Rom. iv. 11. and thus he became heir of of the world, ver. 13. in that all that should believe throughout the world, being thereby implanted into * View of Social Worship, Sect. vii. p. 313 — 341.' t Edin. Evarig. Mag. vol. 3. p. 129—136. On the Abrahamic Covenant. 7 the covenant made with him, should become his spiritual children." " Answerable to this twofold end of the separation of Abraham, there was a double seed allotted unto him. A seed according to the flesh, separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah, according to the flesh, and a seed according to the promise ; that is, such as by faith should have interest in the promise, or all the elect of God. Multitudes afterwards were of the carnal seed of Abraham, and of the number of the people separated to bring forth the Messiah in the flesh ; and yet were not of the seed according to the promise, nor interested in the spiritual blessings of the covenant, because they did not personally believe as our apostle declares, Heb. iv. And many afterwards who were not of the carnal seed of Abraham, nor interested in the privilege of bringing forth the Messiah in the flesh, were yet designed to be made his spirit- ual seed by faith, that in them he might become heir of the world, and all nations of the earth be blessed in him." ** Now it is evident, that it is the second privilege and spiritual seed, wherein the church, to whom the promises are made, is founded, and whereof it doth consist ; namely, in them v^^ho by faith are interested in the covenant of Abraham, whether they be of the carnal seed or no. And herein lay the great mistake of the Jews of old, wherein they are followed by their posterity unto this day. They thought no more was needful to interest them in the covenant of Abraham, but that they were his seed according to the flesh ; and they constantly pleaded the latter privilege, as the ground and reason of the former." " It is true, they were the children of Abraham 8 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures according to the flesh ;. but, on that account, they can have no other privilege than Abraham had in the flesh himself: and this was, as we have showed, that he should be set apart as a special channel, through whose loins God would derive the promised Seed into the world. The former carnal privilege of Abraham and his posterity expired on the grounds before men- tioned, [having answered its end], the ordinances of worship which were suited thereunto, did necessarily cease also. And this cast the Jews into great per- plexities, and proved the last trial that God made of them. For whereas both these, namely, the carnal and spiritual privileges of Abraham's covenant, had been carried on together in a mixed way for many generations, coming now to be separated, and a trial to be made who of the Jews had interest in both, who in one only ; those who had only the carnal privilege of being children of Abraham according to the flesh, contended for a share, on that single account, in the other also ; that is, in all the promises annexed to the covenant. But the foundation of their plea was taken away, and the church unto which the promises belong, remained with them that were heirs of Abraham's faith only. The church unto whom all the [spiritual] promises belong, are only those who are heirs of Abraham's faith ; believing as he did, and thereby interested in his covenant*." Now, if Abraham's fleshly seed had no other pri- vilege in common by that covenant but what was car- nal and temporary, and which has accordingly ex- pired and reached its end in the coming of the Mes- siah in the flesh — and if none, even of Abraham's * Exercitat. on Epist, to Heb. vol. 1. p. 53, 56j 57* On the Ahrahamic Covenant. 9 lleshly seed, were partakers of the spiritual privileges of that covenant, but only such of them as were heirs of his faith, and believed as he did— then, it may be asked, upon what ground are all the fleshly seed of New Testament believers considered as partakers of the spiritual privileges of that covenant, and upon that presumption, baptized in infancy without any appearance of their faith ? The following are Mr. Glas's sentiments of the Abrahamic covenant : " God called Abraham, of the seed of Shem, and gave him the promise of Christ, and separated him and his seed, Isaac and Jacob, and the children of Israel, from the nations, till Christ the promised Seed should come of him. " We must carefully consider the promise made to Abraham ; for now the revelation of Christ the Seed became more clear, and the distinction betwixt the Old Testament and the New must be miderstood in a great measure by the due understanding of this. " It must be agreed among Christians, that own the authority of the New Testament, that Christ is that Seed promised to Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth should he blessed. Gen. xii. 3. ch. xxii. 18. compare Gal. iii. 6. So that here the gospel is preached before unto Abraham, Gal. iii. 8. By the nations in this promise, we cannot understand all and every one in the nations ; nor can we consider them as such political bodies of men in the earth ; but, according to the New Testament explication, it is " a great multi- tude of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues," Rev. vii. 9. and v. 9. — This will be evident, if we consider, that the blessedness spoken of in this promise is spiritual and eternal— Gal. iii. 8, 9, 14. 10 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures " And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then, they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham — That the blessing of Abra- ham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." It is manifest no nation of this world can, in a national capacity, be the subject of justification by faith ; and of the promise of the Spirit which we receive through faith. — " Thus far, then, God's promise to Abraham was spiritual and eternal. And here lay the object of that faith whereby Abraham was justified and eternally saved ; even as his spiritual seed of all nations are blessed with him, in the faith of the same thing that was then to be found in the promise, but now in the accomplishment of that promise, as is declared in the gospel. " Yet there was something in this promise peculiar to Abraham, and not common to him with all believers ; and that was, that Christ should come of his seed. Gal. iii. 16. Heb. ii. 16. That this might be evidently ful- filled, it was necessary that Abraham's seed according to the flesh, of whom Christ was to come, should be preserved distinct from other people, till the promised Seed, Christ, should come of them. And of this, which was peculiar to Abraham in the promise of Christ, there came another promise, which we may see Gen. xii. 2. 7. 1 will make of thee a great nation. — Unto thy seed will I give this land. See likewise Gen. xiii. 14, 15. chap. xv. from ver. 13. It is evident that this promise was temporal, as the other is spiritual and eternal, and fell to be accomplished before that On the Ahrahamic Covenant. 11 other. And this temporal promise was given as a pledge of the accomplishment of the eternal promise, and carried in it a type, or earthly pattern, of the hea- venly things of that promise. For the land of Canaan, promised as an inheritance to his seed according to the flesh, was a type of the heavenly inheritance : and so Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob took it to be, Heb. xi. 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16. And the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, that became a nation, and in- herited Canaan's land, was evidently a type of Abra- ham's spiritual seed of all nations, the heavenly na- tion that inherits the heavenly country. And the dilFerence betwixt these two was typified by Ishmael, the son of the bond- woman, and Isaac, the son of th® free-woman, in Abraham's family. Gal. iv. 21 — 31. '* This twofold pronaiee laid the foundation of a twofold relation to God ; the one spiritual and eternal, betwixt God and them that believed the spiritual promise, and all the children of Abraham according to the Spirit, in all the nations of the earth : The other earthly and temporal, betwixt God and the seed of Abraham according to the flesh ; which it behoved so far to continue till Christ came, as the end designed t)y it required. Of both these God speaks to Abra- ham, Gen. xvii. when he gives him the covenant of circumcision, to be kept by him, and his seed after him, in their generations. This circumcision was a sign of Christ's being to come of Abraham's seed according to the flesh ; and it represented the shedding of the blood of that promised Seed, and the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and was a seal of the righteousness of faith to them that believed in the Seed to come : so that, by the nature of it, it fell to be done away by the coming of that promised seed : and there- 12 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures fore it belonged to the temporal promise, and the temporal relation betwixt God and Abraham's seed according to the flesh, as that promise and relation was subservient, and had a reference unto the eternal promise, and the relation arising- therefrom. And thus God made the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, to be a God unto him, and to his seed after bim, in their generations, (Gen. xvii. 7. — 11, &c.) by this means separating Abraham and his seed, that were to be a nation, and inherit Canaan, to be a peculiar people to him above all people, and enclosing the promise of Christ among this circumcised people, till that promised Seed should come. " When the Lord proceeded to fulfil the temporal promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to make their seed a nation, and give them the promised land, he did it by means of a covenant, even that which he made with them when he took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt by the mediation of Moses, Exod. xix. 3.-8. This is called the old covenant, Heb. viii. 13. on account of the temporal relation between the Lord and that nation, which is [now] done away. It is also called the law. Gal. iii. 17. Heb. x. 1. because of the law therein given to the nation of Israel ; and the first testament, Heb. ix. 15. on account of the typical adoption, and the temporal inheritance, which was first given before the promise of the eternal inheritance was fulfilled. And when he proceeded in the fulness of time, to fulfil that great spiritual and eternal promise, of blessing all nations in Christ, he did it by means of another covenant, even that which he made by the mediation of Jesus Christ with Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations, redeemed from spiritual bondage and the wratli to come, by the On the Abrahamic Covenant. 13 blood of the Lamb, the true only and heavenly nation. This is called the new covenant, Heb. viii. because of the new spiritual and eternal relation betwixt God and this new nation, made up of all the nations of the earth. And it is called the new testament, on account of the true adoption. Gal. iv. 1 — 7. and the eternal inheritance therein given to as many of all nations as the Lord calls, now when the first inheritance is done away, Heb. ix. 15. This is the better covenant ; as much better, as the sure promises of spiritual and eternal blessedness to all nations in heavenly places in Christ, upon which it is established, are better than the promises of temporal blessings in earthly places to the nation of Israel, upon which that first covenant was established ; as much better, as the ivhnle people within the bond of this covenant, whose sins God remembers no more, who all of them know him, and in whose hearts his law is written, that they may never depart from him, are better than that covenanted nation, which continued not in that same covenant whereby it was related to God, and was cast off by him; — and as much better, as the blood of the Son of God sealing this covenant, is better than the blood of beasts dedicating the first ; and as his mediation is better than the mediation of Moses. And these are the two covenants or testaments of which the apostle speaks. Gal. iv. Heb. viii. and ix. He calls them two covenants; and so they are indeed, as much distinct as heaven and earth are ; and shows plainly, that all the covenanted in that first covenant were not saved, yea, that none were saved but by faith in the promises of Christ, upon which the new covenant is established." * * Glas's Works, vol. 1, p. 50. — 56, second edit. 14 Review of Mr. Wardlaivs Lectures This statement is much the same with the former,, only he takes notice of circumcision, and having explained its mystical or typical import, he consider* it as belonging to the temporal promise, and the tem- poral relation betwixt God and Abraham's seed ac- cording to the flesh, as that promise and relation was subservient, and had a reference to the eternal promise, and the relation arising from it ; and so, by its very nature, fell to be done away by the coming of the promised Seed. Thus he classes circumcision in the flesh made by hands with the rest of the carnal typical institutions, and views the promise to which it belonged as of the same temporal nature with the old covenant at Sinai, which was evidently founded on, and con- nected with, that promise, and in which God declares himself to be related to the whole nation of Israel as their God. And with regard to circumcision being termed a seal of the righteousness of the faith, he restricts that to Abraham, and to them that believed in the Seed to come as he did ; for so the apostle him- self, (who alone uses that expression, and must have best known his own meaning) expressly does, Rom. iv. 11, 12. And indeed, without this restriction, the apostle's reasoning would be not only altogether inconclusive, but inconsistent, as shall afterwards be shown. Now if the foregoing view of the covenant of cir- cumcision be scriptural, it does not afford the least ground for baptizing the infant seed of New Testament believers, but very miich the contrary : For here we see, that the covenant of circumcision was peculiar to Abraham's fleshly seed, of whom Christ was to come according to the flesh ; that it was of a temporal and typical nature, and accordingly has long ago been done On the Abrahamic Covenant. 15 away, with circumcision itself, which was the token of it in their flesh, together with the Sinai covenant which was founded on it, and all the typical and cere- monial institutions pertaining to it. So that the only covenant which corresponds with the gospel state of things is the new and better covenant, which was inti- mated in the original promise made to Abraham, Gen. xii. 3. typified by the old covenant, and expressly mentioned and promised in Jer. xxxi. 31 — 35. but did not actually take place till Christ came ; for it was made through his mediation, and ratified in his blood, or by his death, Matth. xxvi. 28. Heb. ix. 15 — 18 'Now the people who are related to God by this new covenant are described in the better promises on which it is established, as having his law written in their hearts, as all knowing him from the least to the great- test of them, and as having their sins and iniquities forgiven, Heb. viii. 10. — 13. None have any interest in the spiritual blessings of this covenant, by being either the fleshly seed of believing Abraham, or the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles. Here no man is known or acknowledged after the flesh ; but only as being the spiritual seed of Abraham, and that only by faith in Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. Gal. iii. 7, 9, 26, 29. *' For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love, or a new creature. Gal. v. 6. chap, iv. 15. Therefore to acknowledge any as visible sub- jects of this covenant upon the ground of the covenant of circumcision, or indeed upon any other ground what- ever, short of the scriptural evidence of their personal faith in Christ, is mere presumption, and of dangerous consequence. Further, as baptism belongs to the new covenant, so it cannot be lawfully administered to l6 Review of Mr. Wardlaivs Lectures any, be their parents what they may, who do not ap'^ pear to be the subjects of this covenant by the profes-* sion of tlieir faith in Christ, as the whole account of it in the New Testament, both with regard to its insti-^ tution and administration, clearly demonstrates. I do not in the main diflfer from the state which the forementioned writers have given of the Abrahamic co- venant ; but shall only observe, that they seem to vie\T all the promises, both spiritual and temporal, which were made to Abraham, first and last, as only different promises and renewals of one and the same covenant, though they admit that it involved in it two very differ^ ent future covenants, the old and the new ; and in this light I have treated the subject in my 7th Letter to Mr. Glas. Yet as the scriptures speak of more cove- Jiants than one being made with Abraham, I think it safest to give place to the express language of, scrip- ture. I know no differonrp. hotwRPn n simple promise and a promissory covenant, but only this, that the latter was usually confirmed by sacrifice, an oath, or some other solemn ratification, which gave it a covenant form. Now the original promise made to Abraham, recorded in Gen. xii. 3. and which was four hundred and thirty years before the law, is termed by the apostle, " the COVEN ANT that was confirmed before of God in Christ," Gal. iii. 17. and this was afterwards renewed and confirmed by an oath. Gen. xxii. 18. . Heb. vi. 13—^18. The promise in this covenant is, " In thee shall all na- tions be blessed ;" which the apostle explains, entirely in a spiritual sense, as being the gospel which was preached before to Abraham respecting God's design of justifying the heathen through faith, Gal. iii. 8. and upon this view of it he grounds his argument through- On the Abrahamic Covenant l*?* out the rest of that chapter. About eight years after this original transaction, God made a covenant with Abraham respecting the inheritance of the land of Ca- naan. He had promised it to him and liis seed before, but now he puts his promise into the form of a covenant ratified upon sacrifice, Gen. xv. 9, 10, 17, and so it is said, " In that same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying. Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river the river Euphrates," ver. 18. see also Psal. cv. 8 — 12. About sixteen years after this, God gave him the COVENANT of circumcision (as it is termed. Acts vii. 8.) in which he renewed the promises of multiplying his seed, of giving them the land of Canaan, and of being a God to him and to his seed after him in their generations, and, as a token of this covenant in their flesh, he commanded that every man-child among- them should be circumcised. Gen. xvii. 4 — 15. Thus we may see that there were different covenants made with Abraham, and so the apostle speaks of them in the plural number, calling them the covenants, Rom. ix. 4. the covenants of promise, Eph. ii. 12= The first contained the promise of spiritual blessings in Christ to Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations, Jews and Gentiles, as the apostle explains it at large. The other two contained temporal promises to Abraham's fleshly seed, which were literally fulfilled to the nation of Israel, served to keep them distinct from all other nations till Christ should come of them, and at the same time were types and pledges of spiritual blessings to the faithful among them. Having thus stated my view of the original covenant made with Abraham, and of the covenant of circumci- sion which was made with him and his seed about c 18 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures twenty-four years after, I proceed now to make some observations on Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures. On Rom. iv. 11. he observes, "That circumcision is here represented, first, as a sign, and, secondly, as a seal. A sign i&ihBi\v\\\c\i represents; a sea/ that which confirms^ assures, or pledges'' With regard to the first, he says, " It was a sign of the spiritual blessings be- stowed in justification — The taking away of sin both in its guilt and in its pollution, or justification and sancti- fication ; the circumcision of the heart ; the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." And he also thinks that circumcision was probably intended as a sign, that the seed in whom all nations were to be blessed, should come from the loins of Abraham." P. 8, 9, 10. It is admitted that circumcision, as well as all the other carnal and typical institutions of the Old Testa- ment, had a spiritual or mystical meaning, which ap- plied to all the spiritual seed of Abraham, even as it had also a plain and literal meaning as applicable to all his fleshly seed. But this affords no argument for infant baptism; for baptism has not a twofold meaning like circumcision, a letter and a spirit, but it is a sign of spiritual blessings only, and therefore be- longs to none but those who appear to be the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith. He next considers of what circumcision is here said to be, a seal. "Abraham received the sign of cir- cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised." But he does not think that it was to Abraham the seal of his own personal justification, or that it is the manner of God to seal thus to any their personal acceptance. This he imagines would be inconsistent with the future trials ©f his faith, and his inheriting the promises through On the Ahrdhamic Covenant. 19 faith and patience — and with the exhortation given to Christians to give diligence to make their calling and election sure ; and that therefore it was not properly a seal of Abraham's faith and acceptance, but of justifi- cation, being by the faith of Abraham. P. 11, 12. Here I think Mr. W. is in a very great mistake. Abraham's receiving circumcision as a seal of his own jDersonal faith and acceptance, was certainly very con- sistent with the future trials of his faith and patience, and tended to support him under these trials. Paul speaks of believers as having the Spirit as the earnest of the inheritance, and of their being sealed unto the day of redemption, Eph. i. 13, 14. ch. iv. 30. had they therefore no more to do with trials of faith and patience? Peter represents Christians as rejoicing with joy un- speakable and full of glory, while they were actually exercised with manifold trials of faith and patience, 1 Pet. i. 6, 7, 8. And why did he exhort them to give diligence to make their calling and election sure, 2 Pet. i. 10. if no such certainty was attainable in this life, or if he thought such attainment inconsistent with their future trials of faith and patience ? Do trials of faith consist chiefly in doubts about a man's state ? If circumcision was not a seal to Abra- ham of his personal faith and acceptance, how could it be a " seal to him of justification being by the faith of Abraham ; or that uncircumcised Gentiles would be justified by the like faith T' The truth is, it was a seal to him of his own personal justification by faith, and consequently of the justification of all who should afterwards believe as he did, Rom. iv. 23, 24. But this does not prove that it was such a seal to all his natural seed, nor indeed to any of them at eight days old. 20 Review of Mr. Wardlaiv's Lectures He puts the question, " What was circumcision io those who followed Abraham in the observance of it? What was it to his seed ?" and answers, " That, as a sign, it could never change its meanino- while it conti- nued in practice. What a sign is fitted to represent fit first, it is fitted from its nature always to represent." P. 13. This is nothing to the purpose. The question is.. What was its meaning as administered to Abraham's natural posterity ? In answer to this he says, " It de- noted the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh — the circumcision of the heart — that separation to God which takes place when faith was covmted for righteousness — and the coming of Christ from the loins of Abraham." P. 13. Here he gives us its mystical or typical sense, which is realized only in Abraham's spiritual seed, and is applied to New Testament believers; but does not say, what it was to all Abraham's natural posterity indis- criminately as such. If it was a sign to them only of spiritual blessings, it must have been a mere empty sign to the most of them of what they neither discern- ed nor possessed. And if it was fitted from its nature ahvays to represent only the spiritual blessings of the gospel, as its literal and plain import, how came it to be set aside? nay, how came the apostle to represent it as of the most pernicious consequences to the Gen- tile converts, declaring, that if they were circumcised, Christ would profit them nothing ; and that it made them debtors to do the whole law ? Gal. v. 2, 3, 4. It should be particularly observed, that circum- cision had both a letter and a spirit, i. e. a literal and a mystical meaning, as all the other typical institu- tions had. The Lord promised to Abraham, that in On the Abrahamic Covenant. 21 him, or in his Seed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed, Gen. xii. 3. which promise he confirmed with an oath. Gen. xxii. 18. This is that covenant to which the apostle so often refers, and. says it was confirmed of God in Christ 430 years before the law. Gal. iii. 17.* But besides this, God afterwards made another covenant with Abraham in a subserviency to the former, wherein be promised to multiply Abraham's seed, to give them the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and to be their God, Gen. xvii. 6 — 9. To this covenant, which was literally with Abraham's natural seed, he annex- ed the sign of circumcision : "And ye shall circum- cise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations — and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." Ver. 11, 12, 13. Here we see that circumcision was anindelible * The covenant referred to, being 430 years before the giving of ihe law, must be that gospel promise made to Abram, Gen. xii. 3. when he was 75 years of old, ver. -1. Years From thence to the birth of Isaac, when he was an hundred, Gen. xxi. 5.is • 25 From thence to the birth of Jacob, when Isaac was threescore, Gen. XXV. 26, is • 60 From thence to Jacob's going into Egypt, when he was 130, Gen. xlvii. 9, is 130 From thence to Israel's deliverance out of Egypt, and the giving of the law^ is - 215 So that the whole time of their sojourning in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, according to the Seventy, (Exod. xii. 40. Slakes t .. . ,.>•••• \ 43© ■} ^ Review of Mr. Wardlaws Lectures mark in the flesh of all Abraham's natural seed, particit- lariy in the line of Isaac and Jacob, and it must have signified to them what was literally imported in the promises to which it was annexed. It was the token of God's covenant whereby they were separated from the rest of mankind to be a peculiar people to himself, and by which he stood related to them as their God in the same sense as he declared himself the God of the whole nation of Israel ; and it also signified their being heirs of the earthly inheritance of the land of Canaan, and of its temporal blessings, which was made over to them by that covenant. This was the original and literal meaning of circum- cision, as it belonged to the natural posterity of Abraham. But then both circumcision and the temporal pro- mises to which it was annexed, had also a mystical or typical sense. As the children of the flesh are not, as such, the real children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, Rom. ix. 8. so " he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision," i. e. the true circumcision, which is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men, but of God,'' chap. ii. 28, 29. Outward circum- cision in the flesh of Abraham's natural seed, was only a type of the circumcision of the heart of his spiritual seed, or of that " circumcision which is made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ," Col. ii. 11. And so New Testament believers are termed the circumci- sioti who worship God in the Spirit, &c. Philip, iii. 3. The true seed of Abraham are only " they who are On the Ahrahamic Covenant, 23 of faith," Gal. iii. 7. — The earthly inheritance of the land of Canaan was a type of the heavenly countiy, Heb. xi. 10, 16. — and the temporal relation in which God stood to the fleshly seed of Abraham by the covenant of circumcision, and afterwards by the cove- nant at Sinai, and which is now done away, was a t3rpe of the spiritual and eternal relation in which he stands, by the new covenant, to all the children of Abraham by faith, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, Gal. iii. 26, 29. Thus we see that circumcision, and what pertained to it, had both a letter and a spirit, or a literal sense in relation to the fleshly seed of Abraham, and a mystical or typical sense in reference to his spiritual seed. Much confusion and inconclusive reasoning- has been introduced on this subject from not properly distinguishing these things. He observes, "That circumcision retained the nature of a seal of the righteousness of faith, to all who were not of the circumcision only, but also walked in the steps of Abraham's faith." P. 13. Granting this, it makes nothing for infant baptism, but very much against it, unless he could show, that circumcision retained the nature of a seal of righteous- ness to all Abraham's natural posterity, whether they walked in the steps of his faith or not. The apostle, however, does not say, that circumcision was a seal of righteousness in its universal application to Abra- ham's infant seed ; but only that Abraham himself *' received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righ- teousness of the faith which he had in uncircumcision that he might be the father of all them that believe in uncircumcision," i. e. of all believing Gentiles, "that 24 Review of Mr. Wardlaws Lectures righteousness might be imputed to them also ; and ti!« father of the circumcision to them who are not of ihe circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had in uncir- cumcision." i. e. That he might be a father to such Of his circumcised seed only as imitate his faith. The design of the apostle is to exclude both circumcision and the w^orks of the law (which he joins together on this subject) from having any influence on justifica- tion ; and therefore, having shown that Abraham was justified by faith exclusive of works, ver. 2 — 6. he proceeds here to show, that it was exclusive of cir- cumcision also, because he was justified before he was circumcised, ver. 10. and he received circum- cision afterwards, not to contribute to his justification, but as a seal that he was justified by faith while in uncircumcision. If circumcision retained the nature of a seal of the righteousness of faith to others besides Abraham, it could be such a seal to those only who, like him, believed ; and Mr. W. has not yet ventured to affirm that it was a seal of righteousness to any but believers. To show that circumcision retained the nature of a seal of righteousness, he instances in " Isaac and Jacob, Abraham's immediate successors in the faith, in the line from which Messiah w^as to spring," and asks, " What was circumcision to them ?" And having observed that they were heirs with Abraham of the same promises, Heb. xi. 9. and that the promises made to Abraham were expressly repeated by God to them. Gen. xxvi. 1 — 5. chap, xxviii. 10. he proceeds thus, " Now I hardly think any one will say, that while circumcision was to Abraham a seal of the rigiiteous- ness of faith, it was to Isaac and Jacob, these heirs On the AhraJiamic Covenant. 25 with him of the same promises, a mere mark of their carnal descent from Abraham, and of their heirship of temporal blessings. Was it not to them a seal or pledge of the faithfulness of God to that promise of which they were fellow-heirs with their father ? that is, a seal of spiritual blessings, which is the same, in effect, as a seal of the righteousness of faith — I cannot think it was less." P. 13, 14. Isaac and Jacob were heirs with Abraham both of the temporal and spiritual promises. Of the former they were heirs hy birth as the seed of Abraham, for these were stipulated to Abraham and his seed after him. — Of the latter they became heirs by faith in the promised Seed, and so had righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had. But why single out Isaac and Jacob from among the rest of Abraham's circumcised seed ? Is it because they are a proper specimen of the whole? I hardly think he will maintain this. Or is it to show, that circumcision was something to them at eight days old which it was not to others ? If so, then it may be asked, what was circumcision to the whole of Abraham's seed to whom it was indiscriminately administered ? It is certain that the covenant of cir- cumcision had no regard to any distinction of charac- ter among Abraham's natural seed, nor was it possible that it should, because circumcision was to be admin- istered at eight days old. Circumcision therefore be- longed to them all alike by their birth as descendants of Abraham ; for thus the covenant runs, " This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; Every man-child among you shall be circumcised.— And he that is eight DAYS OLD shall be circumcised among you, every MAN-CHILD in your generations," Gen. xvii. 10, 12. 26 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures Here it is plain, that every male-infant, descended from Abraham, had as good a right to circimicision by the divine command as either Isaac or Jacob had in infancy. Circumcision in its letter, or proper and literal sense, was the very same thing to Isaac and Jacob, in infancy, that it was to all the infant-seed of Abraham. It was to the whole of them (as has been showm) a sign of their separation and relation to God as his typical people, by an external covenant of which it was a token in their flesh, and of their being heirs of tlie earthly inheritance and its temporal bless- ings. And with regard to spirituals, their chief ad- vantage was, that unto them were committed the oracles of God, Rom. iii. 2. which contained the revelation of his will, and intimations of good things to come. Isaac and Jacob were doubtless heirs of spiritual blessings ; but not by virtue of the covenant of circumcision, or by being of the circumcision only, which was common to them with all the natural pos- terity of Abraham ; but only through the righteousness of faith, manifested by their walking in the steps of that faith of their father Abraham which he had while tmcircumciscd, Rom. iv. 12, 13. for it is only they who are of faith that are the children of Abraham, and are blessed with faithful Abraham, in the sense of the gospel promise made to him. Gal. iii. 7, 8, 9. Mr. W. having affirmed that circumcision was to Isaac and Jacob a seal of spiritual blessings, he adds, " Yet if it was so, we have here a seal of spiritual blessings administered by divine command to infants of eight days old. And this certainly shows that there is no absurdity in the thing itself, and no absur- dity in the idea of circumcison being a seal to all who should afterwards believe, of the righteousness of On the Ahrahamic Covenant. 27 ' faith, or of the same blessings which it sealed ori- ginally ; for what may be in one case may be in ten thousand." P. 14. Here he takes it for granted, that circumcision " was a seal of the righteousness of faith at eight days old to all who should afterwards believe." But the scripture says no such thing. It informs us, that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised ; but it nowhere says that infants of eight days old received it as a seal of their future faith and acceptance. Mr. W. says, that " a seal is that which confirms, assures, or pledges," p. 8. and does he really believe that circumcision confirmed, assured or pledged, that all the infants to whom it was administered would afterwards believe and be justified ? If it be said, that it sealed the righteous- ness of faith to them, if they should afterwards be- lieve, this is only to say, that when administered it was no seal of righteousness to them, nor till they actually believed, which, it is likely, might never take place : and can we term this a divine seal of spiritual bless- ings as administered to infants of eight days old ? In the law of circumcision there is no restriction of it to those infants who should afterwards believe ; for had it been so restricted it could have been administered to nene in infancy, because such were known to God only. As therefore the covenant of circumcision makes no distinction among the male-infants of Abra- ham's posterity, nor any difference as to what it sig- nified to some more than to others, it must have been the same thing, whatever that was, to Isaac and Jacob in infancy that it was to all the rest, and to affirm the contrary is mere assertion without the least *28 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures foundation. Those of them who afterwards believed, and so became the spiritual seed of Abraham, were possessed of the righteousness of faith, and the cir- cumcision of the heart made without hands, and so had the spirit of circumcision ; but this could not be anticipated and sealed to them by any outward sign in infancy, it being then a profound secret in the mind and sovereign purpose of God. Hence it appears, that outward circumcision in the flesh must have had a literal signification, which applied equally to all the male-infants of Abraham's seed, whether they should afterwards become real believers or not. The great body of the circumcised nation of Israel were a carnal people, uncircumcised in heart and ears ; yet circum- cision was not misapplied wlien administered to them in infancy, but was according to the express command of God. He thinks there is nothing in the circumcision of infants that unfits it for being a seal of the righteous- ness of faith, which would not equally unfit it for being a seal of temporal blessings. P. 15. This would bo true, if the righteousness of faith de- volved upon lis as heirs to our natural parents. If an earthly inheritance is by a deed conveyed to a man and his seed after him in their generations, his children have a right to it by birth, according to the tenor of the deed ; and by that same birth they are known to be heirs, and so may have a token or seal of heirship (circumcision for instance) impressed upon them in infancy as well as at any after period. Here its fitness is obvious, because it is a token or seal of a truth, or existing title. But if faith, or a second birth, be ne- cessary to the enjoyment of spiritual blessings, then it is plain that circumcision could not seal the righteous- On the Abrahamic Covenant. 29 ness ot faith to any of Abraham's seed in infancy, nor even when adults, except to such of them as believed as he did. It is only they who be of faith that are blessed wuth faithful Abraham. Indeed, we no where find circumcision termed a seal of the righteousness of the faith of any but that of Abraham, and that as fa- ther of the faithful ; and to suppose that circumcision was administered by divine authority to the whole of Abraham's natural seed, as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which they had, w^ould certainly be a very great absurdity. Hitherto he has been giving us his sense of the first clause of verse 11. " And he received the sign of cir- cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised ;" and now proceeds to the words following, viz. " that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also ; and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised." To illustrate these words he observes, " 1. That Abraham on his being justified by faith, was constituted the father, in a spiritual sense, of all among mankind, both of his natural descendants and of the Gentiles, who, to the end of time, should be justified in the same way." " 2. Abraham's being justified when in imcircum- cision, denoted that he should have part of his spirit- ual family from among the uncircumcised Gentiles : that he was to be the father of all them that believe^ though not circumcised." In both these observations he has exactly hit the 30 Review of Mr Wardlmv's Lectures sense of the apostle, and is perfectly right. Only, iu the second observation, he might have added, that Abraham's being justified in uncircumcision, denoted also, that none of his natural descendants were justi- fied by circumcision, which enters also into the apos- tle's design. But as neither of these observations comes up to the point he has chiefly in view, therefore he adds, " 3. When Abraham received the sign and seal of circumcision, he then became, according to the appel- lation, the father of circumcision. Now observe par- ticularly to what description of persons he is represent- ed as holding this relation — to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also ivalk in the steps of his faith." And he thinks, *' words could hardly intimate more plainly, that circumcision was a seal of this covenant, not merely as to the temporal part of it, but also as to the spiritual. For surely it must have been of the same import to the children of circumcision as it was to the father of circumcision. " P. 16, 17. He admits that Abraham is here spoken of as a spiritual father to a believing or spiritual family ; and he bids us " observe particularly to what description of persons he is represented as holding this relation — to them who are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of his faith." In this he is certainly right ; for the apostle, in this passage, is speaking only of Abraham's spiritual seed. But he seems to forget that this is the Baptist's argument, and is not aware that this concession (for so I must call it) overthrows at once all the arguments for infant baptism drawn from the covenant of circumcision ; unless he means to aiSirm, in express contradiction both to the apostle and himself, That all who were included in that covenant. On the Abrahamic Covenant. 31 even those who were of the circumcision only, were Abraham's believing or spiritual family ; and from that again to infer, that all the fleshly seed of New Testa- ment believers are also Abraham's believing or spiri- tual family, as being included in that same covenant. I know that to state the matter shortly in this plain manner would startle some of the most zealous Inde- pendent Poedobaptists ; but as it is really the point to which all their arguments tend, and in which they must issue, if they come to any conclusion at all, they ought fairly to state and avow it, instead of involving the subject in so many ingenious and intricate reasonings, (in which they frequently both affirm and deny the same thing) which are the sure marks of an untenable cause when the question relates to a positive divine in- stitution. But I must attend to his argument. Abraham is here termed " the father of circumci- sion to them who walk in the steps of his faith." This, he says, " plainly intimates, that circumcision was a seal of this covenant, not merely as to the temporal part of it, but as to the spiritual. For surely it must have been of the same import to the children of circum- cision as it was to the father of circumcision." In an- swer to this let it be observed, 1. That the covenant of circumcision made no dis- tinction whatever among the natural seed of Abraham. All of them without exception, or distinction of cha- racter, were included in that covenant ; and, being all circumcised, may be termed the children of circumci- sion ; yet Mr. W. will not affirm, that circumcision was of the same import to them all as it was to their father Abraham ; for if so, they must all have received it as a seal of the righteousness of their faith. 2. Abraham is here called the father of circumci- 33 Ret'iew of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures sion, not as being the father either of the covenant or rite of circumcision, for these were the immediate ap- pointments of God, but as being the spiritual father of his believing circumcised offspring, who, in com- mon with the nation of Israel are denominated the circumcision ; * but distinguished from the bulk of that circumcised nation, by their being not of the circum- cision only, but also by their walking in the steps of Abraham's faith. 3. The whole drift of the apostle's argument in this passage is to show, that none were ever justified or saved either by the covenant of circumcision or the works of the law, but by faith only. To evince this, he shows that 4braham was justified by faith long before he was circumcised, and that he received the sign of circumcision only as a seal of this : That none of his circumcised seed were justified, or had Abra- ham to their father in a spiritual sense, by virtue of their circumcision ; but only by believing as he did, or walking in the steps of that faith of their father Abra- ham, which he had, being yet uncircumcised. And as to Gentiles, who never had any thing to do with the cove- nant of circumcision, he shows, that Abraham is the father of all them that believe, though they be not cir- cumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also, as it was to him. It is therefore evident to a demonstration, that the whole of the apostle's reasoning, particularly from ver. 9, to 17. goes to deny that either circumcision or the works of the law gave any title whatever to justification, or the heavenly in- heritance, to the circumcised Jew more than the uncir- * Though TTspiTo/xY) wants the article in this place, as it does also in chap. iii. 30. yet it ought to have been translated the circumcision liere as well as there. On the Abrahamic Covenant. 33 rumcised Gentile ; and to show that it is only by faith that either of them come to be the spiritual children of Abraham, and to be blessed with him. And the promise of this blessedness he traces back, not to the peculiar covenant of circumcision, but to the original promise made to Abraham, the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, which was 24 years before the covenant of circumcision, and 430 years before the giving of the law. See Gal. iii. 8, 9, 16, 17. Circum- cision was indeed very much insisted on by the Judai- zing teachers in the apostolic age, but the apostle has sufficiently refuted all their pleas for it. It therefore appears very strange to me that uncircumcised Gentile believers, who never were under the peculiar covenant of circumcision, and were forbidden to come under it, should still strenuously plead it as an argument fpr administering the new covenant ordinance of baptism to their infant seed, though expressly restricted to believers. He says, " It will, I dare say, be admitted, that they only can with any propriety be denominated the cir- cumcision in whom the import of the rite is fulfilled." P. 17. This will be either admitted or denied according to the sense in which we understand the import of the rife, which is an ambiguous expression when aj)plied to a rite which had both a literal and mystical import, as has been shown. I suppose, however, that he means to affirm, that none could with any propriety be deno- minated the circumcision who were not inwardly cir- cumcised in heart. But this will not be admitted ; for the whole circumcised nation of the Jews are frequent- ly denominated the circumcision^ to distinguish them from the Gentiles. Thus Christ is said to be the min- D e34 Review of 31r. fTardlaw's Lectures ister of the circumcision, i. e. of the Jews among whocfi he exercised his personal ministry, Rom. xv. 8. To Peter was committed the gospel oi the circumcision — the apostleship of the circumcision — and it was agreed that James and he should go unto the circumcision, and Paul and Barnabas unto the heathen. Gal. ii. 7, 8, 9. Here the circumcision simply means the Jews without any reference to the circumcision of the heart, butmerely as nationally distinguished from the heathen. Again, believing Jews are denominated of the circum- cision, not because they were circumcised in heart, but to distinguish them as Jews even from believing Gen- tiles, see Acts x. 45. ch. xi. 2. Col. iv. 11. nay, they are said to be not of the circumcision only, Rom. iv. 12. to distinguish them from such Jews as were 07ily of the circumcision, and so not the spiritual children of Abraham by faith. Since therefore the Jews are re- peatedly denominated the circumcision by the sacred writers, it certainly must have been with great pro- priety, whether the bulk of them were believers or not ; nay it is the first, the literal and only proper sense of that appellation. And though believers in Christ, whether circumcised or not, are once termed the cir- cumcision, Philip, iii. 3. yet it is in a secondary or mys- tical sense, not from the nature of the thing, but by a figure borrowed from circumcision in the flesh. Further, he says, " They w^ho, though descended from Abraham, wanted his faith, are not allowed the honourable appellation of the circumcision, but de- graded and proscribed under that of the concision." We have just seen, however, that they were not only allowed the appellation of the circumcision, but that it was repeatedly given to them both by Paul and Luke ; not because they had Abraham's faith, but because they were his circumcised offspring, to whom that distin- On the Ahrdhamic Covenant. 85 ,!»iiishiiig appellation literally applied as a national characteristic. And if Paul degraded and proscribed the Jewish zealots from the honourable appellation of the circumcision, how came he afterwards to bestow that supposed honour upon those whom he describes as unruly, vain-talkers and deceivers, who subvert whole houses? Tit. i. 10, 11. The whole nation of Israel were the circumcision, and a type of the true Israel; among these there were a number who were not of the circum- cision only, but were also of the faith of Abraham, circumcised in heart, and so W'cre blessed with faith- ful Abraham as his spiritual children. And I agree with him " that the true circumcision or the true Israel have in every age been the same," though greatly dif- fering in their degrees of light and spiritual privileges. Having followed him through the argumentative part of his first Lecture, I would now ask. What is the amount of all his reasonings on ver. 1], 12 ? Has he shown that there was nothing of a temporal or typical nature in the covenant of circumcision, as it respected and included all the fleshly seed of Abraham, but that it is still in force under the gospel? or has he made it appear that there v^^as nothing peculiar to the Jews in it, but what equally applies at this day to the fleshly seed of New Testament believers ? With regard to the spiritual sense of circumcision, has he proved that it v/diS enseal of the righteousness of faith to any of Abra- ham's natural seed but believers ; or even to them pre- vious to their believing? or has he shown that Abra- ham w^as a spiritual father to any of them but those who walked in the steps of his faith? No ; he has not as yet explicitly and directly avowed these particulars ; yet upon any other principles his arguments come to BO conclusion as to the point at issue. b2 36 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures He begins his second Lecture with ver. 13. " For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to bis seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." Here he takes notice of three things — The promise — The seed to whom it is made — and the ground on which it rests. With regard to the promise that he should be the heir of the world, he observes, " 1. That it must be understood in a sense not en- tirely peculiar to Abraham, but made to Abraham and his seed." True, Abraham's believing seed are included in this promise; but still there was something peculiar to Abraham in it, to whom it was promised, that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed. Gen. xii. 3. and that he should be a father of many nations. Gen. xvii. 4, 5. that is, of believers throughout the whole world. Yet this distinguished honour conferred upon Abraham was with a view to Christ, who was to come of his seed, be constituted heir of all things, and in whom, not in Abraham personally, all nations were to be blessed, Gen. xxii. 18. As to the nature and extent of the promise, he says, " 2. I agree with those who consider this promise as of a very extensive import, as including the possession of Canaan — the possession of the whole earth — and the final possession of the heavenly country itself." P. 26. The promise that Abraham should be the heir of the world is of the same import with his being made the father of many nations, ver. 17. or with all nations ^ing blessed in him, or in his Seed, the Messiah, Gal. iii. 8. It should be kept in view that the apostle is here, as well as in Gal. iii. establishing tlie doctrine of On the Abrahamic Covenant. 97 free justification by faith independent of circumcision or the works of the law; that he adduces the justifica- tion of Abraham himself as an instance of the way in v.hich God justifies all the believing world of Jews and Gentiles, that ivhole world for w hose sins Christ is the propitiation, 1 John ii. 2. And he shows that this pro- mise of being heir of the world, " was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, bat through the righte- ousness of faith — " to that seed which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all," Rom. iv. 13, 16. It is plain, therefore, that he is speaking of a promise made to Abraham and his spiritual seed, and to them only. Now, if we enquire what kind of blessings are promised to all this seed, and bestowed upon them ex- clusively, the same apostle informs us, that they are " all spiritual blessings in heavenly places (or things) in Christ," Eph. i. 3. such as justification, Rom. iv. 23, 24. Gal. iii. 8, 9— the promise of the Spirit, Gal. iii. 14. —the adoption of sons, verse 26. chap, iv.5, 6. — and the heavenly inheritance. Gal. iii. 18. Heb. ix.l7, chap. xi. 10, 16. These are all included in the blessing of Abraham. If therefore the promise under consideration respects spiritual blessings, which be- long exclusively to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith, as appears from the scope of the whole passage, I cannot think that it intends the earthly temporal inhe- ritance of the land of Canaan ; for though that was also promised to Abraham's seed, and was a type of the heavenly inheritance, yet it was not peculiar to the spiritual seed, but common to them with the rest of his natural posterity who were of the circumcision only ; nor was it ever promised to, or bestowed on the Gen- tile part of his spiritual seed, as was the blessing of Abraham; but it is expressly said of the promise we are 38 Review of Mr. Wardlaiv's Lectures now speaking ot\ that " it is of faith that it might bs by grace, to the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed: not to that only which is of the law," (i. e. believing Jews), "but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all," both believing Jev/s and Gentiles, verse IG. Nor do I think that this promise signifies, that Abraham and his spiritual seed shall have the posses- sion of the whole earth, or that the land of Canaan was a prelude of this : For though after the destruction of the beast and false prophet, and the binding of Satan, we are given to expect a more extensive spread of the gospel and its efi'ects in advancing the kingdom of Christ in this world. Rev. xx. 4, 6. yet unless we under- stand this of a literal resurrection of the saints from the dead, and their taking possession of the whole earth, (a sentiment inconsistent with many passages of scrip- ture), this promise could not respect any of Abraham's spiritual seed, but such of them as shall live on the earth at that period ; whereas the promise made to Abraham, as has been observed, is of faith, and by grace, that it might be sure to all the seed, which I think must import, that it will be infallibly accomplished to the whole of Abraham's spiritual seed, and not merely to that part of them who inherited the land of Canaan, or that shall per- sonally enjoy the blessings of the millennial period. Mr. W. seems aware of this objection to his scheme, and endeavours to obviate if, by distinguishing be- tween a right and actual possession. P. 28, 29. But what is the benefit of a right when there is never any actual possession ? He thinks the promise of" the pos- session of the whole earth must be understood of the seed collectively considered," and for this cites Fsal. Ixvi. 6. 1 Thess. iv. 15. 1 Cor. xv. 51. and he might also On the Abrahamic Covenant. 39 liave cited Rev. v . 10. to show that by a certain mode of speech men frequently apply that to themselves which applies only to another part of the collective body to which tliey belong; and from this he concludes^, " So we may witii perfect propriety say, that the pro- mise spoken of, in the view I am now taking of it, is to us, because it shall be verified to the seed of vdiich we are a part." P. 30. I admit the mode of speech referred to in certain cases, but not as applicable to the spiritual promise made to Abraham ; for that is expressly declared to be sure to all the seed: not as being verified to some of the collective body, but to every individual of the spiritual seed; for a promise can with no propriety be said to be sure to all, which is verified only to a part. He observes in general, " That all the seed have the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." This is certainly true ; but he knows that they may possess the life that now is, though they should never possess the land of Canaan, nor the much higher degi'ee of temporal enjoyments which, he sup- poses, will be enjoyed by those who live in this world during the millennium ; nay, though they should, like their Lord and his first followers, sufier many priva- tions of earthly comforts. He will surely admit, that godliness with contentment is great gain ; that a man's life does not consist in the abundance of the things which he possesses, and that a little that a righteous man hath, is better than the riches of many wicked. As to the life to come, he says, " All being finally put in possession of the heavenly country, may be said then to inherit the promises in their full extent, this being their grand sum, their glorious completion." To this I heartily subscribe ; for this promise is sure 40 Review of Mr. Wardlaivs Lectures to all the spiritual seed, who by faith and patience during the life that now is, are seeking: and desiring that better country, as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did. He admits that " Moses and Aaron inherited the promises, although they were sentenced to finish their course short of the earthly Canaan ;" and he might have added, that all the saints who have died in the faith, from the beginning of the world to this day, in- herit the promises, though they have been appointed to finish their course short of inheriting the whole earth during the millennium. The promise to Abraham has been accomplishing more or less in all ages of the church, and that as really, though not so extensively, as when God at the first did visit the nations to take out of them a people for his name, or, as we have ground to expect, when the kingdoms of this world shall become our Lord's and his Christ's, Rev. xi. 15. But whatever change we may then suppose will take place as to the pros- perity, extent, outward peace, and other circumstances of Christ's kingdom in this world, I have no idea that it will change its spiritual nature, or become a kingdom of this world, any more than it was in the days of the apostles ; nor can 1 see how such a change would be very desirable to a spiritual mind. He next proceeds to consider the seed to whom the promise is made, and for this he directs us to Gal. iii. 16. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the pro- mises made : he saith not, and to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." On this he observes, " tliat the name Christ is sometimes used as inclusive of his people, the head being intend- ed to express the whole body connected with it," and for this he produces one instance, viz. 1 Cor. xii. 12. On the Abrahamic Covenant. 41 for as to Gal. iii. 29. it is not to the purpose. I know that several learned commentators give the same sense of the name Christ In ver. 16. that he does, understand- ing it not of Christ personalhj, but mystically consi- dered, as including all the believing seed, and that in this sense they are not many, but one kind of seed. But though it is true that the seed who make up Christ's mystical body are not many, but one kind of seed, viz. believers ; yet, with all due deference to the judgment and learning of these commentators, I hum- bly conceive that they have mistaken the meaning of the name Christ in this passage, and have imposed a sense upon it very different from what the apostle means to convey, viz. That the seed of Abraham to whom the promises had a primary respect, is spoken of not as MANY, but as one individual person, and that this person is Christ. This is not only the plain sense of the words, but agrees best with the scope of the whole passage, which is to convince the Galatians, that no sinner can be justified or obtain the inheritance by the works of the law, ver. 10, 11, 12, 22. but only by the faith of Christ, the Seed of Abraham in whom all nations were to be blessed, ver. G, 7, 8, 9. The apostle grounds his argument on the original promise made to Abraham, which, as it w^as 430 years before the giving of the law, ver. 17. must be that which is recorded Gen. xii. 3. and I suppose it will be admitted, that the words in thee are equivalent to in thy Seed, as it is afterwards expressed. Gen. xxii. 18. Nor can it be denied that this Seed is Christ, and no other ; for in whom else but in Christ alone could all nations of the earth be blessed ? Besides, this pro- mise and oath is said to be performed when the God of Israel raised up an horn of salvation for them in the 42 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures bouse of his servant David, Luke i. 69, 72, 73. and when, having raised up his Son Jesus, he sent him to bless them, in turning away every one of them from his iniquities. Acts iii. 25, 26. This will further appear if we consider, liow the blessing of Abraham comes to the nations in his seed, which is explained thus ; " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; for it is written, cursed is every 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. iii. 13, 14. Further, the apostle represents the original promise as a covenant which was unalterably ratified (ejj X^itov) to, in, or with a view to Christ ; and therefore could not be disannulled or rendered inefiectual by the law which was afterwards given to the nation of Israel : " And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise ; but God gave it to Abraham by promise," ver. 17, 18. Again, in answer to the question, " Wherefore then serveth the law ?" he says, "It v/as added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made,'' &c. ver. 19. The Seed that should come evidently means Christ; and if so, we are here expressly told, that to him the promise was made. It was to this one Seed of Abraham, as distinguished from the many, or from all the nations that were to be blessed in him^ that the promise of the inheritance was made ; though it was made to him as representing them, for they art blessed in him. 071 the Abrdhamic Covenant. 48 Mr. W. having stated his view of the extent of the promise made to Abraham that he should be the heir of the world, which he understands of the land of Canaan, the whole earth, and the heavenly country ; and having- also given his view of the seed to whom the promises here intended were made, which, though spoken of as one, and explained by the apostle to be Christ, he understands in a collective sense, as signi- fying one kind of seed, or Christ's mystical body, he proceeds thus : " From these passages, I now state it as my firm conviction, that the promises contained in the Abra- hamic covenant, both the temporal promise and the spiritual, were made to the same seed, on the same footing. That they were both made to the same seed, seems to be as plain as a positive declaration from an inspired apostle can make it ; To Abraham and his seed were the promises made — These are here expressly said to have been made to the same seed." F. 33. I own I am at a loss to understand what he means by saying, that " both the temporal promise and the spiritual were made to the same seed, on the same footing." The spiritual seed of Abraham among his natural posterity were not, as such, the same seed with the mere children of the flesh ; yet they enjoyed the temporal promise in common. The apostle says, that " unto Abraliam and his seed were the promises made ;" but he at the same time explains that seed to be Christ, as has been shown. Some, from this and other passages, state it as their firm conviction, that the promise even of the temporal inheritance of the land of Canaan was made in the first instance to Christ the Son of God, and as he was to spring from the nation of Israel according to the 44 Review of Mr. Wardlaws Lectures flesh ; so that nation, by virtue of their fleshly relation to him, inherited it in his right, as the typical children of God and joint-heirs of it with him. They also argue this from its being termed the holy-land, Hag. ii. 12. as being consecrated to God, who therefore claims it as his peculiar property, calling it my land. Lev. xxv. 23. 2 Chron. vii. 20. Isa. xiv. 25. Jer. ii. 7. chap. xvi. 18. and from its being expressly termed, thy land O fmmanuel, Isa. viii. 8. a name peculiar to Christ, who was to be born of a virgin, chap. vii. 14. Matth. i. 23. But whatever be in this, if Mr. W. by the same seed, means only Abraham's spiritual seed, then it is not true that the promise of the temporal inheritance was made to them as such ; for as no such distinction of the seed is mentioned in that promise, so we know that in fact the possession of it was not restricted to the spiritual part of Abraham's natural posterity, but was common to them with the rest of the nation of Israel ; and I am persuaded he will not venture to affirm, that the whole nation of Israel, nor even the bulk of them in their successive generations, were the spiritual seed of Abraham either in reality or appearance. And with respect to his spiritual seed among the Gentiles, the promise of this inheritance was never made to them, nor did they ever possess it. He says, " There is not the smallest hint given of the distinction so often contended for, that the tem- poral promise was made to the fleshly seed as such, and the spiritual promise to the spiritual seed as such. No such distinction is to be found in Paul's reasoning. But the promises of the covenant without difference are declared to have been made not to seeds as of many, but as of one — And to thy seed, which is Christ.*' P. 33. n On the Abrahamic Covenant. 45 The Baptists indeed do often contend for a dis- tinction in Abraham's natural posterity, between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise. They also distinguish temporal from spiritual pro- mises ; and they affirm, that the former belonged to all his natural posterity without difference ; but that the latter belonged only to his spiritual seed : And does Mr. W. mean to deny that there is the smallest hint given of such distinctions in Paul's reasoning? I cannot allow myself to think that this is his mean- ing, because it would contradict many passages in his Lectures which seem to admit these distinctions ; but yet I cannot find out any other sense to his words. Does he mean that none of Abraham's 7nere fleshly seed were included in the covenant of circumcision ? If so, then he must also maintain, that the whole nation of Israel were Abraham's spiritual seed ; for it is certain that 'they were all expressly commanded to be circumcised as the token of God's covenant in their flesh ; and the uncircumcised man-child is threatened with being cut off from among God's people, as having broken his covenant. Gen. xvii. 14. which shows, that all the circumcised seed had an interest in the covenant of circumcision. But it is clear, that the apostle, throughout the passages under consider- ation, constantly distinguishes the spiritual seed of Abraham from the rest of his circumcised seed by their being not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of Abrahanis faith, — believe on him that justifieth the ungodly — all them that believe — the seed which is of the faith of Abraham — who believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead., Rom. iv. 5, 11, 12, 16, 24. And in his Epistle to the Galatians, he distinguishes tliera as they which be of 46 Review of Mr. Wardlaivs Lectures faith— the just who live by faith-^vjho are the chil- dren of God hy faith in Christ Jesus- heirs according to the promise — not children of the bond-woman, but of the free, Gal. iii. 7, 9, 11, 26, 29. chap. iv. 31. With respect to the promises, though the scripture does not distinguish them by the words temporal and spiritual; yet the nature of the things promised suf- ficiently distinguish them. Thus we know that the promise of the land of Canaan, and of the good things of it, was a temporal promise, and that justification, the promise of the Spirit, the adoption of sons, and the eternal inheritance, are all of a spiritual nature, and so included in the spiritual promise. Now, when we say, that the temporal promise was made to Abra- ham's fleshly seed, as such, we mean, that it respected his natural ofi'spring in common, or without dis- tinction ; for had it been restricted to the spiritual part of his natural seed, it would not have been accomplished to the whole nation of Israel, as we see it actually was : And if any should affirm, that the whole nation, or even the bulk of them, were his spiritual seed, such are not to be reasoned with. Again, when we say, that the spiritual promise was made to Abraham's spiritual seed, as such, we mean, that it did not respect them merely as his natural seed, but as believers; nor was it restricted to be- lievers among his natural seed, but extended also to Gentile believers, who were the natural seed of heathen idolaters, but became the children of God ftnd the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus, and so heirs according to the promise. Gal. iii. 26. 28, 29. But as Mr. W. seems to deny that there is the smallest hint of such a distinction in all Paul's reasoning, I shall, in addition to what On the Abrahamic Covenant. 47 I have already observed, show, both from Paul's rea- soning, and other passages of scripture, the grounds we have for holding the important distinction between Abraham's natural and spiritual seed, and between the temporal and spiritual promises made to them. John the Baptist had his mission to the natural posterity of Abraham, who were in actual possession of the temporal promise of the land of Canaan. He baptized with the baptism of repentance, " saying unto the people. That they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." Acts xix. 4. But as many of them imagined, that they were secured from the wrath to come, and entitled to the favour of God on account of their being the descendants of Abraham, he repels all their claims upon that ground, saying, "Think not to say within yourselves. We have Abraham to our father ; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." Mat. iii. 9. Here we see that the natural seed of Abraham who, according to the covenant made with him, were circumcised, and enjoyed the temporal promise, had no right, on these accounts, either to baptism or the spiritual blessings signified by it ; and therefore, to obtain an interest in these spiritual blessings, they were called to that faith and repentance by which men become the spiritual seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise. And it deserves serious consideration, whether the present plea for the baptism of infants, founded on their being the children of believing parents, and their supposed interest in the covenant of circumcision, be indeed equally well founded as the old exploded Jewish boast of having believing Abraham to their father, and of their being circumcised ia the flesh ac- 48 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures cording to the literal binding terms of that peculiar covenant. If the natural posterity of Abraham, that illustrious patriarch, were not, as such, interested in the covenant of grace by virtue of the promise, " I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee," it must be vain and presumptuous in Christian parents to imagine, that their children are included in the covenant on account of that promise. It is said of Christ, " He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But to as many as re- ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name ; who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John i. 11 — 14. The Jews, the natural seed of Abraham, were Christ's own nation and people. They were peculiarly fa- voured above all other nations with many distin- guished privileges. " To them pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; and of them, as concerning the flesh, Christ came." Rom. ix. 4, 5. But notwithstanding these external national privileges, the great body of them did not receive Christ when he came unto them, but rejected him ; and so were not the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith, but were his seed only as being born of blood, of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, and, as such, had no title to the spiritual promises contained in the blessing of Abraham. From these the spirit- ual seed are distinguished by their receiving Christ, or believing in his name, and by their being born of God, and obtaining the dignified privilege of being his sons. This is that second birth of which our Lord speaks to Nicodemus, and concerning which he de~ On the Abrahamic Covenant. 49 cUres that, without it, no man can enter into the kingdom of God, John iii. iJ — 9. It comes not by natural generation from believers, no not from be- lieving Abraham himself; nor did the covenant of circumcision entail it upon his natural seed ; for it is a fact, that the bulk of his natural seed were rejected, while the seed of heathens became the true seed of Abraham and the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, Rom. ix. 26, 30, 31. Gal. iii. 26, 29. Paul expresses his great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart, on account of the unbelief and rejec- tion of the bulk of the Jewish nation, who were Isra- elites, his kinsmen and brethren according to the flesh : but lest any, from this awful event, should take occa- sion to impeach the faithfulness of God, or imagine that the promise which he made to Abraham and his seed had fallen to the ground, or failed of its accom- plishment, he proceeds to evince the contrary, by dis- tinguishing the children of the flesh from the children of the promise ; and he shows that this distinction was typically intimated both in the family of Abraham and of Isaac : " Not as though the word of God had taken none effect: For they are not all Israel which are of Israel ; neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children ; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God ; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed," Rom. ix. 6, 7, 8. And he illustrates this distinction by what took place in the family of Abraham. Ishmael was his first- born by Hagar ; yet the promise did not respect him, but was restricted to Isaac, Sarah's son ; " For this is the word of promise — At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son," ver. 9. and the same restric- 50 Review of Mr. Wardlaivs Lectures tion was intimated in the promise, " In Isaac shall thy seed be called." But as some might sugj^est, that this difFerence was owing to Ishmael's being the son of the bond-woman, or perhaps to something more wicked in his character than in that of Isaac, he shows, that a distinction of the same kind was also made in the fa- mily of Isaac, the son of the free-woman and child of the promise : " And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God accord- ing to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,) it was said unto her. The elder shall serve the younger : As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," ver. 10 — 14. Now the apostle produces these instances to show, that, in all succeed- ing generations, the children of the flesh, or the mere lineal descendants of Abraham, even in the line of Isaac and Jacob, are not, as such, the children of God, or the spiritual seed ; and that, therefore, though a great part of Abraham's natural seed did not obtain the spiritual promise, but were rejected as unbelievers, yet in this there was no failure in the divine promise, for it was never made to such, but only to Abraham's seed by faith, who alone are the children of the promise, and counted for the seed. With respect to the temporal promise, that was not restricted to the spiritual seed, as has been shown ; for the history of the nation of Israel clearly informs us, that they obtained and possessed the land of Canaan and its temporal blessings for many ages, according to the promise of it made to Abraham and his seed after him. And though it was absolutely necessary to their peaceable and comfortable possession of it, that they On the Abrahamic Covenant. 51 «houId acknowledge and worship the true God, and abstain from idolatry, (which was a breach of the national covenant whereby he stood related to them as their God ;) yet they are described in general as a stiff-necked and rebellious people, not only when en- tering into the possession of it, Deut. ix. (j, 7. but after they had possessed it near 1500 years, Acts vii. 51, 52, 5'J. The possession of the land of Canaan, therefore, being common to the nation of Israel, did not discrimi- nate the children of the spiritual promise. I shall only add, on the distinction of the seed, that Mr. W. would do well to consider attentively what the apostle means by saying, "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh ; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature," or, there is a new creation ; " Old things are past away, behold, all things are become new%" 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. To "know no man after the flesh," is to acknowledge or esteem no man as a child of God, or a true christian, on account of his carnal descent or connection with believers, or any carnal consideration whatever, and particularly those things which the carnal Jews boasted of, such as their being the seed of Abraham, of the stock of Israel, circum- cised the eighth day, &c. ail which the apostle after- wards enumerates, and terms the flesh, ch. xi. 18, 22. Philip, iii. 4 — 7. and declares that, in Christ Jesus, such things are of no avail, but a new creature, or faith which worketh by love. Gal. v. 6. ch. vi. 15. He ad- mits that formerly they made the flesh the rule of their judgment and ground of esteem, even of the Messiah himself, as being peculiarly related to them according to the flesh, and on account of the worldly expectations ii2 52 Review of Mr. Wardlaws Lectures they had from him, such as his restoring again the kingdom to Israel ; but that from henceforth, or from the time that they were enlightened to perceive the glorious ends of Christ's death and resurrection (ver. 14, 15.) and the spiritual nature of his kingdom and subjects, their regard to him was no longer influenced by such carnal considerations ; nor did they esteem any one as belonging to Christ, or of the true Israel of God, but as being a new creature : See also Gal. vi. 15, 16. By this rule of judging, they acknowledged none of Abraham's natural offspring as his spiritual seed but believers, who were but a remnant of them, Rom. xi. 5. and, by the same rule, they regarded Gen- tile believers as the spiritual seed of Abraham though the natural seed of heathens. Gal. iii 7, 29. If there- fore none of believing Abraham's natural posterity were known or acknowledged by the apostles as his spiritual seed, but those of them who appeared to be new creatures, and walked in the steps of his faith, by what rule are we to esteem the infant natural seed of believers to be the spiritual seed, of whose faith and regeneration we cannot possibly have the smallest evidence? Among many other strange things it has been said, that the scripture rule is, that we should look upon in- fants as in the very same state of salvation as their believing parents are. But there is no such rule to be found in all the word of God. On the contrary, the scripture assures us, that, in their first birth, they are sbapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, Psal. li. 5. This is the state which they derive equally from be- lieving as unbelieving parents. The spiritual birth does not consist in the faith or character of a proxy or representative, but in a personal change in the sub- 1 On the Ahrdliamic Covenant. 53 jects of it ; and therefore cannot be known by us till that change visibly appears in the individuals them- selves, be their parents what they may. Therefore to look upon infants as the spiritual seed, because they are the natural ofi^pring of believers, is plainly to know them after the flesh. Still, however, it is asserted, that the covenant of circumcision, wherein God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his seed after him in their genera- tions, is the same for substance with the new covenant, or what is commonly termed the covenant of grace, differing only in some circumstances, relating to the mode of its sign, and extent of its administration : And their main proof for this is, that Abraham re- ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righte- ousness of the faith which he had in uncircumcision. But this rather proves, that the covenant of circum- cision was not the same with the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace, or new covenant, is that by which sinners are justified, and in which God promises to remember their sins and iniquities no more. The blood of Christ is the blood of that covenant which was shed for the remission of sins, and men are justi- fied through faith in that blood. The promise of this covenant was made to Abraham and confirmed of God in Christ, when the gospel was before preached to him concerning God's justifying the heathen through faith; in these words, " In thee shall all nations be blessed," Gen. xii. 3. compared with Gal. iii. 8, 17. And herein lay the object of Abraham's faith, through which he was justified long before he received the sign of cir- cumcision. Now let us attend to the design of the apostle in saying, that " Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith. 64 Review of Mr. War cUaw's Lectures which he had in uncircumcision :" And, whether we consider the words themselves, or the scope of the apostie's reasoning, it is evident to a demonstration, that the apostie's desi^^n is to show, that Abraham was not justified by the covenant of circumcision, but altogether independent of it, and while he was in un- circumcision ; and that he received the sign of cir- cumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had in his uncircumcised state ; and on this he grounds his argument, that neither Jew nor Geniile are jusfifif d either by circumcision or the woiks of the law, but only by faith, as Abraham himself was Now if Abraham was not justified by the covenant of cir- cumcision, but previous to, a;id independent of it, how can it be the same for subsrance with the cove- nant of grace by which alone sinners can be justified? The covenant of circumcision was not the same with the covenant of grace, or the promise of it which ex- tended to the Gentiles, but was evidently a covenant peculiar to the natural posterity of Abraham, and was the beginning and loundation of an intermediate typi- cal economy, which served as a partition wall to dis- tinguish and separate the nation of Israel from all other people till the Seed should come of them to bless all nations ; and accordingly when the Seed came, and broke down the middle wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles by his death, circumcision was de- clared to avail nothing, and so was set aside like every other typical institution, and is represented as belong- ing to the letter and the flesh, as opposed to the spirit, Rom. ii. 27, 29. Philip iii. 4, 5. Gal. vi. 12, 13. And though the Jewish converts were indulged in circum- cision for a time after it was virtually set aside by the death of Christ ; yet it was absolutely prohibited to On the Abrahamic Covenant. 65 the Gentile converts as of the most pernicious ten- dency, and is always connected with the law as op- posed to their justilication by faith, and to the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, Gal. v. 1, 5. It is very remarkable, that while the inspired apostles of Christ so often cite the original promise made to Abraham, to show that the blessings of the gospel were to be extended to the Gentiles, they should never so much as once mention the covenant of circumcision in that view : Nor do they give the smallest hint con- cerning the entail of that covenant upon New Testa- ment believers and their natural seed, which is now^ so much insisted on as the main argument for infant baptism. Mr. W. affirms, " That the Sinai covenant is repre- sented in the apostle's reasoning as quite distinct from the covenant made with Abraham four hundred and thirty years before ; and therefore, in forming our ideas of the latter, the former should be left out of view. — The scheme of God, revealed in the Abrahamic covenant, might have gone on to its fulfilment inde- pendent of the law." P. 41. The covenant which was made with Abraham, and confirmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty years before the law, was not the covenant of circuin- cision, nor peculiar to Abraham's natural posterity as that was, but contained the promise of blessing all nations; see Gen. xii. 3. with Gal. iii. 8. Now though this covenant was distinct from the Sinai covenant, yet the law delivered in the latter was subservient to the promise in the former, by making men sensible of their need of the promised blessing; and therefore in forming our ideas of the original covenant made with Abraham, the law ought not to be left out of view. £6 Review of Mr. Wardluws Lectures Nor does it become us to say, that the scheme of God might have been otherwise fulfilled than it actually was. But with respect to the covenant of circumci- sion, which was not made for twenty- four years after the former, that was not quite distinct from the Sinai covenant, but was the very foundation of it. Let us trace the connection ; \Yhen the Lord covenanted to give the land of Ca- naan to Abraham's natural posterity, he foretold their previous affliction in Egypt and deliverance out of it> Gen. XV. 13 — 17 AVhen they had multiplied into a nation in that kingdom, and were in actual bondage, the promise made to Abraham of their deliverance was repeated, Exod. vi. 3 — 7. and the book of Exodus gives us a clear historical account of the fulfilment of this, so far as relates to their redemption from Egypt. In the covenant of circumcision he had promised to be a God to Abraham's seed after him. Gen. xvii. 7. This promise was also repeated to Abraham's natural seed while they were groaning under the bondage of the Egyptian yoke; " And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God ; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians," Exod. vi. 7. and this was actually and formally accom- plished, when he took them as a nation into a covenant relation to himself at Sinai, and declares, " I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," Exod. xx. 2. See the whole of that remarkable transaction, Exod. xix. XX. xxiv. Again, in the covenant of circumcision the Lord promised to Abraham, " I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlast- On the Ahrahamic CGvenant. 57 ing possession," Gen. xvii. 8. This promise was also renewed to tlieui in E^ypt; " I will bring- you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and f will give it to you for an heritage," Exod. vi. 8. The book of Joshua gives us a plain historical account ot the accom- plishment of this promise, where we are told that " the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers: and they possessed it, and dwelt therein," Josh. xxi. 43. If therefore we would form proper ideas of the covenant of circumcision, we must take into consideration the renewal of its pro- mises to the nation of Israel, with the historical facts in which these promises were actually fulfilled to them, and consequently explained. But Mr. W. would have these things left out of view. They indeed plainly prove that the covenant of circumcision was made with all Abraham's seed according to the flesh, and that its promises to them, as a nation, were of a tem- poral nature; consequently that it is now set aside under the gospel, together with the Sinai covenant which was founded on it. He says, " That none of the promises, either the temporal or the spiritual, were made to the fleshly seed of Abraham, merely on the footing of carnal de- scent." P. 35. I know not exactly what he means by the footing of carnal descent. Taking it in connection with what he says m the preceding page, his meaning seems to be, that none of the promises, no not even the tempo- ral, were made to any of Abraham's natural posterity, but to his spiritual seed alone. And if so, it plainly follows, that all to whom the temporal promises were accomplished must have been the spiritual seed of 58 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures Abraham ! I think I may be excused from making any reply to this. He observes, that Israel in the wilderness came short of the land of Canaan through unbelief. P. 36. This is fully granted, for the apostle says the same, Heb. iii. 18, 19. But then Mr. W. conjectures, that their unbelief did not only respect the promise which God made of the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed after him, and a distrust of his veracity and power, accompanied with rebellious complaints and murmur- ings ; but that it implied ignorance and unbelief of the spiritual import of that promise, and included also ig- norance and unbelief of the other gospel promises made in connection with it in the same covenant — They were unbelievers of the gospel, which was then revealed in the promises of the covenant made with Abraham. P. 37. When we look into the history of Israel in the wil- derness, we shall find their unbelief manifested on many occasions ; but the particular instance in view, was their unbelief of God's promise of the land of Canaan, distrusting his power and faithfulness to accomplish it, and being discouraged by the evil report of the spies ; they murmured and rebelled against him, notwithstanding the astonishing miracles he had already wrought on their behalf. This is what is assigned as the cause why the Lord sware, that none of the men of that evil generation should see that good land which he sware to give unto their fathers : See Num. xiv. Deut. i. 26—40. But we no where read, either in the Old or New Testament, that they came short of the earthly rest, because they did not believe the spiritual import of that promise, or because they did not understand and believe the f)n the Ahrahamic Covenant. 59 mystical sense of the other promises connected with it in the covenant of circv.mcision made with Abra- ham. Mr. W. has the advantage of the New Testa- ment revelation, which lays open the spiritual or mystical sense both of Old Testament promises and types; but it does not follow that Israel in the wilder- ness had these things laid open to them, so as that they might have sted lastly looked to the end of that which is abolished. If it is not recorded that the mystical sense of the typical economy was explained to them, how can we possibly know that it was ? Or how can we suppose that they were so severely pun- ished, and yet the main part of their guilt never once mentioned ? The apostle says, " For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them ; but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it," Heb. iv. 2. The words literally translated are, " For we are evangelized as well as they were ; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it:" i. e. We Christians aie favoured with the good news of the heavenly rest, as well as Israel in the wilderness were with the good news of the earthly rest in Canaan ; but the word which they heard concerning that rest did not profit them, be- cause they did not believe it. That this is the sense is clear from the whole of the apostle's reasoning ; for the rest which Israel came short of through unbe- lief was evidently the possession of the land of Ca- naan ; and the rest which Christians are exhorted to labour to enter into is the heavenly rest, the rest that remains for the people of God. It should be observed, that /aiS- ^re not capable of baptism; for the apostle Peter tells us, that the answer, (or stipulation) of a good conscience towards God is necessary to baptism, 1 Pet. iii. 21. But how children can have the answer of a good conscience in baptism, without knowing any thing of repentance or remission, j^ou would do well to infonn us. That children are capable of the renewing of the Holy Ghost, justification, &c. I make no doubt; God both can and will sanctify all his elect, w|iether in- fants or adults. But what is this to the purpose ? The question is not whether infants are capable of these things ; bnt whether do all the natural children of be- lie vers~ appear to be actually justified and sanctified ? Do they appear to be so either from scripture or ex- perience ? Unless you can make this evident, their capability is no argument at all upon v/hich to found their baptism. After all, are they more capable of these things than the children of infidels ? Is not " God able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham," though the natural branches should be broken off? The sovereignty of God shines forth in having mercy upon whom he will have mercy, without regard to any advantages of natural birth ; and this is plainly exe^m- plified in the rejection of a great part of the natural seed of believing Abraham, and chusing from among the nations a people for his name of the seed of heathen idolaters. So that it is but a vain plea for baptism, we have a believer to our father, Mat. iii .9. for if Abraham could not save his house by his extraordi- nary faith, much less can any other believer do it, who never sustained his public ^character as father of the faithful. Upon the whole, tl^ apostle Peter, in order to en- M 162 Letters to Mr. Glas courage the convicted Jews to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, gives them to understand, that notwithstanding all they had done, in rejecting and crucifying the Messiah, God was still waiting to be gracious unto them, by granting them the remission of their sins, and the gift of his promised Spirit. And as it could not but cut them in their hearts, that they had not only perpetrated this dreadful action with their* own wicked hands, but also wished his blood upon their children, the apostle further assures them, that the promise in Joel respected their children (or SONS and DAUGHTERS) as well as themselves; even such of them as should repent and call upon the name of the Lord, inasmuch as it is promised that " whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered : for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance as the Lord hath said ;" nor is this deliverance con- fined to those in Jerusalem ; but extends likewise to " all that are afar off, even the remnant whom the Lord shall call," Joel ii. 32. compared with Acts ii. 21, 89. This promise was accomplished in the first place to the Jews, as it is said, " Unto you first God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you in turn- ing away every one of you from his iniquities." From which it appears, that it behoved their children as well as themselves to be turned from their iniquities, in as far as the promise or blessing took place upon them. It may be further noticed, that this promise, as it respected the children, had no dependance on or con- nection with the faith of the parents, any more than the promise of Canaan to the succeeding generation had a dependance on the faith of their fathers who fell in the wilderness through unbelief. So that the in- fidelity of parents cannot make this promise of none eflect to the children whom the Lord shall call. On Baptism* 165 But how any person can suppose, that a spiritual promise belongs to iniants on account ot" their parents faith, so as thence to infer their baptism, is indeed very strange, and as foreign to the scope of the apostle in quoting the promise, as it is to the promise itself which he quotes. I am, Sir, Your. &c. M 164 Letters to Mr. Glas LETTER VI. SIR, I HAVE been considering the third section of your Dissertation, wherein you endeavour to clear the argument from 1 Cor. vii. 14. " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by tlie husband : else were your chil- dren unclean ; but now are they holy." "These words (you say) serve to show, that the in- fants of one believing parent are members of Christ's church, for which he gave himself, that he might sanc- tify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, which is the only church whereof they can be members ; and that therefore they must partake of the washing of water which belongs to that holy church, and signifies admission and entrance into it." Then you anticipate an objection, viz. That as the children are said to be holy, so the unbelieving party is said to be sanctified by the other, and by parity of reason, is also a member of Christ's church. To which you answer, that the unbelieving wife (for instance) is sanctified, not to herself, but to, or in her husband, for the sake of the children, that they may be holy. And a little below you tell us, " When Israel after the flesh married strange wives, it behoved these to be put away ; and likewise, the children begot upon them by Israelites were to be put away, as not being members of the commonwealth of Israel, or as not being a holy seed, or seed of God, but unclean as other Gentiles then were. But, says th« On Baptism. 165 apostle, it is not so in the New Testament church ; for its members being- joined to aliens in marriage, are not to be separated from them, who are sanctified to their use in that state; so that their children, begot with such aliens, are now to be accounted holy, as well as the children begot by both believing parents ; and are to be acknowledged as well as they, to be these little children whom the Lord declares to belong to his kingdom in distinction from the world." Thus you have cleared the argument from this text ; but I am afraid, that in so doing, you have obscured other points of greater concern than infant-baptism. As, 1, If the New Testament require only one parent to constitute the children members of Christ's true church, whilst the Old Testament required both parents to constitute them members of the earthly ty- pical church; then it follows, that carnal generation is now more effectual to produce a true holy seed, than it was formerly to produce a typical holy seed. 2. If all the infants of believing parents are " those little children whom the Lord declares to belong to his kingdom in distinction from the world ;" then it plainly follows, that the carnal birth, or that birth after the flesh, availeth as much, nay more, for the enjoyment of the privileges of the heavenly kingdom, as it did formerly for the enjoyment of the privileges of the earthly kingdom. In your Testimony of the King of Martyrs * you clear this doctrine in a quite different way, where you say, " The earthly birth, or that birth after the flesh, availeth much in the state of the church erected at * Glas's Works, p. 53. sect. 2. 166 Letters to Mr. Glas Sinai, as to the enjoyment of the privileges of it. But now our Lord says to Nicodemus, " Except a man be born again (or born from above) he cannot see the kingdom of God ;" and Gal. iv. 26. '* Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all." How you can free yourself from inconsistency here, I cannot conceive ; for unless you maintain that every one that is born of believing parents, is likewise born from above, the inconsistency is still glaring. And if you should endeavour to reconcile matters by making a distinction betwixt the view we should have of these infants, in the judgment of charity, and what they may be really in themselves, I have answered this already ; and shall only add. That the case of infants is dif- ferent from that of adults, as to the judgment of cha- rity we ought to form of them. Adults may impose upon us by a plausible profession and walk, and as we cannot judge the heart, we must esteem those to be brethren that have the apparent characters of such ; but if we are deceived in iuikuts, they can have no hand in this deception, and consequently it must land upon the rule that directs our judgment of them : and I am rather inclined to attribute such a rule to you than to the scriptures of truth, as I am sure " The faithful true witness will never deceive." 3. If all the infants ot believers are " members of Christ's church for which he gave himself, that he miglit sanctify and cleanse it with tlie washing of ■water^ by the word ;" then they shall all certainly be saved ; for as the church you mention is the same with the general assembly and church of the first born which are written in heaven, Heb. xii. 23. and as Christ gave himself for this church; so none of its members can ever perish or be plucked out of Christ's hands. On Baptism. 167 4, But if " those little children whom the Lord de- clares to belong to his kingdom, in distinction from the world," f^ill away in their adult state, as you sup- pose some of them may,* then a person may be a real member of Christ for a while, and afterwards a child of the devil ; enrolled in heaven in the former part of his life, and, in the latter part of it, blotted out of the book of life. And if any one of these perish for whom Christ gave hhnself, why may not all of them ? Upon this scheme, what ground has any to hope that all other blessings will be bestowed in consequence of the gift of Christ? Does not the apostle argue conclusively when he says, " He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things ? — Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" If the people of God must not look upon the " gift of God as eternal life through Jesus Christ," what foundation is left for their hope, unless it be a conceit of something distinguishing about themselves, and after all who can trust his own heart? It might likewise be shown how this scheme militates against the doctrine of election, effectual calling, the stability of the covenant, and the faithfulness of God. And though I am far from thinking you intend any such thing; yet, upon reflection, you may easily see, that the shifts you are put to in support of infant-baptism tend to unsettle every thing. I shall now consider the scope of 1 Cor. vii. 14. It is evident from the first verse of this chapter, that the Corinthians had written to the apostle for a solution of some doubtful cases, amongst which, by the apostle's answer, this seems to have been one, viz. Whether it * Patre 203. 168 Letters to Mr. Glas was lawful for a believer, joined in marriage with ais unbeliever, to continue in that relation ? Whether this doubt arose from a mistaken regard to Moses' law. Dent. vii. 3. and the example in Ezra, chap. x. or from what he had written to them before, 1 Cor. v. J>, 10. is not material to know. However, the apostle decides the matter thus, " If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the w oman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." Thus the matter stands determined by the apostle ; to which he adds the following reason ; " For the unbe- lieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the un- believing wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children unclean ; but now are they holy, "Ver. 12, 13, 14. Two things offer themselves here to be considered. 1. The sanctification of the unbelieving party. 2. The holiness of the children in consequence thereof. By the sanctificaiion of the unbelieving party cannot be meant internal sancfijication, or renovation of mind ; for as the heart can only be purified by faith, the person, in that case, w ould be no longer an unbe- liever. Neither can we understand it of typical or ce- remonial sanctificaiion ; for this belonged only to the first covenant, which was then made old. There remain only two senses in which this sancvification of the unbelieving party can be understood ; 1. Instrumental sanctificaiion ; or sajictified as an instrument of propagating a holy seed. Or, 1. Matrimonial sanctificaiion, whereby the one is enjoyed as a chaste yoke-fellow by the other, without fornication or uncleanness. On Baptism, 169 The former of these senses you hold, in which you follow Mr. Thomas Goodv/in; but that sense will not at all answer the apostle's purpose, which was to persuade the believing Corinthians to abide in their marriage relation with unbelievers. For, 1. If the unbelieving wife (for instance) were barren, then she could have no sanctification ; for as this sanctification is not for herself, but for the children, in whom it terminates, how can it exist at all if she has none ? 2. Though the unbelieving wife should bring forth children ; yet if these children should lose the cha- racter of holy in their adult state, in what sense can we understand the unbelieving wife sanctified to bring- forth holy children ? The sanctification is not in herself, she being an unbeliever ; neither is it in her children, they being irregenerate. Where then is it to be found ? Thus, you see, the apostle's argument would be founded upon something very contingent and uncertain, and would have left the believing Co- rinthians, in many cases, at liberty to put away their unbelieving correlates. But it is evident the apostle's argument was not founded upon any thing future or contingent ; but upon what was certain and present, or rather past, for he useth the preter-perfect tense, hyiarai, hath been sanc- tified ; so that this sanctification must be prior to, and independent of her having children, and also of the holiness of these children. It may be noticed further, that the unbelieving wife is not here said to be sanctified by the faith of the husband ; but barely hy (to or m) the husband : and as fafih respects only a spiritual relation, there is no ground to think it is here given as a reason for the lawfulness of the carnal relation of marriage ; for 170 Letters to Mr. Glas marriage does not derive its lawfulness from the faith of the gospel, but from the ordinance of God ap- pointing, and the parties mutually agreeing, to be no more twain, but one flesh. Therefore, The sanctification here spoken of must be of a ma- trimonial nature, and opposed to fornication or un- cleanness. This will appear, whether we consider the meaning of the word sanctification in several places of the New Testament, or the scope of the apostle's ar- gument here. In 2 Cor. vii. 1. we find holiness or sanctification op- posed to filthiness of the flesh, as well as of the spirit ; and when it is said, (I Cor. vii. 34. that she may he holy in body, must it not be understood of her being chaste? In 1 Thess. iv, 3 sanctification is opposed to fornication ; " For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." And in ver. 4, 5. it is contrasted with the lust of con- cupiscence ; " That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour. Not in the lust of concupiscence," &c. This sanctifi- cation and honour agrees with Heb. xiii. 4. " Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled ; but "whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Now if the words sanctification and honour be op- posed io fornication, the lust of concupiscence, whore- dom and adultery, they must necessarily signify chas- tity. And if marriage be honourable (lawful or chaste) in all, we may easily see how the unbelieving wife is sanctified in, by, or to her husband, whilst she ob- serves the laws of marriage, and keeps the bed un- defiled. For though she be an unbeliever, yet being lawfully joined to an husband, she is matrimonially holy, and sanctified to his use, even as the creatures he eats and drinks are, 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4, 5. Therefore, On Baptism. 171 as these are not to be refused, so she is not to be put away. The apostle backs the sanctitication of the unbe- liever with an argument drawn from an absurdity that would follow upon the contrary supposition ; Else were your children unclean ; but noiv are they holy. As if he had said. If the unbelieving party were not a lawful yoke-fellow, then your children, being the issue of an impure junction, would be unclean; but now are they holy. This leads me to consider, 2. In what sense the children are said to be holy. What has been already said on the former head, leaves nothing to be done here, but formally to draw the conclusion. No stream can rise higher than its source, nor can any cause produce an effect disproportioned to its nature. That which is horn of the flesh, is flesh, and will remain so for any thing that flesh can do. If therefore, as has been shown, the unbelieving wife be only sanctified to her husband matrimonially, so as they may lawfully, chastely, and honourably dwell together without fornication or uncleanness ; then all the holiness that can accrue to the children from this sanctification, is only legiti- macy, as being lawfully begotten ; and the uncleanness opposed to this, can only be illegitimacy or bastardy, as being the issue of an unlawful marriage.* . If it be objected, that this view of the place will apply as well to unbelievers and their children, as to believers and theirs, I answer, * If we were to regard the opinion of learned and judicious com- mentators, such as Camerarius, Melancthon, Museulus, Beza, ^e. they all agree in giving the above view of the place; and Calvin on Mai. ii. 15. owneth, that holy seed, or seed of God, is an Hebraism for legiii' mate seed. 172 Letters to Mr. Glas In some respects it will. The apostle here sustains the lawfulness of those marriages which were consum- mated while both parties were unbelievers ; for it is more natural to suppose, that they were married before their conversion, than that they should afterwards marry infidels when they had scruples about dwelling with them. He likewise sustains the legitimacy of such children as were begotten before the conversion of either parent ; for he makes no exception here, and that thej'^ had such children, we need make no doubt. It may be further objected, That if the sanctification of the unbeliever be only of a matrimonial nature, then the apostle might with equal propriety affirm, that the believing party was sanctified to the unbelieving. To this it may be answered, 1. This was not the point in question. The apostle is not answering the scruples of infidels, but of Christians ; who were not doubting of their own sanctification in that respect, but of the sanctification of their unbelieving correlates ; nor of the lawfulness of marriage in general, but only in the peculiar circumstances mentioned ; for which they had some colour of reason from the law of Moses. 2. It would not only be improper, but absurd, to say, that the believing party was sanctified to the other ; for the party which the law held unclean vi^as the alien, not the Israelite ; and so this uncleanness must be shown to be removed from the party upon which the law and the consciences of the believing Corinthians had fixed it, and not from the party that was looked upon as clean already : therefore the apostle says, the unbelieving wife or husband is sanctified. But then this sanctification implies no moral change in the un- believer ; but only a relative change, in respect of a law that formerly prohibited such a connection, and in respect of the believer's conscience, which is now freed On Baptism, 173 irom that law, and so can dwell with them in sanctifi- cation and honour. What the apostle says about the sanctification of the meats prohibited under the law, serves much to illustrate this point ; accordingly he classes them together when opposing the doctrine of the false teachers, who forbade marriage, and com- manded to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving. See I Tim. iv. 3, 4, 5. In fine, whether we consider the gospel doctrine, the scope of the apostle's argument, or the sense of the like expressions in several other places of the New Testament, all concur in ascertaining this view of the place, viz. That the unbelieving party is sanctified to the other, in so far as he or she is a chaste and lawful yoke-fellow, according to the ordinance of God ap- pointing them to be one flesh, whom no man ought to put asunder : and their children are in so far holy, as they are begotten in lawful wedlock, and not by for- nication. You take notice of this sense, and call it a ridiculonss gloss on the text : but add, that " it will bring us back to the very same thing that this text always served to demonstrate, viz. That the children of believers, begot by such aliens, were now to be accounted holy, — and are to be acknowledged to be those little children whom the Lord declares to belong to his kingdom in distinction from the world." That is, in short, if chil- dren are not illegitimate, but the lawful issue even of one believing parent, they thereby appear to be born from above, and consequently must be baptized ! I am, SlE, Your, &c. 174 Letters to Mr. Gtas LETTER VII. SIR, I INTEND in this letter to try the weight of your fourth section, which shows how baptism comes in place of circumcision, and proceeds thus : The argument for infant baptism from circumcision has a foundation in these words of the apostle, Col. ii. 11, 12, 13. " In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ : buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the opera- tion of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." " Here the thing signified in baptism is called the circumcision made without hands, the same with the circumcision of the heart whereof the uncircumcised in their flesh are now made partakers ; and in place of the circumcision made with hands they are buried with Christ in baptism, and so have the circumcision, of Christ. Now if the apostle gives us baptism with the thing signified in it, in place of the circumcision of the flesh, and calls it the circumcision of Christ; then baptism must be to the true Israel who are born of the Spirit, as circumcision was to the typical Israel who are born of the flesh." — This conclusion is expressed in such a manner as will bear a double meaning. If you mean tliat bap- On Baptism. 1^5 tism is the same thing to the true Israel that circum- cision was to the typir.al Israel, this will not be granted ; for circumcision was to typical Israel an ex- ternal mark to distinguish them from the Gentiles, and was typical of internal circumcision ; but the design of baptism to the true Israel is, to represent the death, sufferings, and resurrection of Christ, and the saints likeness to Christ in them, and their participation of them. Circumcision was hereditary to old Israel, and, by God's appointment, entailed on their fleshly seed ; not so baptism to the true Israel. Nor can it be proved that baptism comes in the place of circum- cision ; for baptism took place among the believing Jews a considerable time before circumcision was abrogated. But if you mean, that baptism belongs to the true Israel, even as circumcision belonged to the typical Israel, I heartily agree with you, provided you keep clear and consistent the distinction you have men- tioned between the typical and true Israel, viz. That the former are born of the flesh, and the latter of the Spirit. But your very next words confound this dis- tinction, when you say, — " And as Peter said to the Jews who were first called to be baptized unto the promise of the Holy Ghost, the promise is unto you and to your children, baptism belongs unto the children of the spiritual Israel, unto whom that promise is ; even as cir- cumcision belonged to the children of the fleshly Israel, who had the promise of Christ to come in the flesh, and of the earthly inheritance." In the beginning of this section you told us, the ar- gument for infant-baptism from circumcision was founded on Col. ii. 11, 12, 13. but as that text makes 1^6 Letters to Air. Glas no mention of infants, j'ou are obliged to have re- course to your former argumont from Acts ii. where you would have us believe the word cJiildren signifies infants such as were circumcised ; and thus by patch- ing up your premises, you venture to draw your con- clusion. But as the argument from Acts ii. has been answered already, I refer you to it, and shall pro- ceed to consider, what you have advanced from Col. ii. The controversy being about infant^baptism, the main thing to be considered is, whether the infants of believing parents be the true Israel who are born of the Spirit, and so the antitype of Jewish infants, who were the typical Israel born after the flesh ; and if it be made to appear that they cannot be viewed in that light, then, according to your own argument from the text, baptism does not belong to infants. In order to clear this matter, it will be necessary to state more particularly the difference betwixt the typical and true Israel, or the natural and spiritual seed of Abraham. This distinction is copiously han- dled by the apostle Paul in his epistles to the Komans and Galatians, in which he always recurs back to the covenant made with Abraham. This covenant was of a mixed nature, as appears by the promises which it contained. For, 1. Herein God gave to Abraham the promise of a seed in whom all nations should be blessed. Gen. xii. 3. and xxii. 18. and this seed was Christ, Gal.iii. 16. In this promise the gospel was { reached unto Abraham, ver. 8. and in it lay the object of that faith whereby he and his spiritual seed among Jews and Gentiles were blessed with him, ver. 7, 9. This is that promise which was confirmed of God in Christ, and which the law On Baj)fisni. 177 €Ould not disannal, or make of none effect, ver. 17. But because God designed to exhibit by, and among Abraham's fleshly seed an earthly pattern or examplar of the heavenly things contained in this promise ; therefore, 2. He made another promise to Abraham in that covenant, viz. That he would multiply him exceed- ingly, and give unto him, and to his seed after him, the land of Canaan, Gen. xvii. 2, 8. This promise was temporal, and it behoved to be accomplished before the other, as it contained the types and pledges thereof. Canaan typified the heavenly inheritance ; so the patriarchs understood it, Heb. xi. 8 — 15. and Abraham's fleshly seed typified his spiritual seed of all nations. Gal. iii. 7, 8, 9. even the children of the spiritual promise, who walk in the steps of Abraham's faith. The difference betwixt these two seeds was ty- pified to Abraham by Ishmael and Isaac in his own family, even as the two covenants were typified by Hagar and Sarah, Gal. iv. 21. Now these two pro- mises laid the foundation of a twofold relation to God ; the one spiritual and eternal with Abraham's spi- ritual seed : the other typical and temporal, betwixt God and Abraham's fleshly seed, which behoved to continue during the period of the typical oeconomy, and no longer. 3. The ordinance of circumcision belonged only to the temporal promise, and the temporal typical re- lation betwixt God and Abraham's seed according to the flesh : for though the covenant to which it belongs be called an everlasting covenant, Gen. xvii. 13. yet this must be understood with the same limitation as ■the earthly Canaan, promised therein, is called an everlasting possession, ver. 8. and xlviii. 4. the Aaron- N J 78 Letters to Mr. Glas ical priesthood, cm everlasting priestJicod, Exod.xl. 15. and the yearly typical atonement an everlasting statute. Lev. xvi. 34. These temporal types are called ever- lasting in relation to the antitype, in which this epithet holds true. Circumcision is indeed called, a seal of the righ- teousness of the faith ; but it was a seal only to Abra- ham of his own faith, even the faith which he had before circumcision. This seal he received in his pe- culiar patriarchal capacity, and that only as father of the faithful ; for the apostle says, Rom. iv. 11, 12. " He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being un- circumcised :" for what end ? " that he might be the father (of whom ? of all his fleshly circumcised seed ? No : but) of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised ; — and the father of circumcision to them (of his natural seed) who are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our fa- ther Abraham which he had being yet uncircumciscd," i. e. That he might be the father of all that believe, whether circumcised or uncircumciscd. Now if Abra- ham was not a father to his natural seed, as such, in that respect w herein circumcision sealed or confirmed to him the righteousness of his faith ; then circum- cision was not such a seal to his natural seed ; nor could it be such a seal to infants at eight days old, who had not that faith before circumcision ; but respected only the temporal promise and relation, which promise and relation had a typical reference to the eternal pro- mise, and the spiritual relation arising from it. When God proceeded to fulfil the temporal promise, he did it by means of a covenant, even that which he made with tlie whole nation of Israel, when he took On Baptism. 179 them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, Exod. xix. 3 — 8. Heb. viii. 9. This is called the old cove- nant (Heb. viii. 13.) on account of the temporal rela- tion betwixt the Lord and that nation, which is now done away. — The law, Heb. x. 1. on account of the law therein given to them. — And the first testament, (Heb. ix. 15.) on account of the typical adoption, and the temporal inheritance. It is evident that this covenant, and all its typical ogconomy, was founded on the temporal promise made to Abraham concerning his fleshly seed ; for all the temporal blessings which Israel enjoyed according to the tenor of the Sinai covenant, are also ascribed to that promise. The Lord refers to it when about to give the typical redemption, Exod. vi. 3 — 8. Their manifold deliverances from the surrounding nations are ascribed to it, 2 Kings xiii. 23. Neh. ix. 7, 8. and pleaded from it, 2 Chron. xx. 7. Yea, their typical re- lation to God as his people, wherein the very essence of this covenant consisted, is originally attributed to that same promise, Beut. xxix. 13. As circumcision belonged to the temporal promise and fleshly relation, it was also ingrossed into this covenant, Lev. xii. 3. and so it behoved to vanish away with the covenant itself, and all its other typical ordinances. When the fulness of the time was come, and God proceeded to fulfil the spiritual promise, he did it by means of another covenant, (by the mediation of Christ) with Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations. This is called the neiv covenant, (Heb. xii. 24.) in re- ference to the other, which was made old, and the new spiritual relation betwixt God and that new nation, made up from among all nations, kindreds, and tongues. — The new testament, (Heb. ix. 15.) on N 2 180 Letters to Mr. Glas acconnt of the true adoption and the heavenly inhe- ritance, of which Christ the first-born is both testator and heir. These are the two covenants of which the apostle speaks in Gal. iv. and Heb. viii. and ix. chapters, and which were both included, by way of promise, in the covenant made with Abraham. The contrast may be more fully stated in the following manner : ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. Old Covenant. 1. The old covenant was only a temporal relation betwixt God and a par- ticular nation, which is now done away and come to an end, Heb. viii. 13. 2. The old covenant was carnal and earthly : (1.) In its worship, which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers wash- ings, and carnal ordinances, Heb. ix. 10. (2.) In its sacrifices of bulls and of goats, which could never take away sin, or purge the conscience, Heb. ix. 9. and x. 4. (3.) In its mediator, viz. Moses, Gal. iii. 19. New Covenant, 1. The new covenant is an eternal relation betwixt God and his people from among all nations, and is therefore called an ever- lasting covenant, Heb. xiii. 20. 2. The new covenant is spiritual and heavenly : (1.) In its ivorship, which requires a true heart, faith, and a good conscience, and to be performed in spirit and in truth, Heb. x. 19 — 23. John iv. 23. (2.) In its sacrifice, which is Christ, and which per- fects for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. x. 14. (3.) In its mediator, viz. Christ Jesus, Heb. xii. 24. On Baptism. ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 181 Old Covenant. (4.) In its priests, viz. Aaron and his sons, who were sinful men, and not suffered to continue by rea- son of death, Heb. vii. 23, 28. (5.) In its sanctuary, which was worldly and made with hands, Heb. ix. 1.24. (6.) In its promises ; they being worldly bless- ings in earthly places, and respecting only a pros- perous life in the earthly Canaan, Deut. xxviii. 1 — 16. Isai. i. 19. Josh. xxi. 43, 45. chap, xxiii. 14, 15, 16. (7.) In its subjects, or people covenanted ; they being the fleshly seed of Abraham, children of the temporal promise, related to God as his typical peo- ple, and to Christ as his kinsmen according to the flesh : which typical and fleshly relation availed them much for the enjoyment of the typical and earthly New Covenant. (4:.) In its priest, viz. Christ, who is holy, harm- less, &c. and abideth priest continually, ever living to make intercession for us, Heb. vii. 24, 25,26. (5.) In its sanctuary, which is heaven itself, whereinto our great high- priest hath entered, having obtained eternal redemp- tion for us, Heb. ix. 12. (6.) In its promises : they being spiritual blessings in heavenly places, and chiefly respecting the life to come, and the enjoyment of the heavenly inheritance, Eph . i. 3. Tit. i. 2. Heb. viii. 6. and xi. 16. (7.) In its subjects; they being the spiritual seed of Abraham, typified by the fleshly seed ; being chosen in Christ before the founda- tion of the world ; predes- tinated unto the adoption of children, and redeemed by the blood of Christ. These are the children of the promise, who, in God's appointed time, are born, 1^ Letters to Mr Glas ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. Old Covenant. privileges of this covenant: but as Hagar, the bond-wo- man, was cast out with her son born after the flesh ; so the covenant itself being antiquated, its temporal, typical privileges vanished, its subjects were cast out and disinherited ; the fleshly relation upon which they received circumcision, a- vailed nothing for their partaking of spiritual privi- leges, nor were they, as children of this covenant, admitted heirs with the children of the free woman, or new covenant, Rora. ix. 4—9. Gal. vi. 15. and iv. 22—31. New Covenant. not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God : being born again, not of corrupti- ble seed, but of incorrupti- ble, even by the word of God, which liveth and abi- deth for ever : who have the law of God written in their hearts, and all know him from the least to the greatest. Through this work of the Spirit, they believe in the name of the Son of God, and by the profession of this their faith, they appear to be the seed of Abraham, children of the free-woman, and heirs ac- cording to the promise, to whom belong all spiritual privileges, and baptism a- mong the rest, Eph. i. 4, 5. IPet. i. 18,19. John i. 13. lPet.i.23.Heb.viii.lO,ll, Gal. iii. 26, 29. and iv. 28, 31. Acts ii. 41, 42. From this contrast it appears, that the old covenant made with the whole nation of Israel, and all the things established thereby, were only earthly patterns On Baptism. 183 of things in the heavens, Heb. ix. 23. figures for the time then present, ver. 9. shadows of good things to come, chap. x. 1. imposed upon the typical Israel, until the time of reformation, chap. ix. 10. under which they vrere shut up mito the faith that should afterwards be revealed, Gal. iii. 23. So that, abstract from their typical reference, there was nothing spiritual or hea- venly in them. And as this covenant was typical and earthly ; so were the covenanted people. Nor was there any ne- cessity of their being regenerated in order to their par- taking of its privileges, seeing these privileges were earthly, and suited to men in a natural state : but it was requisite they should be the fleshly seed of Abra- ham, observe the letter of the law, and have the sign of the covenant in their flesh by circumcision. Though some of the fleshly Israel were likewise of the spiritual Israel; yet they were not so by their fleshly relation to Abraham, nor by the temporal pro- mise concerning his natural seed, to which circum- cision belonged ; nor yet by the peculiar typical cove- nant at Sinai founded thereon : but by an election of sovereign grace, and faith in the notable SEED, the mediator of the new covenant, of which their fleshly relation and temporal covenant was but a type or earthly pattern, Rom. xi. 5, 7. Heb. xi. 13, 39, 40. As type and antitype hold the same proportion with flesh and spirit, shadow and substance, earth and heaven, we must always keep this distinction in our eye, when running the parallel betwixt Abraham's twofold seed, else we shall be apt to confound those born only of the flesh, with these born of the Spirit. And in this, I perceive, your mistake lies : for your whole argument proceeds upon the supposition, that 184 Letters to Mr. Glas the fleshly seed of New Testament believers are as really the spiritual seed of Abraham as the infants of old Israel were his fleshly seed. But it is absurd to suppose, that the infant seed of Abraham, born of the flesh, did typify the infant seed of believers born likewise of the flesh ; for this would be only one fleshly seed typifying another fleshly seed, and so would not answer to the distinction that must always be held betwixt the type and its antitype. The beasts sacrificed under the law, were not typical of any other beasts to be sacrificed under the gospel ; nor did the old covenant with the fleshly seed, typify that the new covenant should be with another fleshly seed. Unless then we suppose, that shadow and substance, sign and thing signified, type and antitype, are of the same nature and kind, we must of necessity grant. That the natural seed of Abraham, born of the flesh according to the temporal promise, typified his spiritual seed, horn of the Spirit according to the new covenant promise. As baptism belongs only to the spiritual seed of Abraham, it remains to be considered, what it is that distinguishes them from the world, and gives them a visible right to this ordinance. The fleshly birth sufliciently distinguished the sub- jects of circumcision ; for this was a thing visible, and the highest evidence that could be had of their being the natural seed of Abraham, to whom that ordinance belonged ; so that Israelitish infants appeared as really to be the natural seed at their birth, as they could do in any after period of their lives. But this is far from being the case with the spiritual seed : for as regenera- tion is invisible ; so the carnal birth, be it of whom it may, is no proper index to it, nor can they upon that ground receive baptism. Because, On Baptism. 185 1. That which is common both to the natural and spiritual seed can never distinguish the one from the other ; but the fleshly birth is common to both ; there- fore it cannot distinguish them. 2. That which does not amount to the character of the sons of God, cannot denominate the spiritual seed ; but the being born of blood, of the will of the flesh, and of the will of man, (as are the infants of believers as well as others) does not amount to the character of the sons of God, John, 1, 13. There- fore, &c. 3. If the spiritual birth hath no necessary, natural, or foederal connection with the fleshly birth, then from the fleshly birth we cannot infer the spiritual ; but being born again — from above — of the Spirit of God, is neither necessarily, naturally, nor fcederally con- nected with the fleshly birth ; therefore it cannot be inferred from it. Not necessarily ; for it is the fruit of sovereign free election. Nor naturally ; for we are by nature children of wrath. ^ or fcederally ; for the new covenant is not made with the natural ofi'spring of believers, as the old temporal covenant was with the fleshly seed of Abraham ; nor are we now per- mitted to know any man after the flesh, 2 Cor. v. 16. or to judge of their spiritual state by their fleshly re- lation to covenanted parents. 4. The natural seed of believers can no more be counted for the spiritual seed, than the natural seed of Abraham ; but the apostle tells us, that the children of Abraham according to the flesh are not, as such, the children of God, nor counted for the seed. 5. Though some of the children of believers are the spiritual seed, it will not follow they should all be counted such ; any more than it will follow that 186 Letters to Mr. Glas because some of the fleshly Israel were also the spi- ritual Israel, therefore they were all of the spiritual Israel. And if they cannot all be counted for the spiritual seed, then none of them can be known to be such while infants ; for, in infancy, there is no visible distinction between them. 6. If the scriptures demonstrate, that many of the children of infidels are of the spiritual seed, whilst, on the other hand, many of the seed of the faithful turn out to be infidels, then no rule can be fixed for judging of the state of infants either from the faith or infidelity of their parents ; but scripture and experience demon- strate both these to be facts, as in the case of Ishmael, Esau, and Absalom, and in the rejection of the Jews, and conversion of the Gentiles. Therefore, to judge of the state of infants by the fleshly birth, or by the faith of their parents, is not a scriptural rule. These arguments serve to show, that the infants of New Testament believers cannot be counted for the spiritual seed, as the infants of old Israel were counted for the fleshly seed ; and that therefore baptism cannot be administered to the former, as circumcision was to the latter, because it proceeds upon the evidence of the spiritual birth. I shall only mention one thing more upon this part of the argument, viz. That there was a particular, ex- press divine command for circumcising the fleshly seed at eight days old ; but there is neither command nor example in all the word of God for baptizing infants, or any but those who appear, by the profession of their faith, to be the spiritual seed. I shall now follow you through the rest of this section. — " For they [infants] are as capable of being On Baptism. 187 bom of the Spirit, as they are of being born of the flesh:"— ylnsw. Their capability is no argument. Do they all appear to be born of the Spirit ? Does scripture declare it ? Does experience show it ? — " For who can deny the operation of God upon them, that raised Christ, and begets the adult to the faith, to which they contribute as little as their infants ?"— Answ. No one can deny, that God can of these stones raise up children to Abraham; but you yourself own, that this operation is not actually exerted on all the infants of believers, just a little below, where you say, *' It is true, they may yet be really irregenerate, and when adult appear to be so." Scripture and ex- perience both show, that they are but the fewest number, even of the children of believers, upon whom this operation is exerted. How trifling and weak then is such reasoning, God is able to regenerate infants, therefore they may be baptized! According to this argument, all the human race may be baptized ; for God is able to regenerate them. — " When it is asked, how can infants appear to be of the spiritual seed ? it may then be asked, how does a parent appear to be such an Israelite upon the very first profession of his faith, by which he is admitted to baptism?"— Answ. A parent appears to be a true Israelite upon his first profession, because that affords a credible ground to believe, that his profession agrees with the belief of his own heart, and is the index to it : but his profession can never make his infant appear to be of the spiritual seed ; because there is no connection be- twixt his profession and the spiritual state of his child, 188 Letters to Mr. Glas any more than there is betwixt the fleshly and spiritual birth. The parent does not profess the faith of his child, but his own faith ; and it is certain, that nothing is made visible by a profession, but that which is pro- fessed in it. There is no such thing either expressed or implied in the scriptures, as that infants appear to be the spiritual seed, by their being the natural seed of believers. Abraham had never this honour with re- spect to his natural seed, though his faith was tried and approved of God the searcher of hearts : how then can we suppose, that professing Gentiles should pro- pagate spiritual children to Abraham by carnal gene- ration, and manifest them to be such by professing the faith in their stead, when he who was the father of the faithful could do no such thing, unless we count the children of the flesh for the seed, contrary to Rom. ix. 8. Gal. iv. 29. ? Abraham's spiritual seed walk in the steps of his faith, Rom. iv. 11, 12. and do the works of Abraham, John viii. 39. and thus appear to be his spiritual seed. You say, " the word of God calls us to acknowledge them the spiritual seed by the parent's profession.** Yet there is no such call in all the word, but rather the reverse : " That which is born of the flesh, is flesh," John iii. 6. " They are not all Israel which are of Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children," Rom. ix. 6, 7. As for the parent's profession, it can never make his infants appear to be the spiritual seed, though it makes them appear the fleshly seed of a true Israelite : nor can it make them appear the children of the promise, who are counted for the seed ; for there is no particular promise made to believers (as was to Abra- ham) that they shall have a seed, and much less it On Baptism. 189 spiritual seed. But as you seem to ground this assertion upon their being called holy, I refer you back to what has been already said on that head. In the next paragraph you endeavour to shew, that the baptism of infants will not infer their being ad- mitted to the Lord's Supper : 1. Because they are not by this acknowledged as members of any visible church, to which that or- dinance belongs ; but only of Christ's true church ; his body, which is invisible. 2. Because the examples of baptism in scripture always preceded adding to a church. And, 3. Because, in short, they must be capable per- sonally to declare their purpose of heart to cleave unto the Lord in a church, before they can be ad- mitted as members. Now though I agree with you in saying, that the in- stances of baptism in scripture always preceded adding to a visible church, to which the supper belongs, yet your arguments for infant-baptism are as strong for admitting them to the supper : For if we esteem infants members of Christ's true chnrch for which he gave himself, &c. why may they not be admitted as members of a visible congregation, which is a repre- sentation in miniature of that true church ? Are they members of that true church where no unclean thing can enter ; and can they not be admitted into a society where hypocrites have, and still do enter? Do they all partgike of the one New Testament altar, and can we refuse them the instituted sign of that altar, the Lord's Supper? Is not this something like '* daring to exclude from the privileges of Christ's kingdom and church communion those who appear to be of the truth ?" 190 Letters to Mr. Glas When it is asked, how can infants appear to l>e members of a visible church ? it may then be asked, how does a parent appear to be such a member, upon the declared purpose of his heart to cleave unto the Lord in it, by which he is admitted as one ? And when it shall be said. That the word of God calls us to ac- knowledge him as such by that declaration ; then it will also be said, (retorting your own argument,) that the same word calls us to acknowledge his infants as such, by that same declaration. But how come you to speak of qualifications in order to partake of the Lord's Supper, call it a de- clared purpose of heart, &c. or what you will ? Does not " this lead us (according to you) to lay the stress of our salvation upon something that we do in the de- claration of our purpose of heart to cleave unto the Lord, and some holiness about us whereof infants are incapable 1" p. 198. If once you dispense with that personal profession which the scripture requires in order to baptism, you cannot be consistent unless you likewise give up with that personal declaration re- quisite to church-fellowship and communion in the supper, notwithstanding all your distinctions. But you proceed : — " Nor if we consider what is now said," (viz. against reckoning the baptized to be members of a visible church) " shall we be able to ascribe the cor- ruption of Christianity to the baptism of Christian infants, as it may be ascribed to the making of Chris- tians by baptism.'* Answ. Your arguments for infant-baptism will equally hold for their receiving the supper, (as hath been shown,) both which are a corruption of Chris- tianity, as there is no foundation for any such practices On Baptism, 191 in the scriptures ; and if these infants you would have baptized be not made Christians by baptism, I am sure many of them are not made Christians in any other way, as their after conduct glaringly demon" strates. — " The corruption of the Christian religion came by departing from the scriptural profession of the faith upon which baptism was administered from the beginning to a man and his house, and by substituting another profession in the room of it ; a profession that cannot entitle the professors to the scriptural brotherly love as saints and faithful in Christ Jesus ; or as the spiritual Israel/'— Answ. You say right; for to substitute any pro- fession in the room of a personal one, as it is not scriptural, so it can never entitle to brotherly love as saints, and must consequently introduce great cor- ruptions into the Christian religion. And I know not a fitter expedient for corrupting Christianity, or making nominal Christians, than by administering baptism to such as can make no personal or scriptural profession of the faith ; but substitute the profession of another in its place : — ''^ Whereas the true primitive profession of the faith, gives the professor and his house the character of holy, and admits them to baptism : And we see xmfeigned faith descending from a parent to her child and grandchild," 2 Tim. 1, 5. Answ. I have considered the scripture doctrine concerning a believer's house already, as also how his children are said to be holy, and have found that it makes nothing for your purpose : but to affirm, that " unfeigned faith descends from a parent to her child and grandchild," is so manifest a wresting of the scrip- li>2 Letters to Mr. Gtas tures, that I know not what to think of a point which requires such conceits to support it. The apostle's words are, 2 Tim. 1. 5. " When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice ; and I am persuaded that in thee also." Here it is evident the apostle does not mean, that faith descended from Timothy's grandmother to himself, by virtue of her being his grandmother (for then it would descend like an estate, or like hereditary qualities in the blood,) but only that Timothy was enlightened in the knowledge of the gospel by the sovereign grace of God, even as his mother and grandmother were before him ; which might or might not be the case, notwithstanding their natural relation to each other, as both scripture and experience plainly evince. — " If the children become adult, not adhering to the baptismal profession, they have no more the cha- racter of holy ; but then they are no more the infants of believing parents." — Answ. The scripture to which you refer for the cha- racter of holy, is as applicable to them when become adult, as when infants, and while unregenerated as when regenerated : " but then they are no more the infants of believing parents." Very true, Sir, adults are not infants ; but pray. Sir, are not adults children in scripture style, though they are not infants? Whether does the place you refer to, term them infants or chil- dren ? Does a believer's house include none but in- fants in distinction from adult children? And whether is this a scriptural distinction, or an imagination of your own 1 How came you then, without a scripture warrant, to divest them of the character of holy upon any consideration, as long as they are the lawful chil- dren of believing parents ? On Baptism. 193 But though their adult state should discover your error as to the nature of that holiness, you are very far from owning it as yours ; for you say, " according; to the scripture, we must look upon the children of believing parents, dying in infancy, as dying in the Lord." Strange ! that you should father such fancies upon the scriptures of truth, when there is not one syllable in all that sacred book that makes the least distinction (with respect to salvation) betwixt those who die in infancy, and those who arrive at maturity. But as you were before obliged to use the distinction of visible and invisible church, to cut off the connection betwixt baptism and the Lord's Supper : so you are here Ibrced to use the distinction of infant and adult, to support the credit of that imaginary holiness, which you say entitles infants to baptism, but which may vanish away in their adult state like a morning cloud which is dispelled by the rising sun. Upon the whole, had you entirely dropt the apos- tolic distinction of the two covenants, and adopted the popular plan of their identity, you might have handled the argument from circumcision more con- sistently than you have done. I am. Sir, Your, &c. 194 Letters to Mr. Glas LETTER VIII. SIR, I SHALL now proceed to your fifth section, wliich shows, that the apostles mifiding the Lord's ad- monition as to in/ants, and primitive Christians long after them, did not scrnple upon baptizing them ; and that it was the practice in the first ages. In the first part of this section you recapitulate your former arguments, and take it for granted they are conclusive ; but as I have answered them aheady, 1 shall not stay here upon every particular. You begin thus ; " If we believe Christ faithful as a Son over his own house, we must take the revelatioii of his mind and will as he is pleased to give it, without prescribing to him the manner in which he should make his will known." — Answ. We arc willing to take the revelation of Christ's mind as he has been pleased to give- it; but since infant-baptism has never yet appeared to be any part of that revelation, you must excuse us though we do not take it from men as they are pleased to give it ; lor it is Christ's will, and not theirs, (hat we chuse to regard in this matter. We maintain that the revelation of Christ's mind as to the baptism of be- lievers is clear, express, and particular ; but as to the baptism of infants who cannot believe, he has said nothing about it, and therefore it can be no institution of his ; nor can any reasoning whatever, make it ap- pear to be such. We may indeed deduce moral duties On Baptism, 195 ftoni the nature and relation of things ; but positive ordinances, (such as baptism is,) which depend entirely on the will of the lawi^iver, we know nothing at all about them, nor to what description of persons they belong, but from the plain enacting ivords of such in- stitutions, or approved examples of their application. And where both are wanting, there can be no such thing as a positive institution. But you proceed, — " When the same temper, from which the scruples at infant-baptism now proceed, showed itself in his disciples, he was much displeased at it: The disciples rebuked those who brought infants to him, and their reasons for this could be no other but such as are still used by those who forbid them baptism." Answ. If Christ's disciples, (who even then bap- tized more than John did, John iv. 1, 2.) had it in commission to baptize infants, as, according to you, must have been the case ; then their reasons could not be the same with ours, who maintain they had no such commission. Or if you imagine the disciples thought infants incapable of Christ's blessing, and so forbade them to be brought, I hope you will not affirm that this is any of our reasons for withholding their baptism. Wherein then do our reasons agree with those of the disciples ? — " And in the foresight of their self-righteous and unmerciful principle touching infants, forbidding them the first sign of union with him and his church, out of which there is no salvation, and perverting the scrip- tures that show their church membership, he said, * Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily, I say unto you. Whosoever shall not receive the king- dom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. O 2 JUG Letlers to Mr. Glas And he took thera up in his arms, put his hands oii them, and blessed thera.' Thus he secured the church membership of infants before his institution of baptism, and thus he prevented the disputes that have arisen since about infants ; showing himself as the first patron of their cause against disciples opposing their being brought to him." Ansiv. Here you endeavour to represent the Bap- lists as self-righteous and unmerciful, and that because they deny baptism to infants : but there can be neither self-righteousness nor unmerciful ness in denying what was never commanded to be given, and which when given can be of no advantage to thera any more than the Lord's Supper. However we need not be much alarmed at the epithet self-righteovs when applied by you, as it is your common hackneyed term, which you apply to all serious professors %vho difier from you. As for what you say of our ujimercifulness in forbidding infants the first sign of union with Christ and his church, out of which there is no salvation ; and of our oppo- sing their being brought to Christ, though there be not the least argument in it ; yet it serves to afi'ect and stimulate the fondly feeling hearts of parents for their infants, and to secure them by this blind handle to your cause. You are sensible, that the generality of people are more influenced by sound than reason, especially in things that take hold of their passions and natural afl'ections; and here you avail yourself of this natural feeling of human nature, by alarming parents with the unraercifulness and cruelty of denying their infants baptism ; as if it were like dashing theui against the stones, or depriving their souls of salvation. ;Methinks I see the fond parent drowned in tears at the rery thought. On Baptism. 197 You confidently affirm, that it was in the foresight of the denial of infant-baptism, that our Lord said, " Suffer the little children to come unto me," &c. whereas our Lord neither enjoins nor exemplifies their baptism in that place, when there was an opportunity of doing both. But I shall consider the text more particularly. " Aiid they brought young children to him that he might touch them ; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them. Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God," Mark x. 13, 14. Whether those who brought the little children were their parents or not, is not here said. Their end in bringing them, we are told here, and in Luke, was, tliat he might touch them ; or as Matthew hath it, put his hands on them andp^'ay : but there is no intimation of a desire that they should be baptized. Next we have the opposition of the disciples to their being brought. What their reasons were, we cannot tell. It is likely they were intent upon our Lord's discourse of marriage and divorce, and did not chuse he should be interrupted at that time, being, as they thought, better employed in teaching the multitude ; not adverting, that our Lord could instruct by the ex- ample of a little child, as well as by any other simili- tude. But whatever were their reasons, our Lord corrects them, saying, " Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God, or, of heaven," as Matthew hath it. By kingdom of God cannot be understood any par- ticular visible church ; this you will readily grant. It must therefore be understood of Christ's true church. 198 Letters to Mr. Glas for which he gave himself; and that elect infants ar« subjects of this kingdom, there can be no doubt ; for no circumstances of age or parentage can hinder that. But then it must carefully be noticed ; 1. That the children of infidels are as capable of being the subjects of this kingdom, as the children of believers are, for any thing contained in this text. 2. All the children of believers are no more the subjects of this kingdom, than all the children of un- believers, as has been already shewn ; how then can the subjects of baptism be distinguished among the children of believers ? This place makes no dis- tinction of children, either by their parents, or among themselves. 3. As the children of believers are not all of this kingdom ; so many of those who are elected to it, are not actually called in infancy ; but may spend a great part of their days in the course of this world. Thus Paul, though he was separated from his mother's womb ; yet it did not please God to reveal his Son in him, till he was on his journey to Damascus. Now baptism does not immediately belong to the elect, as such, (for those are only known to God,) but as ac- tually called, and appearing to be so. 4. Though Jesus Christ, as the great prophet of his church, can distinguish his people amongst infants, as well as amongst adults, and bless them as he did these children; yet this is no warrant for us to bring the infants of believers indiscritninately to bap- tism, as it is to bring them to him for a blessing. 5. Our bringing them to Christ for a blessing, though a duty ; yet it is his to give or withhold, according to his sovereign and righteous purpose ; nor can we dis- tinguish who obtain the blessing in infancy ; and On Baptism. 19^> though v/e could, it would be no warrant for their baptism, without a divine command or example ; for the blessing and baptism arc not inseparably connected, as we may see in this place, where the children were blessed without being baptized. But if we look a little better into the text we may easily see, that our Lord by these words, of such is the kingdom of God, does not only teach us that he blesses such little children as these, and that of such is the kingdom of God ; but also that adults must become as little children in simplicity and humility before they can enter his spiritual kingdom. This is evident from the following words, " Verily, I say unto you, who- soever shall not receive the kingdom of God AS a little child, he shall not enter therein." And this sense is confirmed by a parallel passage, Matth. xviii. 2, 3. " Jesus called a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said. Verily, I say unto you, except ye be converted and become AS little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of lieaven." And adds, " Whosoever therefore shall HUMBLE himself AS this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven : And whoso shall receive one SUCH little child in my name, receiveth me : And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which BELIEVE in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Here it is evident our Lord styles these little children^ who are converted, and resemble such in humilitTj, though they be adults in age; for they are described to be such little ones as believe in him, and are ca- pable of being amended, scandalized, or stumbled : and if we compare this v*'ith what the apostle says about ^ 200 Letters to Mr. Glas offending the weak brother, Rom. xiv. and 1 Cor. viii. we shall find, that though it will not apply to infants, yet it is a necessary caution against offending Christ's little ones, or those who are weak in the faith. Nor does this sense of the place make our Lord's phraseology any way uncommon ; for it was his usual method to convey instruction by similitudes and metaphors, and to use the sign or metaphor for the thing signified. Thus he took bread, blessed it, and said, " This is my body;" and of the cup, " This is my blood of the New Testament ;" or " This cup is the New Testament in my blood :" So here, '' Suffer little children to come unto me ; for of such is the kingdom of God," i. e. The kingdom of God is not only of such little children, but they also bear an in- structive resemblance of that humility and simplicity which become my subjects. And inasmuch as he blessed them. Me are warranted to bring our children to him for the same. But there is no more ground here for the baptism of infants than there is for bringing them to the Lord's Supper. But you proceed : " The apostles kept this in mind when they ex- ecuted his commist^ion to them for setting up his kingdom in the world :' — Answ. They kept in mind that his commission to them was first to teach (or disciple) and then baptize those who were thus taught.* * The words, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c. MattI). xxviii. 1 9. is indeed a commission to teach all nations ; but not to baptize all nations ; for baptism is restricted to the relative pronoun ai/TSj them, which is masculine, and does not agree with •Jravra ra eSvTj, all nations, which is neuter, but to /Aa9riras, disciples, wliich is included in the verb (xei^yjjiuffarB, teach, or make disciples. So the sense is, Teach all natiuns, baptizing them that are taught, or tnade disciple* by teaching. On Baptism 201 — " For they took ia the children with the parents, as we have seen." — A?isw. They took in those who professed the faith, whether children or parents, as we have seen. — " They preached salvation by Christ to men and their houses." — Ansiv. They preached salvation by Christ to all that had an ear to hear, even to every creature. But what is this to the purpose ? — " They baptized believers and their houses, them, and all theirs." — Answ. They did so, when their houses believed as well as themselves ; for this was exactly agreeable to their commission, " He that believeth, and is bap- tized," &c. — " And they left Christian infants as holy, so in the possession of this privilege of Christ's circum- cision."— Answ. They did not leave them holy in your sense of it ; but argued from the principle of their being lawful children, that the marriage relation of their pa- rents (though one of them was an infidel) must have been lawful also. Nor did they leave them in the pos- session of the privilege of Christ's circumcision, if by that you mean baptism ; for as they had not this in their commission, so we find they did not practise it in any of the instances we have of baptism in scripture : neither did they leave any directions about it. And if you can argue from Phil. i. 1. that there ought to be no officers in a Christian church but Bishops and Deacons, you cannot, with any good grace, hinder me to gather from Acts viii. 12. that none ought to be baptized but believing men and women. J have now followed you through all your rea- 202 Letters to Mr. Glas soilings from scripture for the baptism of infants : But Avere I to judge of your real sentiments by your prac- tice in this matter, I should be led to think, that you hold infant-baptism independent of any arguments you have yet advanced. For when you receive members into your church, you do not object to their baptism, but sustain its validity though they should have received it from the national church of Scotland, of England, or even the church of Rome, all of which you consider as Antichristifin. You are no way con- cerned about their having been baptized according to what you yourself esteem the scripture rule. With respect to their parents, you never inquire whether they have been believers, or whether they have ever made the scriptural profession of the faith or not ; so that all your arguments grounded on the faith of the parent, salvation to a believer's house, the promise being to him and his children, &c. are laid aside in this case. And as to the persons themselves, you do not look upon them as having been disciples, believers, holy, and of the kingdom of God when they were bap- tized, nor indeed till such time as they personally pro- fess the faith, and apply for admission into your com- munion. Here then you at once relinquish all your arguments for infant-baptism, none of w^hich are ap- plicable to the present case, which is a common one ; and therefore since you sustain the baptism of such as valid, it must be upon some other ground than any thing you have yet advanced from scripture. Do you then hold it independently of scripture authority alto- gether ? If so, it would have been but fair to have avowed this, as it would bring the controversy to a speedy issue. True, indeed, in your first section, you gave up with express precept or indisputable example. On Baptism. 203 which was in reality to admit that infant-baptism was no institution of Clirist, for a positive institution cannot be establislied by mere inference : But, in the above case, you practically depart from all the arguments and inferences on which you ground the baptism of infants, and so can have no shadow of pretence to any scripture warrant whatever. I am. Sir, Your, &c. 204 Letters to Mr. Glas LETTER IX. SIR, Having followed you through your scripture authorities for infant-baptism, I shall, in this letter, make some reply to what you observe from ancient history. You say, — " That there was never any scruple moved about it till the end of the second century." — Answ. Because it had no being till about that time, as some of the most learned Poedobaptists ingenuously confess.* — " And when we consider the opposition then made to it, we shall see how much it serves to confirm it. We shall see that christian infants were then in pos- session of the privilege of baptism, and that the first objection made to it arose out of a manifest departure from what the scripture teaches most plainly about baptism, as well as from the scripture doctrine of the grace of God." Answ. If this manner of arguing be of any weight, it can easily be retorted, that the ancient arguments for infant-baptism were founded upon a supposed ne- cessity of baptism to salvation ; that it washed away original sin ; that the grace of God must be denied to none ; and that the sins of infants were easier forgiven than those of adults, &c. * See Vansleh's History of the church of Alexandria, Part 1. c. 23. Ludovicus Vives in his notes on Augustin. de ClvitateDei, Lib. 1. c. 27. Suicerus in his Thesaur. Ec. sub Voce "Eiuva^ig. Curcellcens in Iiis Relig. Christian. Iiistitut. Lib. 1. c. 12. and in Diss$rt. secunda de Peccat, Orig^ Sect. 66. On Baptism. 205 " Tertullian, who wrote in the conclusion of the second century, is the first that moves an objection against infant-baptism." — A71SW. He was amongst the first that had occasion. — " And he does this when pleading for the delaj*" of baptism even to the adult : for he would have the unmarried professors of Christianity to delay baptism, whether they be virgins or widows, till they either marry or be confirmed in their continency. He pleads for this delay of baptism from the prohibitions to lay on hands suddenly, and to give that which is holy to swine; — and therefore he would have baptism de- layed, according to the condition, disposition, and age of each person." — Answ. It is not my business to defend Tertullian in all his notions. There was certainly no reason why the baptism of unmarried professors of Christianity should be delayed, if they made a scriptural profession of the faith. — " And he insists for the delay, especially as to infants, arguing for it in this manner, * What necessity is here (says he) for bringing the sponsors into danger, who, being themselves mortal, may fail of performing their promises, or may be beguiled by the growth of an ill disposition ? The Lord indeed says, Forbid them not to come to me. Let them come when they grow up ; let them come when they learn ; when they are taught to what they should come. Let them be Christians when they shall be capable to know Christ. Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? We would act more cautiously in secular af- fairs ; that to whom the earthly inheritance is not given, the divine should be entrusted : Let them know to seek salvation, that you may appear to have given :?06 Letters to Mr. Glas it to one that seeks.' And for the delay of baptism in general, he further says, ' If any understood the weight of baptism, they would rather fear the attaining of it, than the delay. Entire faith is secure of salva- tion.' " Now was not this delay of baptism as expressly contrary to the scripture example as any thing can be ? and did then the first opposition that we hear of among Christians to infant-baptism, arise out of the scriptures, or out of a plain contradiction to the plainest scrip- tures? And did not the objection of this forefather of the forbidders of infants to come to Christ, proceed upon the denial of original sin, and the need of remis- sion to infants ? And did it not plainly suppose, that our salvation lies in that about us which distinguishes us from our infants ; and that it hinges upon a know- ledge and a seeking of salvation, and an entireness of faith whereof infants are incapable ? If it shall be alleged, that he was not in this a forefather to those few commonly called free grace Anabaptists, who are only to be regarded in this question ; may we not then say. If these indeed believe, that they cannot enter the kingdom of God, but as the infants enter, he was more consistent with himself than they ?" Ansiv. Though I do not intend to justify Tertullian in every thing ; as it is a question whether the doc- trine of original sin was clearly understood either by him or many of his cotemporaries ; yet I cannot help noticing that you misrepresent his meaning in saying that he forbids infants to come to Christ, when he only forbids t'neir baptism. You surely can distinguish be- tween coming to Christ and coming to baptism ; and do not suppose that baptism is Christ, or that the pas- sage you refer to says any thing of baptism. Again On Baptism. 207 where he says, " Entire faith is secure of salvation/' you consider him as maintaining, that " our salvation lies in something about us that distinguishes us from our infants ;" whereas he is only pleading for the de- lay of baptism from its not being absolutely necessary to salvation, (as was then alleged) that being con- nected with faith, as we find, Mark xvi. JO. " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ;" in which place you own,* the stress is laid on believing, and not on baptism : so that unless you place salvation in baptism, instead of Christ, and faith in his righteous- ness, your remark is a mere cavil. There are others of Tertullian's arguments which have never got a satisfying answer to this day ; such as the danger of the sponsors ; the necessity of first teaching the persons to be baptized to v^^hat they should come, and thus engaging them to desire baptism and seek for it, before they obtain it ; in which he seems to refer to our Lord's commission. Mat. xxviii. 19. But it seems the few commonly called free-grace Anabaptists, are less consistent with themselves than Tertullian was. How so 1 Because " they believe they cannot enter the kingdom of God but as the in- fants enter it," and yet withhold baptism from their in- fants. But where, in all the world, does this inconsis- tency lie ? Have you yet siiown to these Anabaptists from scripture, that infants cannot enter the kingdom without baptism, or have the thing signified without the sign ? Have you pointed out the particular in- fants that enter this kingdom in distinction from those who do not, and then show^n the scripture precept or example for baptizing such ? And can you see no con- * Page 19S. 208 Letters to Mr, Glas sistency at all in affirming, that many enter the kingdom oi' God, who never were proper or visible subjects of gospel ordinances ? Once more ; Do you think the profession of faith which the scripture requires in order to baptism, turns the professor's entry into the kingdom of God upon another hinge than the entry of infants, who cannot make that profession ? If you do, then the inconsistency lies on your side of the question, in re- quiring such a profession of the adult. But I refer you back to my second letter for a fuller answer on this head. Now, Sir, as you have been so kind as to point out to the Baptists their original, it will not be amiss to draw your attention a little to that of the Poedo- baptists. That infant baptism was very early introduced into the church, is evident from Tertullian's opposition to it about the latter end of the second century ; but we have no authentic or distinct account of the grounds upon which it was held, till Cyprian's time, about the middle of the third century, who writes largely in favour of it in his epistle to Fidus, which epistle was the resolution of him and Q(y bishops gathered together in council. The reasons for infant-baptism, (and that too before the eighth day) as exprest in that epistle, are as follow^ ; " That whereas none is to be kept back from bap- tism, and the grace of God, much less new-born in- fants, who, in this respect, do deserve more of our aid;, and God's mercy ; because in the beginning of their birth they presently, crying and weeping, do nothing else but pray. — The mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none that are born of man ; for the Lord sait in the gospel, that the Son of man came not to On Baptism. 209 destroy men's souls, but to save them ; and therefore, as much as in us lies, if it may be, no soul is to be lost ; and therefore all infants, at all times, are to be bap- tized.— If any thing could hinder from obtaining of grace, greater sins should hinder men of years from it ; now if greater sins hinder not men of years from it, but that they, when they believe, obtain forgiveness, grace, and baptism, by how much rather is an infant not to be forbidden, who being newly born, hath not sinned, except in that being born carnally according to Adam, he hath contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first nativity, who, in this respect, comes more easily to receive remission of sins, because not his own sins, but another's are forgiven him." Now, tell me, was not this innovation of infant-bap- tism as expressly contrary to the scriptures as any thing can be ? And did the first arguments that we hear of among Christians in its behalf arise out of the scriptures, or out of a flat contradiction to the plainest scriptures ? Did it not proceed upon the doctrine of universal grace ; that baptism confers the grace of God ; that infants deserve this more than adults, as having no sin of their own, but only Adam's, and therefore more easily forgiven ; that they are eminent in devotion, being continually praying in their weeping and crying, &c.? And what is this, think you, but placing salvation in something else than in Christ ? If it shall be alleged, that he was not in this a fore- father to the numerous nations of Protestant Poedo- baptists, who are only to be regarded in this question : may we not then say. If these indeed believe that the salvation of infants lies onhj and wholly in the thing signified to the adult in baptism, he was more con- sistent with himself than they. But to proceed ; P 210 Letters to Mr. Gltis About the latter end of the second century, an opinion arose, that without baptism there could be no salvation ; whether this error was founded upon a mis- taken view of Mark xvi. IG, or John iii, 5. (which were pleaded afterwards) cannot well be determined. How- ever, this principle being once admitted, (as appears from TertuUian's opposition) parents could not Init take the alarm, and press hard for the baptism of their infants, lest they should die and be lost before they came to age. But there was one thing that stood in their way, viz. the inability of infants to make the scriptural profession of the faith before baptism : but alas ! their infants might perish ere they were capable to make this profession, unless some expedient were found out to supply its place. What then could they do in this sad dilemma, but substitute cautioners or sponsors to profess and engage for their children? These are the sponsors which Tertullian considers as brought into danger : but the parents were not then admitted as sponsors for their own children, unless Ihey abstained from the marriage-bed ever after ; nor did they as yet baptize all infants, but only such as appeared weakly and in danger of death.* About fifty years after this, Cyprian and sixty-six bishops gave it the sanction of a council : (for it had then become customary, when any piece of super- stition was to be established in opposition to the scrip- ture, to interpose the authority of a council for its more universal reception, though they wanted the civil power to put their decrees in execution.) We have already seen the resolution of this council, and tlie strange arguments upon which infant-baptism was * Gregorjf NazUnzen. Orat. of Bapt, On Baptism. 211 founded ; and we may be sure they were no way infe- Tiov to those used in TertuUian's time, when it began to be introduced : But it is evident that the arguments of modern Poedobaptists were not as yet invented, at least those of them upon which they lay the greatest stress. We find likewise that in Cyprian's time they ad- mitted infants to the Lord's Supper, as appears from the story he relates of his giving the communion to an infant : * and this practice continued in the church for 600 years, till it was at last rejected by a council, as is confessed by Maldonat on John vi. Herein they were more consistent than the modern Poedobaptists, for their arguments are equally conclusive for the one as for the other. There is little account of infant-baptism, from Cy prian's time, till the beginning of the fifth century, when we find Augustine strenuously maintaining it upon Cyprian's authority and principles, viz. That in- fants are damned, by reason of original sin, if they are not baptized ; that baptism regenerates, &c. But it is evident he paid no regard to the faith or intention of those who brought them to baptism ; for he saith, in his 23d epistle to Boniface, " Neither let that move thee, that some do not bring little ones to receive bap- tism with that faith that they may be regenerated by spiritual grace unto life eternal ; but because they think by this to preserve or receive temporal health : for they are not therefore unregenerate, because they are not offered by them with this intention; for ne- cessary ministries are celebrated by them." Though they admitted sponsors to profess the faith ; * In his boot De Lip*?* mentioned by Augustuae, Epist. 23, P2 212 Letters to Mr. Glas yet the sponsor was not to profess his own faith, but the faith of the child itself; which was done in this manner : The surety being asked, " Doth the child believe ?" replied, " He doth believe." Upon which Boniface urgeth Augustine to show, how the sureties could be excused from lying in such an affirmation, and is answered, " He doth believe, by reason of the sacrament of faith." By the sacrament of faith he means baptism, and so this is to affirm, that baptism communicates faith to an infant, and that too previous to its being administered ; so that, according to this, the infant is qualified for baptism by virtue of baptism itself. Though this is the very height of absurdity, yet we may gather from it, that the argument from the parent's faith was not then invented ; that they still wished to keep up the usual form of a personal pro- fession of faith, by the expedient of a sponsor who personated the infant, and obtained baptism for it by telling lies in its name. Augustine, as well as Cyprian, admitted infants to the Lord's Supper, and pleaded for it from John vi. 53.* But after all it would appear, that, even in Augus- tine's time, infants neither received baptism nor the Lord's Supper but when they appeared weakly, or in danger of death, and they were administered as well for the health of their bodies, as for the salvation of their souls. Augustine's own baptism was deferred till he was upwards of thirty years of age, though edu- cated as a Christian by his mother Monica ; and he tells us, "that being young, and falling sick, he desired, and his mother thought to have him baptized, but upon his recovery, it was deferred. "f Nor was his *Lib 1. de feccaL merit, et remis. c, 29. ' r Tom. 1. Confess, Lib, U c. 11. On Baptism. 213 own son baptized till he was fifteen, with many others that might be mentioned at that time, which shows that infant baptism came in by degrees, and that it was a long while before it came to be universally practised. Whoever considers the authority which those fore- fathers of the Poedobaptists had in the church and the mysticism, ignorance, and superstition of those times, needs not wonder that infant-baptism should spread and be adopted by whole nations ; but it is surprising that it should be carried to the ridiculous length of baptizing whole kingdoms upon the profession and baptism of their kings, though they still remained bap- tized infidels. If you say j^ou have nothing to do with such a practice, I reply, that the baptism of whole houses upon the profession of the parent's faith, is perfectly analogous to this, and is nothing but a chip of the same block. To conclude : as you have no foundation in scrip- ture for infant-baptism ; so, though you should search the whole records of antiquity, you will find little to support the modern arguments for it, which rest chiefly upon conceits that have been hatched amongst Protestant Poedobaptists within these three hundred years. I am. Sir, Your, &c. 214 Letters to Mr. Glas LETTER X. SIR, I NOW proceed to your Appendix, which contains a dissertation on the manner of baptism, and the scripture sense of the word Baptism. Here yoa tell us, " The opposers of infant-baptism contend likewise for a different manner of baptism from that which is commonly practised : which according to them cannot be called baptism ; because it does not at all signify and represent union and communion with Christ in his death and burial by immersion, or plunging, or dip- ping in water ; nor in his resurrection, by emerging or rising up from under the water : and because it does not at all answ cr to the very sense and meaning of the word Baptism, which signifies dipping, immersing, or plunging." Answ. I suppose you will not deny that the w ord, ^aTrri^a, hapiize, primarily and properly signifies to immerse, plunge binder, overwhelm, and also to dip ; and that where it is put for washing, it is used in a secondary, consequential, and more improper sense. If you deny this, you oppose not only the Baptists, and the best lexicographers, but also the plain sense of that word as used in other cases by ancient Greek writers. But then it seems, *' This cannot appear from scripture to be the very Sense and use of the word Baptism there ;" How so ? '* For the best way to find the sense of this word, as applied to the case of baptizing Christians, is to ob- On Baptism. 215 sarve how the scripture applies it to other cases ; and by this way the scripture sense of it is found to be zvasJiing, however that be done ;" and then you pro- duce instances where you think the washing of hands, as well as of cups, tables, or beds, &c. is expressed by the word baptism. Answ. 1. Here you suppose that in scripture the word baptism is used in an uncommon sense to signify any manner of washing, however that be done ; but in this you are very much mistaken ; and as to the wash- ing of hands, it is expressed by vi-xra, not QaTTTiZa. Though baptism is sometimes used for washing, yet not for every mode of it, but only for such washing as includes immersion. So that you had best keep by the primary and proper sense of a word, till some cir- cumstances in the text lay you under a necessity of understanding it otherwise ; and this you cannot pre- tend of Christian baptism. 2. It is not denied that these things you mention were washed ; but the question is, whether were they not baptized or dipped in the act of washing ? if they were, then the word is properly used still ; and I sup- pose you will not undertake to prove they were only washed by sprinkling or pouring."^' 3. According to your own rule, baptize must signify to dip ; for thus the original theme ^airru, from whence * " If the Pharisees touched but the garments of the common people they were defiled, and needed immersion, and were obliged to it.'' Mmmonides in Misn. chagigah, c. 2. sect. 7. " The more superstitious part of the Jews, every day before they sat down to meat, dipped the whole body ; hence the Pliarisees admi- ration at Christ, Luke xi. 38." Scaliger de Emend, Temp. Lib. 6. p. 671. In the Jewish Misnah, or book of traditions, it is said, " A bed tliat is wholly defiled, a man dips it part by part," Celim, c. 26. Sect, ll.. 216 Letters to Mr. Glas Sayrri^u is a derivative, is applied in other places of scripture ; as in Mat. xxvi. 23. " He that, sfxBa^a^^ dippeth his hand with me in the dish, &c." Luke xvi. 24- " Send Lazarus, that he, $a(pn, may dip the tip of his finger in water, &c." John xiii. 26. " He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I, iSa^aj, have dipped it." Rev. xix. 13. " And he was clothed with a vesture, &s.QaixfjL£vov, dipped in blood." Your next argument is. That " in the case of Chris- tian baptism, washing stands often in the New Testa- ment as another word for it, and as declaring the im- port and sense of it," of which you give instances from Eph. v. 26. Heb. x. 22. Tit. iii. 5. 1 Pet. iii. 21. Acts xxii. 16. 1 Cor. vi. 11. " From these (you say) it may appear, that according to the scripture use of the word baptism, immersion cannot be called baptism, any otherwise than as it is a mode of washing with water." Ansiv. That washing sometimes stands as another word for baptism may be granted ; for a man is washed when he is immersed or dipped ; but that washing in ivhatever manner, is used for baptism, I deny ; for the body is not washed with pure water by sprinkling or pouring a little of it on the face, as it is by immersing or plunging it in water. So that though immersion be a mode of ivashing wdth water ; yet it is not for that reason termed baptism ; but because it is that very mode of washing which is expressed by the Greek word ^aTrrif^a, and no other. Washing is a general word, which includes various modes, and that of dip- ping among the rest ; but dipping, by which this or- dinance is expressed, is a particular mode, and cannot properly include any other. "The ancients, who added several ceremonies to the simple institutions of Christ, and found out spiritual On Baptism. ^Vt meanings to them, amongst other rites added to bap- tism, used this of dipping thrice. But they did not proceed so far, in this way, as to deny, that washing with water in any other way is baptism : for they used clinic baptism, and surely baptizing a sick man in his bed, was not burying him under water. Washing with water, then, was from the beginning the sign in baptism, in whatever way, or after whatsoever mode it was done." Answ. 1. What reason have you to find fault with the ancients for clipping thrice, since you think any manner of washing will do ? 2. Though they likewise used clinic baptism, yet they did not think it a proper rule for ordinary bap- tism, as you do ; but excused it by the plea of urgent necessity;* and they pretended to no evidence for it from the New Testament, but founded it upon the ceremonial sprinklings of the law, and the metaphor used by the prophet Ezekiel, chap, xxxvi. 25. But still they made a distinction betwixt baptismal washing and the pouring of water upon the sick. f However, if you think the ancient superstitious clinic baptism a sufficient warrant for sprinkling or pouring, it is at your service, though it be among the oilier ceremonies which they added to the simple institutions of Christ. You tell us, " the common way of baptizing is not by sprinkling, as has been always falsely alleged in this controversy, but by pouring water from the hand of the baptizer on the baptized." A very curious dis- tinction indeed ! but what does this make for your purpose ? Why, " if the scripture calls pouring forth * Cyprian, Epist. 69. ad Magnum, t Cyprian. Epist. 69. ad Magnum. SIS Letters to Mr. Glas the Holy Ghost upon men, baptizing them with the Holy Ghost, then pouring forth water on men, is bap- tizing them with w ater, in the scripture use of the word baptism." Ansiv. So you hold by pouring for its similitude to the baptism of the Holy Ghost : (I shall remind you of this in the sequel ;) but, according to this manner of arguing, filling men with water must be baptism; for they are said to be filled with the Holy Ghost ; gi- ving men water must be baptism ; for the Holy Ghost is said to be given ; and sprinkling with water (not- %vithstanding your distinction) must be baptism still; for the ordinary baptism of the spirit is by sprinkling the heart from an evil conscience. Thus baptism with water may be explained to be any thing, every thing^, or nothing. " Christ was baptized with a baptism, which was at his death ; but that baptism was by water and blood poured forth from his pierced side upon his dead body ; and there was no dipping there." Answ< Was it the issuing forth of blood and water from the pierced side of Christ's dead body, what he precisely meant by his baptism, and that in distinction from what he endured before he bowed the head and gave up the Ghost ? If so, it will greatly favour some ancient instances of baptizing dead bodies. Eut it is evident that the baptism wherewith our Lord was bap- tized at his death, respected all that he suffered, whether in the garden or on the cross; which sufferings are called baptism, not properly, but metaphorically. The Psalmist useth metaphors of the same import, when speaking of Christ's sufferings, Psal. Ixix. 1,2." Save me, O God, for the waters are come in into ray soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing ; I am On Baptism 21 f> eonie into deep waters, where the floods overflow me." And was there no dipping or immersing here 1 And is not our being buried with Christ by baptism, a lit representation of communion with him in his death and burial, and our rising again from under the water, a proper sign of fellowship with him in his resurrection ? Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. Col. ii. 11, 12, 13. But in opposition to this, you say, " Our communion with Christ, and conformity to him in his death, burial, and resurrection, is by the re- newing of the Holy Ghost," &c. Answ. True ; but if you argue against the scripture mode of baptism, because it is not the thing signified; you may likewise argue against every mode of it for the same reason ; and thus you will shake hands with the Quakers, who deny baptism with water, because it is not the baptism of the Spirit. — " But if we look on the will of the institutor ex- pressed in his word as the sole ground of the relation betwixt the sign in baptism and the Lord's Supper, and that which is signified by them ; we will not look for any such similitude in these instituted signs as we do in pictures or images," Aiisw. You have not yet shewn that it is not the will of the institutor there should be a resemblance betwixt the sign and the thing signified. On the contrary, you have endeavoured to shew that there is a resemblance, when arguing for the mode of pouring, which you found entirely upon its resemblance to the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost upon men ; but whether you think it bears the similitude of a picture or image to this, I will not say. In your argument from Col. ii. 11, 12, 13. you afiirm, " That in place of the circumcision made with hands, they [Christians] are buried with 220 Letters to Mr, Glas Christ in baptism ;" and this you distinguish from the circumcision of the heart, as the sign is distinguished from the thing- signified. Now, if there be a burial in the sign, in distinction from the renewing of the Holy Ghost, then that burial must be in water, for the scrip- tare informs us that the sign is water. — " Shall we say upon it, that the scripture confines us so to one manner of washing, that another way of it cannot be called baptism ?" Answ. You can go even this length upon other points, and stand to it with firmness : but here it seems your right arm is weakened, and you are willing to make a coalition that will comprehend all the modes of washing that can be thought on, and unite them in friendly alliance. The only fault you find with im- mersion, is its unsociableness and want of charity to its neighbours. Let me tell you, Sir, this is not agreeable to your usual manner of writing when conscious of truth upon your side, which indicates you have some misgiving of heart about your favourite mode. You allow immersion to be one mode of washing ; but then you cannot think to be confined to any one mode of it : But what have you now made of Christ's simple insti- tution ? And what can the drift of all your arguments be, but to throw the scripture manner of baptism into ambiguity and darkness, that so you may accommodate the ordinance to the tender state of infants for whom it was never intended. But what if after all we should still say upon it, that the scripture has determined the manner as well as the subjects of baptism ; and that the scripture manner is baptism in distinction from any other manner of washing that you may please ta use upon improper subjects ? " The confidence of some in this matter is the more On Baptism. 221 unaccountable, that they cannot be ignorant it is im- possible to shew, from the particular accounts of the Lord's baptism and the eunuch's, that either of them were baptized otherwise than by pouring water on them from the hands of the baptizers. For if it should be inferred from the eunuch's going down into the water, and coming up out of it, (as it is also said our Lord did,) that he was plunged ; the same also must be said of Philip the baptizer : for the words are, * They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water.' If these words say any thing of dipping the baptized, they say full as much of dipping the baptizer. But to any man that is capable of understanding words, these words plainly say. That being baptized with water is another thing than going down into the water, and coming up out of it." Answ. This paragraph is of a piece with the rest, tending to shew, that there is no certain rule in scrip- ture for the mode of baptism ; and this you do by throwing dust upon these circumstances by which the scripture mode is determined, whilst at the same time you can pretend to no foundation in scripture for the mode oi pouring at all,; so that your argument proves nothing ; but is an attempt to invalidate all proof whereby the manner of baptism can be determined either one way or another. But this whole paragraph proceeds upon a gross mistake ; for we do not affirm, that going down into the water, is the same with bap- tism or immersion : Philip and the eunuch might go to their necks in water, and yet not be baptized ac- cording to Christ's institution. But I ask, why went they down into the water ? Was it that the eunuch might have a little of it poured upon him from the hand of '^t2 Letters to Mr. Olas Philip ? Certainly not ; for this might have been done at the brink, without wetting the soles of their feet ; or the eunuch might have been thus baptized in his cha- riot by a small quantity of it in a vessel. It is evident then that the eunuch was not baptized by pouring of water from the hand of Philip ; but in such a manner, whatever it was, as required a depth of water, to obtain which, we find, they went both down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and this, though it was not baptism, yet it was a necessary step in order lo it. Though Philip went down into the water as w6ll as the eunuch, yet he was not thereby baptized ; (as he certainly would, had any manner of washing been bap- tism) but he went down to perform that action upon another. What kind of action then must that be which Philip performed upon the eunuch, and that re- quired they should go both into a depth of water ? Can we think the Holy Ghost, in relating these cir- cumstances, had noibinff in view but what was in- cidental and superfluous ? No surely; they all concur to ascertain, that the action was immersion, as they could be requisites to no other mode ; accordingly it is said t^aTmai)/, he immersed him. Acts viii. 38. which action required, that Philip should take hold of the eunuch, bury him in the water, and raise him up again from under the water. Thus you may see that (lie cir- cumstances of the eunuch's baptism, tally exactly with the sense of the word fiaTrn^u, to dip, immerse, or plunge. Nor were these circumstances any way singular : for our Lord was baptized in the river Jordan, having gone down into it; as is evident from Matth.ii. 16- Mark 1. 10. where we are told that, after his baptism. On Baptism. ' 223 he came up out of the water. Baptism, or immersion, requires much ivafer ; " and John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there/' John iii. 23. Whereas, had he used the mode of sprinkling or pouring, he had no occasion to make choice of such a place. To conclude; the most learned and judicious of the P(Kdobaptists, ever since the practice of sprinkling or pouring took place, have ingenuously confessed that the scripture mode of baptism is immersion, and the main plea they have for changing the application of water into something else than baptism, is to ac- commodate it to the tender bodies of infants. Thus we see one deviation from the scripture rule introduces another, till at last the law of God is made void by men's vain traditions. I am. Sir, Your humble Servant. A DEFENCE OF BE]LIE¥]EI1^^=]BAFTMM^ AS OPPOSED TO INFANT SPRINKI.ING: 5n a Hettcf to a Jfi itnSi : Being an Answer to a Pamphlet, entitled, Remarks on Scripture Texts relating to Infant-Baptism, toge- ther with some Strictures on Mr. Huddlesions Let- ters, and other Writings on that Subject. i?ia!s®i\®a About eleven years ago, I wrote an answer CO Mr. Glas's Dissertation on Infant-Baptism, in a series of Letters addressed to the author. My chief design was to show the Independents of this country, that infant-baptism, and the arguments which they use in support of it, are not only void of all foundation in scripture, but subversive of their own professed doctrine, upon which t'^ey have separated from the national church. No direct reply has been made to this by any in Scotland ; but Mr. Huddleston, pastor of an Independent society in Whitehaven, has attempted something of that kind. To this also a full and particular answer has been writ- ten, but not published. The following pages are written in answer to a recent publication, entitled, " Remarks on Scripture Texts relating to Infant-baptism ;" which 1 am credibly informed is the lonsr studied Q2 2*28 PREFACE. and mature production of an eminent member of the second class of Independents at Glasgow, and therefore may justly be considered as con- taining the strength of their main arguments on that subject. I know not what others may think of it, but for my own part, were it not that I know the author, I should be ready to suspect that it had been written by some ironi- cal wag on the other side of the question, with a view to expose the cause to ridicule. The Independents are the most inconsistent of any set of people upon this subject. They admit that the people of the new covenant are distinguished from those of the old, by their having God's law written in their hearts ; and all of them knowing the Lord from the least unto the greatest, Jer. xxxi, 33, 34 : * — That the subjects of Christ's kingdom are distin- guished from the world by their being of the truth, and hearing his voice, John xviii. 37 : f — That the spiritual seed are distinguished from tlie fleshly, by their being born again of the • Glas's Works, vol. I. p. 47. t Ibid. p. 122, 1S3. PREFACE. 229 Spirit by the incorruptible seed of the word, John iii. 5. 1 Pet. i. 23 : * And that this distinc- tion is only visible to us in the profession of their faith, Acts viii. 37. Rom. x. 9, 10. f But whenever they attempt to establish infant-bap- tism, they disregard, and some of them even condemn, J such distinctions, and every visible evidence of them, as self-righteous, and resolve the whole into this single question, " Are they born of believing parents ?" And though our Lord and his disciples absolutely deny that such birth can distinguish the true children of God as it did the typical, John iii. 5, 6. Rom. ix. 6, 7, 8. 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. yet all this goes for nothing ; they still insist, that their being the natural seed of believers sufficiently marks them out as the children of God, truly holy, and members of the kingdom of heaven. Thus they chime in with the national church upon the great radical point of her Judaized Chris- tianity ^ and, in their baptism, hold a most inti- * Glas's Works, vol. i. p. 53. t Ibid. vol. iv. p. 53. 128^ X Haddleston's Letters, p. 87, 88. tS6 PRErAcfi. mate fellowship with her. Perhaps it may be said that they make amends for this, and keep up their separation from tlie world, by refusing their children church communion till they pro- fess the faith : but this is only adding one in- consistency to another; and implies, either that they do not believe the principles upon which they baptize them, or that the visible members of Christ's true body are unfit to be members of those societies which represent that body ; than which nothing can be more absurd. You who know your master s will, in this in- stance, and do it not, suffer a word of exhorta- tion. Yon can amuse yourselves with specula- tions on this point, and clearly show the incon- sistency of the opposite practice ; but what have you to say for the consistency of your own con- duct ; or liow can you justify yourselves to God for trifling with an acknowledged ordinance of the Lord Jesus? Examine narrowly your mo- tives. Is it because you esteem it a circumstan- tial point of small moment? Surely it does not become Christ's disciples thus to estimate any PREFACE. 231 of his ordinances. The doctrine of believers' baptism is none of the low singularities of a party ; it is classed with the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, stands upon the grand foundation of his good confession before Pon- tius Pilate concerning the nature of his kingdom and subjects, as distinguished from this world, as well as upon the commission he gave his apostles for setting up that kingdom, and cor- responds with the whole of their practice and doctrine in executing it. Perhaps your attachment to your present re- ligious connection entangles you. You have formed this connection, and sat down upon the neglect of the first ordinance of the gospel, and now you cannot think of returning to it. But where do you find an unbaptized church in all the New Testament, or the least warrant for holding communion with such ? Are they good Christians? Be it so ; but will their Christianity justify your disobedience? Must not each of us give an account of himself unto God ? You have charity for them. Have it still ; but let it 232 PREFACE. be the charity of the truth. Can there be any true charity in yielding up a plain ordinance of Christ to the blindness, prejudice, and perhaps perverseness of men? According to this, the more of them we yield in this way, the greater must be our charity. But true charity can never clash with our obedience to any of the laws of Christ, nor lead us to soothe others in the neglect of them ; on the contrary, it will in- fluence us to study their true interest, and set their duty before them both by word and ex- ample. Disentangle yourselves therefore from the ensnaring influence of such a connection. Hear the words of Jesus, which he proclaims to all men, and let each of them have their proper weight ; " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." — Hear his command to all who regard his authority ; " And now, why tarriest thou ? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sias, calling upon the name of the Lord." Edinburgh, May 29, 1777« OF BEZiIEVER'S-BAPTISM, &c. In a Letter to a Friend. Dear Sir, I RECEIVED your favour, inclosing a pamphlet en- titled " Remarks on Scripture Texts relating to In- fant-Baptism." But I think you might have excused me from writing an answer to it, since all that is therein advanced has been more than sufficiently re- futed in my Letters to Mr. Glas, Reply to Mr. Hud- dleston, and View of the Prophecies, which you have seen. Besides, when people allow themselves (as this author hath done) to launch forth into the regions of fancy and conjecture, it is like hunting an ignis fatuus to trace them in all their vagaries. I find he aims a stroke now and then at my letters to Mr. Glas, and seems to be a little warm when he says, " What are we that we should withstand God by refusing baptism to children ? * — We deceive the hearts of those who be- lieve without proper evidence, and blind the minds of those who receive not the simple sayings of Jesus ;" and he represents us as men destitute of ** sound and sober minds." f This is a very heavy charge ; but as it does not reach conviction to me on the one hand, so neither does it excite my resentment on the other : Yet I sincerely lament that he and his brethren should be so * Pag« 10. t Page 15. note. 234 A Defence of much bemisted about the subjects, manner and import of baptism, which cannot fail to corrupt their views of other important truths. This small pamphlet, I see, is divided into four parts, and each part contains a proposition, with its proof or illustration. I shall therefore follow his method, and begin with PART 1. " The little children who make up the kingdom of God, as it appears in this world, may be distmguished from other little children." For proof of this he adduces Mark x. 13, 14. " And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them : and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. Bnt when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and said unto them, SufFer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the kingdom of God." Now, for my own part, I cannot see the least affinity betwixt this text and the above proposition. — These particular little children were indeed highly distinguished by Christ's taking them in his arms and blessing them ; and we learn from the passage this comfortable truth, that of such little children is the kingdom of God ; but it speaks not a word about how one little child may be distin- guished from another as belonging to that kingdom, which is the thing affirmed in the proposition. And here the matter should rest ; but I am obliged (o follow him through four observations, or rather imagi- nations upon the words. Ohs. 1. " Jesus here supposelli, that the little chil- dren who make up the children of God, may be dislin- Believers' -Baptism. 235 g:uished from other little children." — But where do we hear him supposing this ? — " This much," says he, " is implied in the words, " of such." — That is, we may- suppose from these two words, if we please, that he supposeth it ; and having converted this supposition of a supposition into a certain truth, he lays it as a foundation principle to build upon. — " From this," says he, " we learn. First, That they were the children of visible believers , for one little child cannot be distin- guished from another, but as connected with its parents." It is probable that those who brought the little children believed at least that Jesus was as capable to bless them as Jacob, Moses, or any other prophet ; but how does the words of such, or any other words in the tex^t, teach us that little children may be distin- guished as of the kingdom of God by their connection with their parents ? Our Lord says not a word about their parents, nor does he give the least hint, that they are to be distinguished by their connection with be- lieving parents, this being only a figment of the author's own brain ; so that if, as he owns, they cannot other- wise be distinguished, it follows that they cannot be distinguished by us at all. But surely he will allow, that Christ can distinguish them, as in the instance before us, whether they are connected with believing parents or not. Another thing, he says, we learn from the words is, " Secondly ; That Christ is here speaking of the kingdom of God as it appears in this ^vorld." That is, he is not speaking of the kingdom of God as it con- sists only of the elect and saved, but as it appears in this world to men, and is composed of foolish as well as wise virgins, Matth. xxv, 1—13. of bad as well as 236 -r^A Defence of good fishes, chap. xiii. 47 — 50. But here he flatly con- tradicts the account which Jesus himself gives of the kingdom in the very next verse. " Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein," Mark x.l5. Luke xviii. 17. or, as it is expressed in a parallel pas- sage, " Except ye be convert hid, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," Matth. xviii. 3. which is of the same import with what he says to Nicodemus, *' Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. — Ex- cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John iii. 3, 5. Since therefore our Lord explains himself, and tells us that infants belong to that kingdom of God, which none can enter but such as are converted, born again, and receive it as little children, how comes our author to say, that he is here speaking of the kingdom as it appears in this world, into which hypocrites and false professors may and do enter? Doubtless our Lord knew his own meaning best, and since he hath conde- scended to explain it, it does not become us to con- tradict him. Let it therefore be noticed, once for all, that Jesus is not here speaking of the appearance of his kingdom in this world, but of its invisible reality, for to this only is conversion and the new birth abso- lutely necessary. His next observation is, Obs. 2. " He (viz. Christ) saith more on this occa- sion than is allowed by some who call themselves his followers. He saith, that the kingdom of God is of such little children, as the young children that were brought to him." — But we are so far from disallowing this, that we hold it in a higher sense than the author seems to allow. We maintain, that the kingdom of Believers'-Baptism, 237 God, as it is invisible and unmixed, is of such little children as those brought to Christ, and that all suck shall certainly be saved ; whereas he only pleads, that they belong to the appearance of it in the world, and that many of them may fall short of salvation.* He observes that our Lord's words are not, " Such are of the kingdom of God," but " Of such is the kingdom of God." I own, however, that I am rather too dull to comprehend this distinction ; for I suppose the king- dom of God is of such as are of it. Obs. 3. " He here supposeth that his disciples might , have learned, from the revelation of God which they then had, that the kingdom of God is of such little children as those brought unto him ; for the disciples could not be in fault if they were not acting contrary to divine revelation ; and he mentions this as the revealed truth which they acted in opposition unto. Of such is the kingdom of God/' That the disciples were faulty in rebuking those who brought the young children to him is plain ; and that they acted contrary to a prior divine revelation, is also clear from Mat. xviii. 2 — 5. Mark ix. 36, 37. Luke ix. 47, 48. where, a considerable time before this, he had taught them, that little children were of his kingdom, and so not to be despised. After this revelation, it was certainly wrong in the disciples to hinder such being brought to Christ in the days of his flesh, even as it would be sinful in us to forbid any to pray for his blessing upon infants, now he is in heaven : but what is all this to the point ? " From this," says he, " we understand. First, That these words of Christ are the public interpretation of * Page 97. S38 A Defence of such passages of the Old Testament scriptixrcs as these, Psal. Ixix. 3G. and cii. 28. Isa. Ixi. 9. and Ixv. 23. Jer. XXX. 20. Ezek. xlvii. 22." In these passages much is said of the seed, offspring, or children of the church, and here the author would have our Lord's words to explain these children of infants in distinction from adults, and of the infants of New Testament believers in distinction from all other infants. But neither does Christ's words here refer to such passages, nor do the passages themselves speak of children in respect of their being infants or the natural seed of New Testa- ment believers ; but in respect of their being children of the church, which consists both of Jews and Gen- tiles, the natural seed of believers and of unbelievers, even all of each of these who belong to the election of grace. This I shall briefly demonstrate. It must be admitted, that the children spoken of in tlie forementioned passages, are the very same with those spoken of in Isa. xlix. where we find Zion, upon the infidelity and rejection of the fleshly seed of Abra- ham, complaining of her desolate, childless, and foT- saken situation. " But Zion said. The Lord hath for- saken me, and my Lord hath forgotten mc," ver. 14. To this a most comfortable answer is given from ver. 15 to 20. Then the Lord proceeds to comfort her with respect to her children ; " The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other," (i. e. after the Jews shall be cast off,) " shall say again in thy ears, The place is too strait for me ; give place to me that I may dwell," verse 20. At this unexpected and nu- merous progeny, Zion is represented as wondering and indeed the New Testament shows how much sur- prised the believing Jews were when they saw the ac- complishment of this ; see Acts x. 28, 45. chap. xi. 8. Believers -Bapihm. 239 and therefore there is a question about it in the pro- phecy as a mysterious and puzzling matter to Zion. "Then shalt thou say in thine heart. Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am deso- late, a captive, and removing to and fro ? and who hath brought up these? Behold I was left alone, these where had they been?" verse 21. To this it is answered, *' Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people ; and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers," &c. verse 22, 23. q. d. I will cause the gospel to be proclaimed to the Gentile na- tions, and will beget children to thee from among them by the word of truth. As to their natural birth, up- , bringing, and outward privileges, be not concerned about these, for I will cause the heathen to perform these offices to thy children, and make the kingdoms of the earth as so many nurseries, and their kings and queens to be nursing-fathers and mothers to them in common with their other subjects. In Isa. liv. 1 — 8. the church is again comforted with the promise of a numerous offspring. We can be at no loss to understand what church is here meant, for the apostle applies the first verse to the Jerusalem which is above, and the mother of all God's children. Gal. iv. 26, 27. which was typified by Sarah the free- woman : and, as when Sarah was for a long time bar- ren, till she was past age, and her womb dead, God promised that she should be blessed, and be the mother of nations. Gen. xvii. 16. so her antitype is here ad- dressed, " Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear ; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst 240 A Defence of not travail with child ; for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saitli the Lord," ver. 1. q. d. However desolate, forsaken, and barren thou mayest at present appear by the un- belief of the Jews ; yet thou shalt bring forth a much more numerous offspring than the earthly Jerusalem, married to me by the Sinai covenant, and typified by Hagar the bond-woman. Therefore she is commanded ver. 2. to make room for her numerous family, by en- larging the place of her tent, &c. That she might not doubt of this on account of her widowhood, it is said to her, ver. 5. " Thy Maker is thy husband, (the Lord of Hosts is his name,) and thy Redeemer the holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called;" and that in distinction from his being the God of the Jews only, (Rom. iii. 29.) so that it is the Lord, the church's husband, that begets these children to her by the word of truth, (Jam, i. 18.) and hence it is said, ver. 13. " all thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children." This last verse is cited by our Lord, and he explains these children to be, " Every one that hath heard and learned of the Father, and cometh unto him,'' John vi. 45. The apostle also explains this prophecy thus ; " But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all : for it is written, Rejoice thou barren, that bearest not ; break forth and cry aloud, thou that tru- vailest not ; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband." And if we enquire what kind of children these are ; he answers, " Now WE, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise: — So then, we are not the children of the bond-woman, but of the free : i. e. We believers in Christ are the children promised in the prophets to Believers-Baptism. 241 tlic Jerusalem above, the antitype of Sarah the free- woman. Gal. iv. 2G, 27, 28, 31. Here then is the New Testament key, or public in- terpretation of the prophecies respecting the children; from which it is plain, they are not called children on account of their nonage, or infant state : for Paul and those he writes to were not children in that respect ; yet, says he, " We are the ciiildren." Nor are they so called on account of their natural birth ; for the Je- rusalem, which is above brings forth no children by that kind of birth ; yet he says, she is " the mother of us all ;" and the nature of their birth is fully explained, John i. 13. chap. iii. 3, 5, G. James i. 18. 1 Peter i. 23. Neither is it because they are the seed of believers that they are called children ; for those to whom the apostle applies these prophecies, were mostly the seed of heathen infidels and idolaters. But those who are not satisfied with the apostolic explication of the prophecies, may pun upon the pro- phetic style, and plead. That the prophecies speak not only of the children of Zion as such, but also of their children, in such expressions as these : — " The children of thy servants — their seed — their children," &c. and so must respect not only believers, but also their natural seed. In answer to which, I observe, 1 . That these promises were all made, in the first instance, to the Jews. They were delivered by their own prophets, and addressed to that people in par- ticular, who were the maternal church, among whom God had not only a typical people, but also a remnant according to the election of grace, who believed and embraced the promises, and waited for the consolation of Israel. The apostle tells us expressly, that to them, "^'belonjed the covenants and the promises," Rom.ix. 4. R 242 A Defence of and that in distinction from the Gentiles, whom he describes as at that time " aliens from the common- wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise," Eph. ii. 12. Peter addressing the Jews, tells them, that they were the children meant in the prophets, " Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers,'' Acts iii. 25. and he shows the convicted Jews, that the promise of the extraordinary effusion of the Spirit mentioned in Joel, was also primarily made to them. ** The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call," Acts ii. 89. (For Peter knew not as yet that the Gentiles should receive the Holy Ghost, till he learnt it afterwards in the instance of Cornelius, chap. X. 44, 45.) Accordingly we find, 2. That these promises had their first accomplish- ment among the Jews. Christ's personal mission was only to them, as he declares himself; " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Tsrael." These he calls the children, iii distinction from the Gentiles, whom he styles dogs. Mat. xv. 24 — 28. Hence also during his personal ministry on earth, he forbids his apostles to go into the way of the Gentiles, Mat. x. 5, 6. and even after his resurrection, when he extends their commission to all nations, he commands them to preach the gospel first unto the Jews, Luke xxiv. 47. This the apostle says was necessary, Acts xiii. 6. and the necessity of it is explained, Rom. xv. 8. " Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers;" i. e. he had his personal mission to the Jews to display God's faithfulness in accomplishing his promises to their fathers. Peter having told them, that they wer« Believers -Baptism. 243 ?^he cliildren primarily intended in the prophets, and in Uie promise of the new covenant, shows the fulfilment in these words, " Unto you first God having raised up his Son, sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities," Acts iii. 25,26. And Paul addressing the Jews at Antioch, says, " We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children," &c. Acts xiii. ?32, :33. Thus it appears that the promises made unto the Jewish fathers, had a primary respect unto their CHILDREN, as they are called in the prophecies; yet not unto all their natural children as such, for then it behoved that whole nation to be saved ; but only unto a remnant of them according to the election of grace, even as many of them as the Lord should call, bless, and turn from their iniquities, as the apostle explains it. But, 3. In the prophetic style, old Israel are not only called fathers, in respect of the elect among the na- tural children, but also in respect of Gentile believers, who are likewise reckoned thdr children. For proof of this, see Jer. xxxi. 31. 32. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ; not according to the covenant that I made with their FATHERS in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt," &c. Here those with whom the Lord made the old covenant are called the fathers of those with whom he promises to make the new covenant in Christ's blood, and which includes believing Gentiles as well as Jews. They are likewise so called in the New Testament. In. Heb. iii. and iv. the apostle proves at large^ that the R2 244 A Defence of address, Psal. xcv. 7, 8, 9. respects the New Testa- ment church, " To-day, if ye will hear my voice^ harden not your hearts as in the provocation — when YOUR FATHERS tempted me," &c. Here old Israel are called the fathers of the people of God for whom the heavenly rest remains ; that is, the spiritual seed of all nations, who believing enter into rest. Again, writing to the Corinthians, he says, " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all OUR fathers were under the cloud, and passed through the sea," &c. 1 Cor. x. 1. where we find old Israel styled the fathers, not only of Paul, who was a Jew, but also of the believing Corinthians, who were Gentiles. Now it is plain they were not fathershj natural ge- neration to the greater part of those called their children ; but they are so called as being the maternal church, and chiefly, because of them, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, Rom. ix. 5. of whom springs the New Testament church, his seed, Isa. liii. 10, 11. God's children, Heb. ii. 13. Christ was a Son of the Jewish church ; unto them he was in a peculiar manner " a Child born, and a Son given," Isa. ix. 6.; but unto the New Testament church he is promised as (5 Trarnf /xex^ovto? aimoi) " the FATHER of the future age," ver. 6. So that what the apostle argues, (Gal. iii. 29.) " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed," will in like manner hold here ; if they are Christ's children, then are they the children of ancient Israel, seeing Christ sprung from that nation as the seed of Abra- ham ; and they are as properly so called, as Christ's throne is styled " the throne of his father David," Isa. ix. 7. Luke i. 32. GeBtile believers are never spoken of as fathers. Believers' -Baptism. 245 but as CHILDREN ; and the apostle represents them as naturalized and adopted children into the common- wealth of Israel^ to which they were formerly strangers and aliens, Eph. ii. 12 — 21. He also represents them as hranches of the wild olive tree, and grafFed among the natural branches, {viz. the believing Jews,) into the good olive tree, and with them partaking of its root and fatness, and standing therein by faith, Rom. xi. 17 — 25. For these and other reasons that might be mentioned, old Israel are called ihQ fathers of New Testament believers, whether they be Jews or Gen- tiles ; and such, on the other hand, are called their children and children's children in the prophecies. In a word, these promises are made to old Israel as fathers respecting their children, viz. such of their na- tural seed as should believe the gospel, together with all such as should be adopted into the household of God from among the Gentiles. But to return to our author. 06s. 4. " He here supposeth that his disciples might have justly inferred from this revealed truth " Of such is the kingdom of God," that they should not hinder these little children from being brought unto him, although it be not said in the Old Testament scriptures, that such little children or any other little children, were to be brought to him in the days of his flesh ; nor do we find he had before told it to them." I have answered this already, and shown that he had before told it to them. See Matth. xviii. 2 — 5. and its parallels ; and this the author also acknow- ledges; * so that our Lord was not so obscure a teacher, nor did he leave so much to be made out by '' - * Page 8.. 546 A Defence of the dint of their reasoning faculty, and fallible infer- ences, as this writer imagines. Cut what he adds deserves our particular notice.— " And we may, with the same justice and propriety infer from the same truth, that the little children dis- tinguished from others, as the little children brought to Christ were, on account of their connection with believing parents, should be baptized in his name ; seeing baptism is appointed by him to be a sign and token of a person's belonging to the kingdom of God as it appears in this world." That is, in short, if the disciples might infer from what Christ hud plainly told them, that they ought not to forbid infants to be brought unto him ; then may we, with equal justice, infer trom what is no ivliere told us, that they ought to be baptized : For it ought to be noticed, that this last inference is drawn from the following groundless fan- cies, viz. 1. That infants belong to the kingdom of God as it appears in this world : 2. That such infants are distinguished from others by their connection with believing parents : and 3. That baptism is the sign of a person's belonging to the kingdom of God as it is visible. The first two of these I have already confuted. The last seems to throw a reflection upon our Lord for not causing these infants to be baptized ; seeing, (if we believe our author,) he had appointed it to be the token of their belonging to his kingdom, as it appears in this world. But what passage in all the word of God declares this to be the signification of baptism ? When I look into the New Testament for the signification of that ordinance, I find that it is a sign or token of the re- mission of sins through the blood of Christ, Acts ii. 38. chap. xxii. 16— of the sense of this communicated to Believers'- Baptism. ^^^o. the conscience, 3 Peter iii. 21. Heb. x. 22— of our fel- lowship with and conformity to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, by dying unto sin, and living uuto righteousness, Rom. vi. 4 — 7. Col. ii. 12. — and of our resurrection from the dead unto eternal life, 1 Cor. XV. 29. But there is not the least hint given in all the scriptures, that it is " appointed to be a sign and token of a person's belonging to the kingdom of God, as it appears in this world." It cannot indeed be ad ministered to any till they appear to men to belong to the kingdom of God by the profession of their faith ; but it is not the token or sign of this appearance ; but of the spiritual, eternal, and invisible blessings of the kingdom, as has been shewn. It is a most unworthy view of this ordinance to hold it only as a token or sign of appearances or visible things. Sorry am I, that those who have separated from the national church upon the doctrine of the kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world, and in order to follow the footsteps of the apostles and first churches, should yet fall so far short even of the nati- onal doctrine itself, as to the signification of the very first ordinance of Christ's kingdom. The Assembly's Shorter Catechism admits, that baptism " doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engage- ment to be the Lord's," Quest. 1)4. and although I am not very fond of human standards, yet I would re- commend to him. Quest, 165. of the Larger Catechism upon this subject, particularly its scripture proofs, that, before he pretend to teach others, he may himself yet learn from these systems he hath set aside, which be the first principles of the oracles of God with re- spect to the signification of baptism ; for it plainly appears he hath lost sight of its meaning altogether. ti^ A Defence of To make baptism a sign or token of our b^ing' visible subjects of the kingdom, or a figure of our being visibly saved, * is not only a style unknown in the scriptures, but a sentiment iu every respect absurd, as it makes it a sign of what is as visible as itself, and so an useless sign ; a sign too of that which is but tlie appearance of another thing, viz. of our being real members of the kingdom as it is invisible; and so he makes it a sign of that which, in itself, is of little con- sequence ; for what does it avail our being visible sub- jects of the kingdom, or visibly saved, if we are not really so ? No wonder those w ho have such unw orthy viewsof this divine ordinance, should hold it as a matter of indifference whether they themselves have been bap- tized according to their own doctrine or not. -f But,^ • Page 24, 23. t A certain preface writer, who seems to be much displeased v,hh Jill the Independents who follow not with him in his nniformity, among other things, blames some of them for " forbearing and calling brethren, those who deny infant-baptism." Pre/. 10. Glas's Testimony^ last edition, p. 27. They may defend themselves from this charge as they are able ; but certainly they are as consistent in this, as he is in adopting and sns- taining for baptism tiie spi inkling of the antichristian church, con- trary to all the scripture grounds npon which he professedly holds it. I am CI edibly informed he has nothing to say for this, but that bap- tism being adminii-tered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it mnst for that reason be valid, be the administrator parent, or subject, what they will. But if the naming, or calling over them this name, sanctifies an nnscriptnral baptism, then the sons of Sceva may be justified iu their attempt to cast out devils, since they also made use of the name of Jesus whom Paul preached. Acts xix. 13. He will not plead, that the clergy of the national church have any better authority to baptize than tliose exorcists had to cast out devils, gince he considers them as worshippers of a false God, and to be the locusts v^hich ascend out of the bottomless pit, whose king is Abaddon or AppoHyoH, and whoso commission is only to hurt men. Believers' -Baptism. 249 in opposition to all this, baptism is a sign or token of a person's belonging to that true church which Christ hath loved, and for which he gave himself, " that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," Eph. v. 25, 26. Further, the baptism of infants is so far from being Rev. ix. S— 12. See GZas's fTorfcs, vol. ii. p. 399— 403. first edit. Nei- ther can he, consistently with his principles, admit, that the infants sprinkled in the national church are the children of believing parents. Perhaps he will tell us, that though the vessels of the temple were pro- phaned at Babylon, yet they were afterwards used in the Lord's ser- vice : and so the sprinkling of improper subjects by the locusts of the national church, must still be held sacred among Christians, and sus. tained for scripture baptism ! ! ! Giving a sketch of Mr. Glas's leading sentiments witli respect to the subjects of the kingdom of Christ, he says," That men (according to John i. 13.) do not become sons or children in this kingdom by blood, or descent from religious ancestors — but wholly of god, through the power of his word — merely by the influence of the word of God npon their consciences, coming to them not in word only, but with power, and with the Holy Ghost, and with much assurance," &c. &c. Pref. p. 11, 12. Yet, in opposition to this, I suppose he. will agree with Mr.G]as,that infants are born holy, and of the kingdom of heaven; and that they must be looked upon as sons or children in this kingdom by their connection with religious ancestors or parents, and not through the power of the word, or the influence of it upon their consciences. He professes to be extremely happy in his present connection; yet he discovers not a little uneasiness to find men in any measure pro- fessing the truth without acknowledging Mr, Glas as their teacher, and giving him the glory ; as if that author had been the original inventor of the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven, and had by patent mono, polized it to himself and his party. It would not be difficult to shew, that there are few sentiments of any consequence in Mr. Glas's works, that are not to be found in the writings of other clergymen before his time ; and I am sure the best of his sentiments are to be found in the scriptures, which, blessed be God, lie open to every one. I do not say this to depreciate Mr. Glas's writings, to whicii I myself have been indebted in many things; but to expose the vanity of glorying in men. $50- A Defence of a jast and proper inference from any thing contained in this passage, that it is a clear example of the con- trary : for here are children brought to Christ, declared of his kingdom and blessed, and thus became visible subjects ; yet we read nothing of their baptism. We are sure that Christ did not baptize them, for he bap- tized none, John iv. 2. and it is certain that his dis- ciples had not baptized them formerly, else they would not have forbid their being brought to Christ; nor did our Lord command them then to baptize them, though he declares them of his kingdom, and blesses them. Hence we learn, that infants may be acknowledged to be of the kingdom of God without baptizing them. " Conclusion. What are we then that we should withstand God, by refusing baptism to the children who are declared by our Lord to make up the king- dom of God, as it appears in this world ?" — This con- clusion (as he calls it) is very awful, and had need to be well supported. Let us therefore recapitulate the different suppositions upon which the charge of with- standing God is founded. And, first, he supposes from our Lord's words, that he meant we should suppose, that the little children who belong to his kingdom matj be distinguished from other little children who do not belong to it; because he says, ' Of such is the king- dom of God.' — Next he supposes him to mean, (though there is not the least hint of it,) that this distinction i;^ known by their natural connection with believing pa- rents, for this good reason, because he knows of no other way one little child can be distinguished from another : Upon this head he also conjectures, that Jesus refers us to the prophecies to find out his meaning, and that these prophecies respect the carnal seed of New Tes- tament believers. — Lastly, he supposes hira to mean. Believers -Baptism. 251 that infants belong to the kingdom of God as it ap- pears in this tuorld, into which hypocrites do enter, though Jesus tells us in this and the parallel places, that they belong to that kingdom into which none can enter without being converted. — From all this flimsy cob-web, which he hath spun out of his own imagina- tion, he draws an inference, (hat infants ought to be baptized ; though we do not find that either Jesus or his disciples baptized these or any other infants, or gave the least hint of any such thing. Then, as if he had demonstrated his point as clear as a proposition in Euclid, he asks, ' What are ive that we should with- stand God V But may I be permitted to ask, What is he, that he should father his own dreams upon the scriptures? Surely he has not not duly considered the repeated prohibition, and its dreadful sanction, re- corded in Deut. iv. 2. Prov. xxx. 6. Rev. xxii. 18. In his conclusion he also says, " There appears from this to be no room for the disciples of Christ to inquire whether there were little children in the house- holds that were baptized by the apostles, when the heads of them made profession of the faith of Jesus." —But I cannot think that what he has already ad- vanced is so exceedingly conclusive, as to preclude all farther inquiry into that matter. We have no oc- casion absolutely to deny that there were infants in those houses, (though it is at best but a mere con- jecture ;) for the scripture sometimes mentions all the house, when only the adult part of it is intended. Thus it is said, all the house of Millo gathered together and made Abimelech king, Judges, ix. 6. yet none will affirm that infants had any hand in this. In like manner, when it is said. He " feared God with all his bouse," Acts x. 2 — ** they spake unto him the word of *^52 A Defence Of the Lord, and to all that were in his house," chap. xvi. 82. — *' he rejoiced, believing in God with allhis house,'' ver. 34 — " Crispus believed on the Lord with all his house," chap, xviii. 8. we are sure, that, if there were any infants in those houses, they must be ex- cepted in such passages, for this plain reason, that infants can neither be said to fear God, hear the word,^ believe, or rejoice in it. And if they cannot be in- cluded in the all who believed, &c. neither can they, by any rule of reasoning, be included in the all who were baptized ; for that word is not more compre- hensive in the latter than in th« former case, and the connection demonstrates that the same persons are in- tended in both. If any, however, will contend, that the word all sig- nifies every individual in those houses, w^ithout excep- tion, we have no objection ; but then they must at the same time allow, that every individual of them were believers, and this leaves no room to suppose that there were any infants in those houses. The author therefore may chuse any of these suppositions he thinks proper, it being of no consequence in this argument. He hath, however, taken the easiest method of getting over those houses of any writer I ever read on the sub- ject. His talent lies in suppositions; and as one sup- position is as easily made as another, he takes it for granted that onr Lord's words, Mark x. 18, 14. clearly suppose, that there were infants baptized in these houses upon the profession of the parents; the very stating of which is a sufficient answer. Others, however, convinced that no argument for infant-baptism can be drawn from those houses, whilst some stubborn texts stand in the way, have, without much ceremony, violently bended them to tiicir own Betievers'-Baptistn. S5S purpose. I shall give a few instances. The sacred historian tells us, that Cornelius was " A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house," Acts X. 2. Not so, says Mr. Huddleston ; none in Cor- nelius's house feared God but himself,* — Of the same house of Cornelius, together with some of his kinsmen, it is written " The Holy Ghost fell on all them which HEARD the word," ver. 44, and Peter says, " God pu- rified their hearts by faith," chap. xv. 9. But the above author tells us, that there is no account " of the house of Cornelius, hearing, believing, or receiving the Holy Ghost,"f and that " it cannot be affirmed in the fear of God, that he had any house else but little chil- dren." J — Of the Jailer and his house it is also written, that Paul and Silas " spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." Chap. xvi. 38. This he also flatly contradicts, by de- nying that '' Paul and Silas had any other hearer from the Jailer's house besides himself." |i — We are further told that the Jailer "rejoiced believing in God with ALL his house," ver. 34. but Mr. Glas assures us, there was no such thing; that none in the Jailer's house believed in God but himself, and that his rejoicing was not in God, but in the whole house. § ♦ Hudd. LeUers, p. 54. t Ibid. t Page 2?. || Page 56. $His words are, " It is said, ver, 34. that he belioved ; and there i* no mention of any other believing but himself. The text says, That he believed God, rejoicing in the vviiole house; «y«M(«craTO Travoixi 5 as Rom. xii. 12. tjj E>>7ri^i ^aj^ovTej, '* rejoicing in hope." This joy is his who fell down before Paul and Silas — It was he that rejoiced believing in God," Glas's Works, vol. ii. p. 129. — But in o|)position to this uncouth criticism, I shall demonstrate, even to the conviction of the English reader, that the adverb Travotx^ (of 7r- soluteiy deny. We could no more understand the plainest of these prophecies, than the eunuch did, were it not for tlie public interpretation of the inspired apostles. The calling of the Gentiles appears to us now to be plainly prophesied of, because we have the New Testament key ; but the apostle always speaks of that event as a mystery hid from ages and genera- tions, and which in other ages was not known, Eph. iii, 5, 6. Col. i. 'iQ. and so we see how ignorant the first Jewish converts, and even the apostles themselves, had been about that matter. Acts x. 28. 34, 05, 45. chap. xi. 2, 3, 17, 18. Wq are not aware how much we are beholden to the New Testament explication of the prophecies, and are ready to wonder at the stupidity of the Jews ; but it is more wonderful to see men, who acknowledge the New Testament to be the accomplish- ment and explication of the Old, still overlooking that explication, and advancing their own fancies upon the prophecies in its stead ; and, what exceeds all, making 250 A Defence of the Old Testament a key to the New. It is by tliijj method that national churches and covenants have been founded on scripture. The Seceders can find even their party, with the bond for renewing the cove- nant, prophesied of in Isa. xix. 18.* and they can tell us, with as good a grace as our author, that 2 Cor. viii. 5. is to be understood according to such prophecies. The prophecies in general do not admit of a strict and literal interpretation, when applying them to the affairs of Christ's kingdom, as they are clothed in lan- guage borrowed from the types ; for this would lead us into the very error of the Jews, and judaizing pro- fessors who minded earthly things, among which was their being of the stock of Israel. Hence the necessity of attending diligently, and adhering strictly to the apostolic explication of the prophecies, as well as types of the Old Testament. We cannot therefore go at first hand to the prophecies, in order to explain the K'ew Testament by them ; on the contrary, we must enter them with the New Testament key, by which they are opened to us in express quotations, doctrine, or the history of facts ; for the inspired and able ministers of the New Testament teach without a veil, and use great plainness of speech, 2 Cor. iii. 12, 13. This being the case, I lay down the reverse of our author's position and maintain. That the prophecies which went before concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and the children who should make up the Messiah's kingdom, must be understood according to, or explained by, our Lord's commission to his apostles in connection with the subsequent revelation. *Sec Mr. Moncrieff's Sermons on the Duty of National Covenant ins* Belierers'-Ba])tmn. 257 The best commentary upon our Lord's commission to his apostles, is their practice in executing it, of which we have an account in the history of the Acts. Facts are always the plainest and most convincing arguments. 1. Jesus commands them to " Go, and ieacJi all nations ;" or as Mark hath it, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," chap. xvi. 15. Accordingly we find them going about every where teaching or preaching the gospel, first to the Jews, and afterwards to the Gentiles of all nations ; and it was by this teaching alone that they made disciples. 2. He commands them to baptize them, viz. those whom they should previously teach, or make disciples by teaching ; for Mark hath it, " He that believeth, and is baptized." Let us now see if they always observed this order, viz. of baptizing only those whom they had first taught or made disciples. Peter first preaches the gospel to the Jews, " then they that gladly received his word were baptized," Acts ii. 41. — Philip, in the first place, preaches the gospel to the Samaritans, and then " when they believed Philip preaching the things con- cerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus, they were baptized both men and women," chap. viii. 12. — The same Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch, but it was not till he professed the faith, that he bap- tized him, ver. 35, 37, 38 — Peter first taught Cornelius, his house and friends, and it was not till the Holy Ghost fell upon them, and they magnified God, that they were baptized, chap. x. 44 — 48.— Paul and Silas first spake the word of the Lord to the Jailer, and to all that were in his house, and when they believed it, they were baptized, chap. xvi. 32, 33, 34. — In like manner, 1" many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, S ^5^ A Defence of and" then it follows, they " were baptized," Acts xviii. S. These instances demonstrate, that the apos- tles adhered strictly to the order of the commission ; and I make bold to challenge all the Poedobaptists in the world to produce one single instance wherein they deviated from this order, or baptized any till they wer« previously made disciples by teaching, 3. They are commanded to teach the baptized dis- ciples, T-Aosiv, to observe (keep or obey) all thingswhat- soever he had commanded them. This last teaching is not only expressed by a different word in the ori- ginal, but differs in various other respects from the first, and so is not a tautology. The first has for its object all nations ; the last only the baptized disciples ga- thered out of the nations. — The design of the former is to make disciples, or beget unbelievers to the faith ; that of the latter is to instruct believers how they ought to walk and please God. — The subject matter of the first is the gospel ; that of the latter, Christ's laws and ordinances. That the apostles always timed this last teaching according to the order stated in the commission, is also plain from the whole of their practice. As they never baptized any but such as were first made dis- ciples by preaching the gospel to them ; so neither did they ever teach men to obey the laws of Christ till they were baptized disciples. They never supposed that any one could obey the gospel, till once their minds were principled by the truth ; nor did they make any account of that obedience which does not spring from love, a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith un- feigned. Wherever we find them inculcating the ob- servance of all things whatsoever Christ hath com- manded, they address themselves only to disciples. Believer a- Baplhm. 259 and ilidw the reasons and motives of their exhor- tations from the principles of the gospel, which such are supposed already to believe. To evince this, I might cite all the commandments and exhortations in the New Testament. * Thus it is clear, that the apostles executed the com- mission in all its parts, and in the very order in which it was delivered to them ; and it would have been preposterous, as well as direct disobedience in them, to have done otherwise ; for indeed, that order is founded as well in the nature of things, as in positive institution ; and cannot be deranged or inverted, with- out throwing the whole into confusion and absurdity. We have no occasion therefore to go to the prophecies * As the Lord's Supper is among the all things which the baptized disciples must be taught to observe, it is plain, that none are proper subjects of baptism, but such as may immediately after receive the Lord's Supper. Mr. Huddleston says, " This objection takes its rise from this notion ; That none are capable of being members of the body of Christ, but those who are capable of being members of those churches which are formed to shew forth this body." Lett. p. 77. — Ans, Not so, but it takes its rise from this uotion, That none are capable of baptisyn but such as are also capable of being the same day added to a visible church, and so of continuing in the apostles doctrine, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, Acts ii. 41, 42. Baptism is the sign of the new birth, and the Lord's Supper of feeding upon Christ the true bread; and so the connection between these two ordinances, and the things signified by them, is as immediate and necessary, as that between a person's having life and his taking food to preserve it. If therefore, persons appear to be born of the Spirit, and have the sign thereof in baptism, how come they to be denied the sign of their spi- ritual nourishment in the Supper. What can this represent but chiU dren in a starving condition? It is admitted, that baptism belongs to none but such as are visible subjects of the kingdom of God ; and I lay it down as an axiom, which I am confident none can overthrow, viz. That tlie Lord's Supper belongs to all the visible subjects of the kiagdonj of God immtdiately upon their beinj; baptized. S2 '260 A Defence of for explaining- the commission. This would be to use the light of a candle to let us see the meridian sun. It is sufficiently plain of itself; and if any possibility of doubt should remain, the apostolic practice en- tirely removes it. Further, the prophecies concerning the children who should make up the Messiah's kingdom, as it appears in this world, must be understood according to this commission, and the subsecjuent revelation given to the apostles for executing it. But this commission respects no visible children but such as are capable of being taught, or made disciples by teaching; and to this agree the prophecies respecting them, " All thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children," Isa. liv. 13. which our Lord explains thus, " every one that hath heard, and learned of the Father, cometh unto me," John vi. 45. for they are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, Gal. iii. 26. The apostles acknowledged none as visible children of God, but such as professed this faith. Such also are the children who are to be bap- tized according to the commission ; for it does not say. Baptize little children first, and teach or disciple them afterwards ; but on the contrary, it runs, " Teach all nations, baptizing them — He that believeth, and is bap- tized ;" and with this the whole of the apostolic prac- tice, as also their doctrine about baptism corresponds ; " For (says the apostle) we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus ; for as many of us as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ," Gal. iii. 26, 27. Enough, I am persuaded, has been said to convince any simple and candid person, that the commission has no respect to the baptism of infants, and that such Believers' -Baptism. 261 fi, practice is every way incompatible with it, as well as with the prophecies which relate to it. But I must take notice of some of our author's fancies on this head. He gives us two views of the commission — 1. As it respects teaching — 2. As it respects teaching and bap- tizing. A most curious distinction indeed ! As if the apostles were to teach some whom they were not to teach and baptize, and teach and baptize others whom they were not to teach. His intention, however, is to show, that the commission warrants the baptism of those who are not taught. Upon the first part of this imaginary distinction, he says, 1. " This commission, as it respects teaching or preaching, is to be understood according to the pro- phecies that went before concerning the calling of the Gentiles." This he grounds on Actsxii.44 — 47. where the apostle cites Isa. xlix. 6. to shew the Jews, who did not regard the commission or the authority of Jesus, that he was warranted from their own scriptures to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. But were we to understand the commission only according to this pro- phecy, then the apostles would have had no com- mission to teach the Jews ; for this prophecy, as quoted by the apostle, speaks only of the Gentiles; whereas they were commissioned to teach all nations, both Jews and Gentiles ; to preach repentance and re- mission of sins, in Christ's name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem, Luke xxiv. 47. To some of them was committed the gospel of the circumcision, as unto Peter ; to others the gospel of the uncircumcision, as unto Paul, Gal. ii. 7. and accordingly they preached the gospel, to the Jews first, and also to the Gentiles, Rom. 1,16. This then, is a wrong view of the com- 262 A Defence of mission, because partial. After all, what concern has it with infant sprinkling? I suppose we must gather this from his second view, viz. 2. " This commission, as it respects teaching and baptizing, must be understood according to the pro- phecies concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and the children who should make up the Messiah's kingdom, as it appears in this world." For this he cites Acts ii. containing Peter's discourses to the Jews. But how does Peter's teaching the Jews shew he was commis- sioned only to teach the Gentiles ? Or how does it shew, that teaching and baptizing respects infants? To discover this we must have recourse, after all, to the author's paraphrase, giving such a sense of ver. 08, 39. as he owns the apostle himself did not under- stand or intend ; and no wonder, for indeed it is a very ^ strange one. — " Change your views of the Messiah's kingdom — for the promise of a standing in his kingdom, as it appears in this world, is unto you, and to your children, and to them that are afar off, belonging to- any nation in the same way that it is unto you ; that is, to them and to their children : in this way it is unto those whom the Lord our God shall call out of every nation ; for the Gentiles are to have the same privileges with the Jews in the kingdom of Jesus." The repentance which our author here calls the Jews to, is such as they did not need : it required no change in their views of the Messiah's kingdom to believe, that they, as the children of Abraham, and their carnal seed, should have a standing in it, for this was the view they all along had of it ; but when John the Baptist preaches the kingdom of the Messiah, he calls them to repent of such views, " Begin not to say within yourselves, AVe have Abraham to our father;" Believers' -Baptism. 268 (Luke iii. 8.) or in other words. We have a believer to our father; for this can procure you no standing in the Messiah's kingdom. Agreeably to this the apostle says, " Henceforth know we no man after the flesh ;' i. e. We esteem no man a subject of Christ's kingdom by his carnal descent from Abraham, or by any thing that constituted him a member of, and entitled him to, the privileges of the Jewish church — " Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is (or, let him be) a new creature," 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. Again, the promise which he makes them of a visible standing (as he calls it) is very different from that w^hich Peter here mentions, which is the promise of the Holy Ghost spoken of by the prophet Joel ; see ver. 16-22. Further, the children here mentioned are supposed, by our author, to be infant children, for such only can answer his purpose ; but the apostle is here speaking of the same children that are spoken of in Joel, viz. their sons and their daughters who should receive the Spirit and prophecy. Mr. Huddleston observes on this passage, that ** Peter says, the promise is unto yoiiy i. e. all gladly receiving the word. — From these you he distinguishes their children, and connects them in the promise ; and their children sure must be all the children that could not be included in the preceding you, so all their little children." * But he might also have told us, that the Jews had infant children who cast out devils ; for our Lord asks them, " By whom do your children cast them out ?'' Matth. xii. 27. Here the children are distinguished from those whom our Lord addresses, and cannot be included in the pre- * Letters, p. 20. 264 A Defence of ceding ijour, and so, accordin;^ to this author's loj^ic, must be " all their little children." Mr. Sandeman, however, seems to have had a very just view of the children here spoken of, where he says, " The promise is otily to as many as the Lord our God shall call; and none can appear to us to be the called of God, but such as appear to believe the gospel which Peter preached, and to comply with his exhortation to repentance." * — Lastly, he makes Peter tell the Jews, that " the Gentiles were to have the same privileges with them in the kingdom of Jesus :" — Whereas this was more than he probably knew himself, till it was afterwards revealed to him ; nor was it to his purpose in calling the Jews to repentance, who were not yet able to bear that truth. In short, the author has so framed his pa- raphrase, as to lead one to think, that Peter was ad- dressing Baptists instead of Jews, and that he was calling them to repent and baptize their infants ! and yet, after all, we find none baptized there, but they that gladly received his word, and were that same day added to the church, ver. 41. Permit me now , in my turn, to paraphrase these two verses. The promise of the Holy Ghost, spoken of in Joel, is unto you, Jews, and to your children, even your sons and daughters who shall prophesy, ver. 17. and it is not only to you who dwell at Jerusalem, but also to those of you who are afar off from thence dis- persed among the nations ; yet not to all the Jewish nation, but to the remnant according to the election of grace, (Rom. ix. 27. chap. xi. 5.) which in the pro- phecy are styled " the remnant whom the Lord shall call/' Joel ii. 3. so this promise is even to as many of * Appendix to Letters on Thcron and Aspasio, Vol. ii. p. 333. Believers'- Baptum. 265 you, and your children, both here and elsewhere, as the Lord our God shall call, and to none else of you; for he giveth the Holy Ghost only to such as obey him, chap. V. 32. Repent therefore, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- sion of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, according to God's promise. He owns, we " say just things concerning the two covenants, viz. the law or Sinai covenant, and the new or better covenant; and the two seeds, viz. the na- tural seed of Abraham, and the spiritual seed of Christ, who are also called the seed of Abraham, as being connected with Him who is of the seed of Abra- ham, according to the flesh, the great promised Seed." — Had the author considered properly what he is here saying, he might have seen, that by this concession he hath entirely given up the point, and cut himself out from every ground to stand upon ; it being impossible for him to hold these distinctions consistently with the principles he lays down for infant-baptism; for he gives the very same place to the fleshly birth in the kingdom of Christ under the new covenant, that it for- merly had in the earthly kingdom under the old cove- nant. He makes it as good an evidence of their being Christians, as it was formerly of their being Jews : nay, he makes it of greater avail now, than under the old covenant; for then it could not distinguish the spiritual seed of Abraham ; but now, (according to his doctrine,) it points out those whom we are to reckon the true holy seed, and heirs of spiritual, ever- lasting, and heavenly privileges. Mr. Huddleston asserts, " That the fleshly seed of New Testament believers are really the spiritual seed 260 ^4 Defence of of Abraham ;" * but he denies, that they are distill- guished by the fleshly birth, and says, " Believers' in- fants are distinguished by that same thing which dis- tinguishes themselves to be the spiritual Israel, viz. the confession of the mouth to salvation." f Do infants then confess the faith with the mouth ? No. — How then are they distinguished ? By the confession of another. — Very well ; and does this confession respect all in- fants ? No. — How then do we distinguish the infants whom this confession respects, from other infants ? By their being the infants of the professor, or springing from him by natural generation. Thus we see it lands in the natural birth at last ; and if this be not con- founding the apostolic distinction of the covenants and seeds, I know not what is. But then our author says, we " confound the dis- tinction that is betwixt the spiritually holy nation ; which consists of the saved out of all nations, with the Jcingdom of God as it appears in this world: and in this way deceive the hearts of those who believe without proper evidence, and blind the minds of them who receive not the simple sayings of the Son of God ;" and for this distinction he cites Matth. xiii. 47 — 50. which speaks of the good and bad fishes ; to this he might have added, Matth. xxv. 1 — ]4. which speaks of the wise and foolish virgins. As the author's whole scheme of reasoning rests en- tirely upon an improper use of this distinction, which is to be met with almost in every page of his book, I shall consider it particularly. 1. We maintain, that the true kingdom of God con- sists of the whole body of the elect, whether Jews or * Letters, p. 73. t Piige 74, Selievers'-Baptism. 267 Gentiles, infants or adults, who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and who shall all be certainly and finally saved. This is that society which the scripture calls the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are enrolled in heaven, Heb. xii. 23. the whole family in heaven and in earth, Eph. iii. 15. the one body, having the one spirit, and of which Christ is the head, chap. iv. 4. chap. v. 23. and which is commonly called his invisible kingdom or church. Into this kingdom no hypocrite or unclean thing can enter. Rev. xxi. 27. 2. We maintain, that this kingdom appears in this world unto men, in the open profession of the faith of Jesus with its correspondent fruits, and in no other way ; but as men do not always speak as they think, and as good actions may often proceed from bad principles and motives ; and further, as we neither can nor are allowed to judge the hearts of men, hence hy- pocrites and unbelievers may enter into the ap- pearance of this kingdom in the world ; and so our Lord represents it in this view, as consisting of wise and foolish virgins, good and bad fishes, &c. To this view of the kingdom belong the churches of the saints, each of whom are a visible representation of that one body which is invisible. But to the point : 3. Those whom the scripture points out unto us as belonging to Christ's kingdom, as it appears in this world, must also be looked upon as belonging to the holy nation of them that are saved. We are obliged by the word of God to esteem none brethren, but such as profess the faith, and walk accordingly. We are also bound by that same word, to esteem every one who professes the faith of Christ, and appears under its influence, to be not only in appearance, but i» 268 A Defence of truth and reality the elect of God, and to love them as brethren for whom Christ died. We are not al- lowed here to make any distinction between those who belong to the appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world, and those who belong to the spiritually holy nation of them that are saved. (1.) Becarise we cannot do it. This distinction is known only to God. He alone knows whom he hath chosen, and who are his; he also searchcth the hearts, and trieth the reins of the children of men, and can discover the most hidden hypocrisy under the disguise of (he fairest appearances ; and it is he alone that will at last make a final separation of the sheep from the goats, and gather out of his kingdom every thing that offends. But for us, we can make no such discrimi- nation. Many may obtain salvation whom we cannot esteem saints; and some, whom we must look upon as such, may finally fall short of it, (2.) Because it is contrary to the fervent charity en- joined in the gospel, for us to attempt to distinguish between the visible and real subjects of Christ's king- dom. Charity rejoiceth in the truth, and respects our brethren as real believers, not as nominal ones only. We love them in the truth, as knowing the truth, and for the truth's sake dwelling in them, 2 J ohn, ver. 1, 2. — as brethren for whom Christ died, Rom. xiv. 16. — as members of that one body whereof Christ is the head, and for which he gave himself an offering and a sacrifice to God, Eph. iv. 4, 15, 16. chap. v. 2. It is only in this view we can love them with a pure heart fervently. Every thought of them that falls short of this view, without visible evidence, is that evil-judging which is opposed to charity, and an assuming Christ's prerogative, Rom, xiv. 4, 10. James iv. 12. Believers"- Baptism. 509 (3.) The inspired apostles, though they had the gift of disceiniug spirits, in respect of doctrine, yet they never distinguish those who belong to the appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world, from such as belong to the holy nation of the saved, but speak of them always as one and the same, or, (to use our author's phrase,) confound them. They address all to whom they write as elect, saints, redeemed, and saved. Paul says, that the vessels of mercy which God had afore prepared unto glory, are, " Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles," Rom. ix. 23, 24 — he includes the professsing Ephesians with himself, as redeemed and adopted, according as they were predestinated and chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, Eph. i. 4-- 8. — he tells the Thessalonians, that he knew their election, 1 Thess. i. 4. — and declares that the Hebrews were come unto the general assembly and church of the first-born which are written in heaven, Heb. xii. 22, 23. — Peter writing to the strangers scattered abroad, addresses them as " Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," 1 Pet. i. 2. and calls them " a chosen genera- tion, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people," chap. ii. J). Yet notwithstanding all this, w^e learn from these same writings, that hypocrites and false professors had crept in even among them. Shall we therefore infer, that the apostles deceive the hearts and blind the minds of men, because they do not dis- tinguish between the apparent and real subjects of Christ, or, in other words, because tliey were not om- niscient? We indeed know, that there is a distinction between the appearance and reality of true religion ; 270 A Defence of ^ but the practical use of this is, not to judge our brother, J but to judge and examine ourselves, 1 Cor. xi. 28, 31. j Gal. vi. 3, 4. • It is evident then, that this distinction which our I author harps so much upon, has nothing to do with the controversy about baptism; for as baptism belongs ^^ only to Christ's visible subjects, so all who have this J appearance must be esteemed by us his real subjects, H and as belonging to the spiritually holy nation of them that are saved ; for this plain reason, because it is the appearance of that very thing. What an unworthy view must our author have of the subjects of baptism, and even of his own brethren, when he distinguishes them from the spiritually holy nation of the saved, and cannot look upon them as belonging to it ! What can be the foundation of his charity to them? Do the scriptures ever enjoin us to love a mere appearance, without supposing its in- visible reality? But our author, that he may avoid confounding matters, takes special care, all along, to let us know, that he does not mean the reality, but only the appearance of things; and so he is contending for a mere shadow, a thing of nought. He comes next to what is commonly called the mode or manner of baptism; but I shall defer the con- sideration of that, till I have discussed his arguments about the subjects, and proceed at present to PART III. " The household of Lydia were baptized when she made profession of the faith of Jesus," Acts xvi. 13;, 14, 15. His meaning is, that her household were baptized upon her single profession of the faith^ without hein^ Believers'- Baptism. 271 either taught, or maldng- a profession themselves ; and his reason for this supposition is, that it is not parti- cularly mentioned. But by the same rule of interpre- tation, we may deny that she professed the faith herself before baptism; for neither is that particularly mentioned in so many words. Rom. x. 10. however, is to him a sufficient proof, that she must have con- fessed the faith with her mouth ; and if so, he cannot in justice blame us, though we should refer him to the commission as a proof that her household were taught and believed, before they were baptized ; especially, when this is corroborated and explained by the whole practice of the apostles, and the instances of all the other households which they bajjtized. He cannot but allow, that it is a good and safe rule to make the scripture its own interpreter, or to explain the more concise and obscure passages by such other passages relating to the subject as are more full and explicit ; and if he admits of this rule in every other case, he ought certainly to shew cause why it cannot be ad- mitted here. I appeal to himself, if he has not purposely singled out this account of Lydia's household in distinction from all the rest, as affording him, from its silence, the greatest scope for conjecture. Surely that must be a bad cause which obliges men to shun the light, and avail themselves of obscurity, and so oppose what the scripture says not, to what it positively and repeatedly declares. Taking advantage then of the silence of this passage, he conjectures, that Lydia's household was all made up of little children ; and then she must have been an extraordinary woman indeed, to have managed her public business of selling purple, together with a family of helpless infants, for it docs not appear 272 .1 Defence of she had a husband at that time. If it be supposed ahe had servants to assist her, then, for any thing we know, these may have been her household, according to the frequent use of that word in scripture ; see Gen. xvii. 27. I Kings i. 9, 11. 2 Kings vii. 9, 11. But our author imagines they were infants, because when she invites Paul and his companions to her house, she uses this argument, " If ye have judged me faithful ;" whereas had they been adults, she must have said. If ye have judged us faithful, else she must have had " a high sense of her own importance, and a great penury of brotherly love." But perhaps she knew, that she had the onZi/ right, both by the law of God and man, to invite them to her otv?i house, and that in her oivn name too, as she was the mistress and head of it, as well as proprietor of all the entertainment therein ; and perhaps she did this in the kind sim- plicity of her heart, without imagining what bad con- struction would be put upon this act of love 1724 years afterwards. Supposing her thoroughly instructed in the Christian law of " esteeming others better than ourselves, and in honour prefening one another," Rom. xii. 10. Philip, ii. S. (for which she had as yet very little time,) yet it could never enter into her head, that that law set aside her civil superiority of mistress over her servants, or her natural superiority of a parent, even over her adult children ; see Eph.vi. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8. Nor could she ever learn, from any exhortation in all the Xew Testament, (supposing it then written, that she was now deprived of the sole right of disposing of her own; of using hospitahty to saints and strangers ; and of pressing their acceptance of her kindness, as an evidence that they judged her faithful to the Lord therein ; see 3 John, ver. 5. Believers'- Baptism. 273 The author does " not chuse to say what must be ascribed to Paul and his companions, who were con- strained by this argument :" for it seems had they complied with her invitation as a testimony that they esteemed her faithful, it would have been such an atro- cious sin in them, as is not fit to be mentioned. But he ought to remember, that the apostles were not so evil-minded as he v/ould have been in this case. They were not so ungratefully disposed, as to snap at the hand that offered them a kindness, nor so captious as to carp at expressions dictated by a heart overfiowing with love. He says, " We may learn from Jesus's words, that her little children are here called her household ; for, pointing at the little chidren who were brought to him in the days of his flesh, he said. Of such is the kingdom of God." There are some assertions difficult to answer from their extreme absurdity ; and I am mistaken if this is not one of them. Our Lord does not here mention any person's household whatever, far less the household of Lydia in particular; neither is he de- fining the word household, or restricting its sense to little children, contrary to its usual acceptation throughout the whole scripture. His words are not. Of such only are the households of believers ; but, " Of such is the kingdom of God." How then can we learn from these words that Lydia had little children, who are here called her household, and that in dis- tinction from her adult children and domestics ? Noah's house consisted of his wife, sons, and daughters in-law, and there were no infants there. Gen. vii. 7. Abraham had a numerous household of servants, whilst as yet he had no child of his own. Gen. xiv. 14. chap. XV. 2, 3. Our Lord says, " A man's foes shall be they T 274 1 A Defence of of his own household," Matth. x. 36. Does the word household here mean little children ? The word house or household in scripture signifies sometimes a man's kindred, lineage, and even distant posterity, Luke i. 27. chap. ii. 4. sometimes a whole people or tribe, Psal. cxv. 12. and sometimes a man's particular family, including his wife, adult and infant children, as well as domestic servants, as has been shown ; but in no part of the word of God does it sig- nify little children in distinction from adults, this being only a conceit of some modern Poedobaptists, invented to support their cause with the ignorant ; but which must prejudice it with those who search the scriptures for themselves. The passage itself, however, affords evidence that Lydia's household were adults ; for we are told, ver. 40. that Paul and Silas " went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed." Now, infants cannot be supposed capable of being comforted ; and whether it is most reasonable to think that they comforted these young converts of Lydias household, whom they were now leaving behind them exposed to the hatred of their infidel neighbours, or those hardy veterans Timothy and Luke, their fellow travellers and labourers who departed along with them- selves, let the reader judge. This same Timothy was sent back to comfort and strengthen the Thessalonians, a little while afterwards, 1 Thess. iii. 1—8. Our author farther affirms, that " the baptism of the household of Lydia, when she professed the faith, was agreeable to the doctrine which Paul taught ; for he said to believers in Jesus, " The unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, and the unbelievinj wife is Believers -Baptism. 275 sanctified to the husband; else were your childrea unclean," or common, bat now are they holy, or set apart unto God, 1 Cor. vii. 14. But what has thi^ text to do with baptism? The apostle is not here speaking a word upon that subject, but answering the scruples of Christians about continuing in their mar- riage relation with infidels. The author makes the apostle to say, that the children are holy as " set apart unto God ;" whereas he is speaking of a holiness which is the result of the unbelieving party's being sanctified or made holy ; for, says the apostle, " the unbelieving party is sanctified, else were your children unclean." The apostle denies that the children would be holy, unless the unbelieving parent were so also ; and it is certain, that no other holiness can result from, or be thus connected with, the holiness of an unbeliever, but what is of the same nature with itself. Mr. Huddleston, after having told us, that the unbe- lieving wife is sanctified to the husband as his food is, gives us his view of the holiness of the children, thus, " But now are they holy," viz. " as the Corinthians themselves were holy, being washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God."* Let us try then how the text will read according to this gloss ; " The unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband as his food is ; else were your children neither washed, sanctified, nor justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, nor by the Spirit ot God ! ! !" The very stating of this, manifests its absur- dity at once. The same author proposes what be calls a rea- • Letters, p. 72. T2 276 A Defence of sonable request, viz. " Let any text in the Bible, between tlie beginning and the end, be produced where a person is said to be holy, where a special relation to God, or being devoted and separated to him, is not in- tended."*— But without entering into such an ex- tensive search, I produce this very text under con- sideration, " The unbelieving husband is sanctified (riyiaroci, made holy,) by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctilied (made holy) by the husband ;" to which let me add his own sense of these words, that " the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer as his food is,"t and this gives a full answer to his request, until he inform us what special relation to God unbe- lievers have by this holiness, and how they are devoted or separated to him by it. He says, " We have generally explained the sanc- tification here to intend marriage — but is it possible we can be serious in supposing the apostle would tell these Corinthians who had unbelieving wives, that they were married to them 1 or, did the Corinthians need to be told this ?"+ No; but though they did not need to be told they were married, yet they needed to be told their marriage was laivfiil, else what was the ground of their scruple at all ? He is not telling them they were married, but that their marriage was lawful or holy, by shewing them that the unbelieving party was sanctified (iv) in that relation to the believer, and so not to be put away. He also misrepresents our view of the uncleanness and holiness of the children. " We have (says he) ex- plained the uncleanness of the children to be bastardy, and the holiness legitimacy ;" § and he thinks the Co- * Letters, p, 30. t Ibid, p. 30. * Ibid, p. 30. § Ibid. Believers'- Baptism . ,277 rinthians had no occasion to be told, their children were not bastards; for as they were the children oT marriage, they must have known them to be legi- timate. But by bastards in this case we do not mean those begotten betwixt persons single, or unmarried, but the issue of unlawful marriages, like those which sprang from an Israelite's marriage with a heathen. This is the uncieanuess which the apostle is speaking of; and as he makes this uncleanness of the chddren, to come from the supposed unlawfulness of the parents marriage, so does he make their holiness to be the effect of the lawfulness or sanctity of that marriage ; and what kind of holiness can this be but legitimacy, or their being begotten according to the law of God, which is the standard of all holiness ? That the holiness of the children here is of the same kind with that of the unbelieving parent, will be further evident, if we consider, 1. That the apostle infers the one from the other : " The unbelieving wife is sanctified ; — else were your children unclean ; but now are they holy :" Now it does not follow from the parents having one kind of holiness, that therefore the children must have another and higher kind ; but it follows clearly, that if the wife or husband is lawful, the children must be so also. 2. The apostle absolutely denies that the children would have this holiness, unless the unbelieving parent (ryiarai) hath been sanctified, or previously made holy : " The unbelieving wife hath been sanctified ; — else were your children unclean." Now, if the holiness of the children be the effect of their being washed, justi- fied, and sanctified, it could never depend upon, or stand and fall with that inferior kind of holiness as- cribed to the unbelieving parent; for this would be tvi 2tS A Defence of make the very salvation of children depend upon the lawfulness of their parents marriage ; but if we under- stand the holiness to be legitimacy, it is plain that this depends entirely on their parents having been lawfully married. 3. When the apostle says, " Else were your children unclean," he shews what would have been the case, had the law of Moses been in force with respect to their unbelieving wives ; but that law made the chil- dren unclean in no other sense than it made the unbe- lieving parent ; therefore the holiness which he op- poses to that uncleanness, and ascribes to each, must be the same in both. 4. No other holiness than legitimacy could suit the apostle's argument against putting away their unbe- lieving wives ; for the children even of an incestuous marriage may have the holiness of the truth, while yet the marriage itself ought to be dissolved ; but if the children are lawfully begotten, then the marriage must have been lawful also, and therefore must stand. Upon the whole, it is demonstrably clear, that the meaning of the passage is neither more nor less than this, " Ye must not put away your unbelieving wives, if they are willing to dwell with you, (as Israel were obliged to do by the law of separation from the heathen, Deut. vii. 3.) else ye must put away your children also ; for that law classed them with the unclean partj', and enjoined them to be put away, Ezra x. 3. but now, under the gospel, both the unbelieving party, and the children begot with them, are holy or lawful, even as the meats are, which were formerly forbidden by the law of Moses, (1 Tim. iv. 5.) that law being set aside which made them unlawful or unclean." Now what has this passage to do with infant sprinkling? Believers -Baptism. 279 Out author asserts, that " the children of believing parents are represented in scripture as some way con- nected with their parents in the profession made by them ;" and for proof of this cites, 2 Tim. ii. 16 " The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus ; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain." So it seems Paul could not pray for the house of One- siphorus, unless they had been connected with their parent in his profession ! ! ! Does this deserve an answer? The household of Onesiphorus were not infants, but had made the profession themselves, as is evident from his charging Timothy in this very epistle to salute them, chap. iv. 19. The author says, children are some way connected with their parents ; but does not tell us what way. I will venture to do it for him. The peculiar con- nection between a parent and his child is entirely na- tural and carnal. If they are Christ's, they are in that respect both equally children ; and in relation to one another, in this connection, they are not parent and child, but brethren ; in which respect they are as much related to all the household of God as to one another. This connect!^ has nothing to do with the fleshly re- lation, but is supernatural ; nor is it peculiar to parent and child, but is founded on that common union by w hich every member of Christ's body is connected with him as the Head. He concludes this part, by observing, " That in the baptism of little children we have a lively represen- tation of this great truth. As sin and death came from the first Adam to all his natural seed, and even to little children, without any act or deed of theirs ; so righteousness and life come from the second Adam to all his spiritual seed, and even to little children in 280 A Defence of the same way." — This seems to imply, that this great truth is not so properly represented in the baptism of believers, because they are supposed to perform some act or deed of their own to obtain righteousness and life.* If there is any thing in this representation peculiar to infants, it must lie in this, that as by the obedience of one many are made righteous ; so (according to our author) by the profession of one man all his infants appear righteous. Thus the parent and his profession for his household, is a lively representation of Christ and his vicarious obedience for the whole household of faith ! ! ! But then the other part of the representation is not quite so lively ; for whereas by the disobedience of one many are made sinners, and so in their first birth are shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, the author teaches us, that children are born holy by virtue of their connection with believing parents, and this may be constructed by weak minds as contra- dicting the doctrine of original sin ; for every one will not be able to understand how righteousness and life should be transmitted to us in the same channel with sin and death. Mr. Huddleston affirms, " That men have their little children connected with them in the great salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ, even as they are in the condem- nation by Adam." f But this contradicts a number of scripture facts : Adam had a Cain in his family, Noah a Ham, Abraham an Ishmael, and Isaac an Esau; none of which ciiildren the scripture directs us to look upon as connected with their parents in salvation, * The Papists have invented many lively representations, which they think more significant than those which God hath enjoined. t Letters, p. 23. Believers' -Baptism. 281 and yet all these were infants before they became adults. But he has a salvo for this, viz. that the con- nection in salvation continues only during their in- fancy, but vanishes in their adult state. This here- ditary salvation, fleeting as it is, he makes peculiar to the New Testament : " The promise (says he) which is to believers and their children, belongs to the cove- nant made after these days ; and it was never said to Abraham, thou shalt be saved, and thy house." * Now if we compare this with his affirming, that this promise is the very testimony of the gospel," f it must follow, that the gospel was not preached before unto Abra- ham ; nor could his faith " answer to that which is now preached," or be set before us in the New Testa- ment as the example of our faith, as in Rom. iv. 12, 23, 24. Gal. iii. 6 — 9. Neither can we, according to this author, perceive Abraham to have been of the kingdom of God; for (says he,) " We perceive an adult person to be of the kingdom of God, by his con- fessing the truth to his own salvation, and the salvation of his house." X Lastly, according to this, we have no ground to believe there were any elect infants, under the Old Testament ; for he denies that we have any other foundation whereon to rest our opinion that there are elect infants, but their connection with their believing parent; § yet Abraham, it seems, had not even this evidence. However, when we consider all that has been advanced upon this salvation, Abraham would sustain very little loss, it being a matter not worth the contending for. • Letters, p. 63. t Ibid, p. 7S. t Ibid, p. 39. $ Ibid, p .ST. 282 A Defence of PART IV, " Baptism is the figure corresponding unto the preser- vation, and visible salvation of Noah, and seven more in connection with him, in the ark, by water, — * Wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by- water. The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con- science towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. Here our author runs the parallel between baptism and the temporal deliverance of Noah and his family from the flood, thus; — " It agrees thereto as water is used in baptism.'' — This we grant; for the apostle says, that eight souls were saved (Ji ySaror,) through, by, or rather in water, as the same original phrase is rendered, 2 Pet. iii. 5. So baptism represents not only our death and burial with Christ, but also our resur- rection with him and deliverance from death, Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. He says, " It agrees thereto, as baptism is a sign of the salvation that is by Christ." The salvation of Noah and his house, by the ark in water, was indeed a type of the salvation that is by Christ; for the apostle calls baptism, and the salvation signified by it, its (avTiTVjrog) antitype. But it ought to be noticed, that there is still such a diflference between them, as is between Old Testament types and New Testament ordinances. The redemption of old Israel from Egj'pt, when they passed under the cloud, and through the sea, was also a type of baptism and the salvation signified by it ; but that typical baptism was not into Believers-Baptism. 283 Christ, but unto Moses ; and the salvation by that bap- tism was not the salvation by Christ, but the temporal deliverance of an earthly nation from Egyptian slavery. Even so the salvation of these eight souls in water was in itself only a temporal salvation from the deluge, and the preservation of a race of men, as well as of every other animal, for replenishing the earth. But the New Testament baptism has no temporal, typical, nor even visible salvation (as our author affirms) con- nected with it, but is the immediate sign of the spiri- tual and invisible salvation by Christ. It does not save from the flood, nor from Egyptian bondage, nor by put- ting away the filth of the flesh, like the legal bathings ; but by the death and resurrection of Christ ; and in this respect it essentially differs from these earthly deli- verances, being their antitype, as the apostle declares. All this, however, is nothing to the point, and therefore he adds, " It agrees thereto as the little children of believers are baptized, and so visibly saved on account of their connection with their parents." This is a strange assertion indeed ! and is so far from having any foundation in the text, that it is every way contrary to it. The passage informs us, that there were but eigJit souls saved in the ark, and our author (as in the case of Lydia's household)supposes they were little children; but the scripture expressly tells us, that these eight souls were Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, see Gen. vi. 18. chap. vii. 7. chap. viii. 16. Surely these married sons were not little children, neither were their wives little children, nor Noah's proper children at all. How then does the baptism of little children agree thereto, when there were no little children there? If it proves anything at all respecting the baptism of a believer's children,, it 284 A Defence of proves too much, viz. that the adult children of a be- liever must be baptized on account of their connection with him, for such only can agree with Noah's sons : and it will also prove, that not only a man's own adult children, but also his wife, and the adult children of others, should all be baptized upon his single pro- fession; for without this it cannot agree to Noah's wife and his son's wives. But as the author does not admit that this passage warrants the baptism of adults upon the profession of another, (though such are the only persons here mentioned,) surely, with much more reason may we deny, that it warrants the baptism of little children, when we are sure that there were none such among them. In whatever respect, therefore, baptism agrees with the salvation of these eight persons, it cannot be in having little children for its subjects ; and this is clear from the passage itself: — " Baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The answer of a good conscience is the eifect of faith in Christ, as de- livered for our offences, and raised again for our jus- tification, and consists in the conscious sense of the remission of our sins, peace with God, and freedom of access unto a throne of grace, which could never be obtained by the typical sacrifices or purifications, see Heb. ix. 9, 13, 14. chap. x. 1, 2, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22. Now, baptism being the sign of that purgation in the blood of Christ, which gives the answer of a good con- science, it cannot be administered to any but such as appear by their profession to have their consciences thus purified by faith in Christ's blood, of which in- fants can give no evidence. Believers'-Baptism. 285 To affirm, that little children are " visibly saved, on account of their connection with their parents," is, in zny opinion, a very self-righteous doctrine. It has been already shewn, that we cannot, according to the scriptures, look upon any as visibly saved, without looking upon them as really saved ; — because the former is the very evidence or appearance of the latter; — because we neither can nor ought to distin- guish them ; — and, chiefly, because Christ hath pur- chased no visible salvation for any, in distinction from a spiritual, everlasting, and real one. If then children are visibly saved on account of their connection with their parents, they must also, in our estimation, be really saved on that account. This is fine doctrine indeed ! and, if it be not putting the parent in the place of Christ, it looks something like it. It can easily be conceived how children may obtain temporal deliverances in connection with, and even on account of their parents, such as the salvation from the deluge, and redemption from Egypt ; but the gospel salvation comes by another connection, and must be placed to another account. Will the author affirm, that he himself was even visibly saved, (as he calls it,') on ac- count of his connection with his parents ? and does he teach his children, that they are saved, on account of their connection with him? If neither he nor his children can take the comfort of this connection for their own salvation, what is he contending for all this time ? Surely that must be a salvation unworthy of the gospel that cannot be trusted to. He says, " Visible salvation is by baptism ; but real salvation is through the shedding of Christ's blood." If he means by this, that baptism is the sign Qi visible, but not of real salvation by Christ's blood. 286 'A Defence of I have already shown this to be contrary to scriptuie, an unworthy view of the ordinance, and altogether absurd. But if he means, that baptism itself saves visibly, I ask. What does it save from ? It does not put away the filth of the flesh, like the legal purifica- tions, nor does it save tbe body from slavery or death, like the typical salvations ; and the apostle tells us, that it cannot save the soul, or purge the conscience, but by the death and resurrection of Christ. — What idea then shall we affix to this visible salvation by baptism? — a salvation which he distinguishes from real salvation by the blood of Christ ; — a salvation which does not benefit either soul or body ; — a sal- vation which must not be trusted to, but mocks our hopes, eludes our search, and flies our grasp, like the baseless fabric of a vision. Is such a fancy as this worthy the God of salvation ? Is it even worthy the name of salvation? In short, it comports with nothing but those other dreams and imaginations with which the author has furnished out his whole pamphlet from beginning to end. Of the ACTION called BAPTISM. Our author owns, that baptism is dipping or plung- ing in water, as the word frequently signifies this ; but then he thinks it bears another sense in 1 Cor. x. 2. though he does not tell us what it there signifies. He then proceeds to assert roundly, that " Those who have water poured out or shed forth upon them, or are sprinkled with water, are baptized with water, ac- cording to the language of the New Testament ;" for this he cites Mark i. 8. Acts i. 5. But none of these passages speak o^ pouring or sprinkling water, but of baptizing in it ; and the question still returns^ What Believers'" -Baptism. 287 does that mean ? This he thinks may be gathered from baptism in the Holy Ghost, which is said to be poured out, or shed forth upon men. Acts ii. 10, 17, 33. chap. xi. 15, 16. Should we remind him, that the Holy Ghost was so poured out upon men as to fill them with it, and that therefore, according to this argument, they must also be filled with water in baptizing them ; he will tell us, that this is a foolish assertion, and that fi,lling men with the Holy Ghost, and baptizing them therewith, are as distinct as cause and effect ! Thus he jjroves that baptism is either plunging, pouring, or sprinkling. In opposition to which I observe, 1. That the Greek word QuTm^a, baptize, is never translated into English, when the ordinance of baptism is intended. Baptize is not a translation, but an adoption of the Greek word. The translators were virtually forbid to render it into English in the instruc- tions they received from King James,* by which peo- ple are left to afiix any idea to it which the custom of the country suggests ; and so, in this country, it is generally understood to mean the sprinkling, or pour- ing of a little water on the face of an infant : whereas baptize, signifies to dip, immerse or plunge in any thing, especially liquids, and in this ordinance, to dip or im- merse the body in water. The Pcedobaptists them- selves generally acknowledge this sense of the word, and that immersion was the practice of the apostles, and continued in the church for at least thirteen cen- turies after. All the methods by which the sense of any word can be found, fix the sense of QcnTm^a, baptize, to be im- mersion. Should we trace it to its primary root, or * See a Copy of these instf uctions in Lewis'* History of the Engli$li Trauslations of the Bible. 288 A Defence of follow it in all its derivatives and compounds ; should we consult all the Greek lexicons of any note ; or take the surer method of observing its constant and uniform use in Greek authors and translators, before the practice of sprinkling took place, we shall find all agree in fixing this as the common and proper accepta- tion of that word, and meet with no circumstance that will oblige us to depart from it. This word, like most others, may indeed sometimes be used in a secondary, figurative, or allusive sense. Words are often chosen, not so much for their strict literal signification, as for some analogy or striking similitude they bear to the subject ; but the proper sense of words cannot be fixed from such use of them. Thus our Lord represents his sufferings by a cup which the father had given him to drink, John xviii. 11. but tlie nature of his sufferings will neither explain the meaning of the word cup, nor the action of drinking it. These sufferings are likewise called a baptism, Luke xii. 50. but from this we cannot fix the meaning of that word, or the action thereby signified, as it is only figuratively used, to represent the greatness of his sufferings, even as they are set forth in Old Tes- tament metaphors, by his sinking in deep mire, and coming into deep waters, where the floods overflow him, Psal. Ixix. 1, 2. It is said of Israel, that they " were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea," 1 Cor. x. 2. but Israel's being under the cloud, and passing through the sea, ver. 1. (which was a wall upon their right hand and left,) though it was a kind of immersion, yet it does not determine with precision the meaning of the word ; for here was no action per- formed by one man upon another, as our Lord en- joins, nor was there a close contact of the water with their bodies, as there must be in Christian baptism. Believers' -Baptism. 389 It has been argued, that as baptism in the Holy Ghost is expressed by pouring him out on men, therefore baptism in water must be performed by pouring water on them. But the extraordinany effusion of the Holy Ghost is variously expressed in the scriptures : It is called anointing, filling with, giving of, pouring out of the Holy Ghost, and believers are said to have all been made to drink into one Spirit. Now, which of all these expressions alludes to the manner of baptism in water? If it be said, pouring alludes to it ; I ask, upon what authority is this af- firmed ? The scripture does not call this expression baptizing more than the rest. The truth is, all these are but different expressions for the same thing, viz. the giving of the Holy Ghost ; but none of them are expressive of the manner of that action called baptism, nor so much as allude to it. Pouring in particular, does not allude to the manner of baptizing ; but to that of anointing ; see Acts x. 38. 2 Cor. i. 21. 1 John ii. 27. the manner of which was by pouring, see Exod. Xlix. 7. Matth. xxvi. 7. and it also alludes to the watering of fields to make them fruitful, for under this metaphor the effusion of the Spirit is often set forth ; see Isa. xliv. 3, 4. chap, xxxii. 15. compared with Heb. vi. 4, 7, 8. The extraordinary effusion of the Spirit is called baptism, in allusion to baptism in water; and, ex- cepting in one place, is always joined with it by a si- milarity of phrase. Thus Acts i. 5. " John baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost;" where it is plain, that giving the Holy Ghost is called baptizing, by a figure of speech borrowed from water baptism. Instances of this kind are innu- merable in scripture. Jesus, callinjj Simon and An- V 9^ A Defence of drew iVom their fishing, says, " I will make you fishers of men ;" which is an expression taken from the employment they were then engaged in ; and, as it would be very improper to explain the manner of fishing from the practice of the apostles in preaching the gospel, it must be equally so to explain the action of baptizing in water, by the manner in which the Spirit was given, for which there are various ex- pressions l)esides that of baptism : But when we con- sider that this extraordinary eftusion of the Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, filled all the house where they were sitting, then it is plain they must have been immersed in it, according to the proper sense of the word. The word Qa'n-n^co is rendered washing in Mark vii. 4. and it is alleged, that the utensils there mentioned cannot be supposed to be plunged in water. But if we look into the law about cleansing defiled vessels, &c. we shall find, this was to be done by plunging or putting them into the water. " Whether it be any ves- sel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be wherein any work is done, it must be put into water," Lev. xi. 32. And though the Jews are blamed for their superstition in holding things unclean that were not so by the law, yet they are not accused of using any other method of cleansing than the law prescribed. Mr. Huddleston asserts, that the washing of hands is also called baptism, Mat. xv. 2. Mark vii. 3.* But in this he is mistaken, for the word there is not QaTrn^u, but vjTTTw, which is the word used for washing of hands; and as for the baptism mentioned, Mark vii. 4. Luke * Letters, p. 98. Believers' -Baptism. 291 Xi. 38. it does not signify the washing of hands, but the bathing or immersion of the whole body. The baptisms mentioned, Heb. ix. 10. were not every kind of washing, but the divers baptisms prescribed by the law for unclean persons, which were performed by bathing in water. Thus Numb. xix. 19 — " And on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even." And the apostle calls these bathings divers baptisms, because they were performed on different occasions, and for various kinds of uncleannness ; see Lev. XV. 5, 8, 11, 13, 21, 22, 27. chap. xvi. 26, 28. chap. xvii. 15. 16. Numb. xix. 7, 8, 19. But with re- spect to the manner of applying the blood, water, and ashes of the heifer, (Numb. xix. 17, 18.) he does not call that baptism, but (rhantismos) sprinkling, as it really was, Heb. ix. 13. Had this ordinance included every mode of wash- ing, it would not have been expressed by baptizo, but by luo, as in Acts xvi. 33. 1 Cor. vi. 11. 2 Pet. ii. 22. or nipto, as in John xiii. 6. 10. Matth. xv. 2. chap, xxvii. 24. or pluno, as in Luke v. 2. — Had it been SPRINKLING, it would have been expressed by rhan- fizo, as in Heb. ix. 13, 19. chap x. 22. and xii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 2. — Had it been pouring, then the word would have been cheo or chuo, as in Luke x. 34. Acts ii. 17, 33. chap. x. 45. But as this ordinance is neither washing in general, nor the modes oi sprinkling and pouring in particular ; so it is distinguished from these by another term, and which has a different signi- fiation, viz. to dip, immerse, or plunge. It is remarkable that we have the three words, dip» sprinkle, and jpoi«r occurring sometimes in the compass of two verses, and distinguished as three different sue- ¥2 ^■«9ti 292 A Defence of cessive actions to be performed with the same thing, which demonstrates that they are not of the same import. Thus, the LXX in Lev. iv. 6, 7. " And the priest shall (bapsei) dip his finger in the blood, and (prosranei) sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, and before the veil of the sanctuary, — and shall (ekchei) pour out all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt- offering." Now, had the priest presumed to convert bapto here into sprinkling or pouring, he would have perverted the whole of this typical institution, been guilty of re- bellion against the Lord, and might justly have ex- pected immediate vengeance : and shall we think that the words of our Lord's commission are less plain and determinate than those of the law, and that we are at greater liberty to quibble upon, and alter them at pleasure ? The translators, in other cases, have rendered the primitive word bapto by the English word dip, wherever it occurs in the New Testament; see Matth. xxvi. 23. ?,lark xiv. 20. Luke xvi. 24. John xiii. 26. Rev. xix. 13. and had they in like manner translated it when expressive of this ordinance, every one would have known what action our Lord enjoins, when he says, baptizing them. They would then have seen, that men could no more be baptized by sprinkling or pouring, than they could eat the I^ord's Supper by seeing or smelling. 2. Neither sprinkle nor pour will make sense when substituted in place of the word baptize. They will not construe with (Iv) in, or (eh) into, one of which is alM ays affixed to the word baptize, when the thing into which men are baptized is mentioned. For instance, J ohn baptized Qv t^j lo^Javjj) in Jordan, or (e(? tov lo^^awv) Believers -Bapiism. iit^'J into Jordan, Matth. iii. 6. Mark. i. 9. we have also (iv v^aTi) in water, (sv TtveviMaTi aym) in the Holy Ghost, Matth. iii. 11. (e/j rov Mmcrnv) into Moses, 1 Cor. x. 2. {tU X^irov) into Christ, Gal. iii. 27. Rom, vi. 3. This then being the uniform style of the original, let us try what language it will make with sprinkling or pouring. " Teach all nations, pouring them (e/j) into the name, &c. — And were poured of John in Jordan. — I indeed pour you in water — he shall pour you in the Holy Ghost," &c. This is strange style, and does not make sense ; for it conveys an idea as if the persons them- selves were poured as liquids into any thing. The like observation may be made on the other passages where baptism is mentioned, such as, " He that be- lieveth and is poured,' &c. Mark xvi. 16. — " Into what then were ye 'poured f Acts xix. 3, &c. which answers only to liquids, not persons. But if we sub- stitute the word dip or immerse, which is the true English of the Greek word, then the sense is clear. Neither will sprinkle answer for the word baptize ; for how would it sound to say, " Sprinkle them in water, sprinkle them into Jordan," &c. ? This conveys the idea of any thing thrown in small scattered portions into water, and cannot suit persons. The translators were sensible of this impropriety ; and therefore, instead of in or into, they have given us with, * to make it agree with sprinkling, except in such places as it would not answer, such as Matth. iii. 5. Mark i. 9. Rom. vi. 3. Gal. iii. 27. Acts xix. 3. and yet the original words are the same in the other passages as in these. Thus it is evident, that pouring or sprink- • Ev cannot be rendered with in the case of baptism, because the •ther word £iV cannot be so rendered. 2i) i A Defence of ling, if substituted for baptism, are both contrary t© scripture, and all propriety of speech. 3. The circumstances of our Lord's baptism, and of the eunuch's, shew it to have been immersion. Jesus was baptized of John (ei?) into Jordan, Mark i. 9. for he went up out of the water, and so must have been down in it, Matth. iii, 16. With regard to the eunuch nothing can be plainer. They came $rst (btti ri v^cof) to, or upon a certain water. Acts viii. 86. and this is all the length that some will allow them to have come ; but, the text adds further, " and they went down both (eig ro i/Jiu^) into the water/' ver. 38. where Philip baptized him ; and when this was performed, we have them coming (g« ts b^arof) " out of the water." ver. 89. 4. The places which John chose for baptizing prove it to be immersion, viz. Jordan and Enpn. His reason for chusing the latter place, we are expressly told, was " because there was much water there," John iii. 23. which could only be necessary for im- mersion. Some, however, have diminished the waters at Enon into small shallow rivulets, to prevent im- mersion if possible ; and no doubt they would have done the same with Jordan, if they were not more afraid of a sneer, than of wresting the scriptures ; for they would rather turn the whole country into a dry parched wilderness, than suffer John to immerse any. But that we may swell these waters at Enon again to a proper depth, let it be noticed, that the words v^ara wo^Aa much water, or many ivaters, are the same that are used Rev. i. 15. chap. xiv. 2. chap, xix, 6. which do not signify the purling or murmuring of shallow brooks or rivulets, but the boisterous roaring of great Bdievers'- Baptism. 295 waters like those of the sea, for it is compared to the Toice of mighty thunderings ; and that the land of Canaan was abundantly supplied with deep waters, is evident from Deut. viii. 7. 5. The allusions which the apostle makes to baptism point out the manner of the action. Christians are said to be baptized into the death of Christ, to be buried with him by baptism, and therein also to be risen with him, Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12. But if there were no kind of burial in baptism, how could it be al- luded to as the sign of our burial with Christ ? In whatever sense we are buried, it cannot be in baptism, if there is no burial there ; nor can there be any pro- priety in mentioning baptism as the sign of a resur- rection, if no such thing is to be seen in it. But when we consider, that baptism is a burial in, and a resur- rection from water, the similitude is striking, and these passages clear and simple. Here our author tells us, that " they are baptized into the truth testified by the Three that bear record in heaven concerning Jesus. This makes baptism (he should have said sprinkling or pouring) a proper re- presentation of his death and resurrection, and of guilty men's having fellowship with him in his death and resurrection." That is, in short, the thing sig- nified makes any kind of sign a proper representation of it! and, by the same rule, he might have told us, that we eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood by faith, and this makes any other kind of sign, as well as eating the broken bread and drinking the cup, a proper representation thereof. But the main thing we should attend unto is the will of the Great Insti tutor, who hath expressly appointed the sign to be 298 A Defence of baptism or immersion, and not sprinkling or pouring ; any other sign than this, be it what it will, is not his ordinance, either in name or thing, and therefore can in no respect be a proper representation, but human invention, whereby the law of Christ is made void. I am. Dear Sir, Yours, &.C. Believers*-Baptism. 297 APPENDIX. «^.#^#^^4S#- It may not be improper to add a few more strictures on what Mr. Huddleston, and othersrhave advanced/ which did not fall in my way in answering the " Remarks." It is but too common for persons, when they cannot confute their antagonist by fair reasoning, to betake themselves to reproach and invectives ; and hence it is, that the charge of self-righteousness is brought against us for denying infant sprinkling. Mr. Glas says, that " The denial of infant-baptism comes of making the salvation by baptism to lie in something else than the thing signified, even in that, whatever it be, which distinguishes the adult Christian from his infant, though our Lord expressly declares, that we must enter his kingdom even as infants enter it." — " This (says Mr. Huddleston) interferes with every argument brought to support the denial of infants baptism. * — Our denying infant-baptism because we cannot see them of the true Israel, will be followed with this consequence, that we have something about us which shews us of the true Israel, that has no respect to our infants entitling them to our regard as such Israelites ; f — and this is influenced by the no- tion, that we become members of this Israel by some ability which distinguishes us frgm,. pyij helpless in- fants. J — The true reason for not admitting )ii|.fants to baptism, is, the eflfect of making our salvation to lie in that which distinguishes us from them."§ • Letf CI «, p. 36, t Ibid, p. 37. } Ibid, p. 3S.. ,$ }W, p. 40. 298 A Defence of This argument (if it may be called one) reminds me of Tvhat Archbishop Tillotson says of transubstantiation ; " It will suffer nothing to be true but itself." But how does all this prove, that Christ hath commanded infants to be baptized ? The question about their bap- tism must be determined by scripture, and not by the self-righteous disposition of those who deny it; for suppose all the deniers of infant-baptism were nothing but a parcel of self-righteous Pharisees, it would no more prove infant-baptism, than Mr. Huddleston's holding it in connection with the church of Rome, * will prove the contrary. Self-righteousness can find access upon either side of this controversy. It has a deeper root in our hearts than to shift its quarters upon our changing sides in an argument, and can find its account even in contending for the truth. I have however, in my second letter to Mr. Glas, demonstrated that this charge is false so far as it relates to our reasons for denying infant-baptism, which is all that belongs to the merits of the cause. We firmly believe, and readily acknowledge, that infants are as capable of the grace of God, or of sal- vation, as adults are, and that adults are saved by that very thing which saves elect infants ; but still we deny that infants are proper subjects of gospel ordinances, such as hearing the word, baptism, the Lord's Supper, &c. These ordinances were never intended for them in infancy, nor are they capable of any benefit from them. He owns himself that infants cannot un- derstand or believe the gospel; f nor can they dis- cern the thing signified in baptism, for this is the same with understanding and believing the gospel. * Letters, p. 34. t Ibid, p. 54, 57, 62. Believers^ -Baptism. 29i When we say that infants can reap no benefit by the ordinances, we do not mean that they cannot be saved, but only that these ordinances are not the means of edification to them as they are to adults. The benefit of baptism, as well as of the word preached, and the Lord's Supper, can only be enjoyed in understanding and believing what is represented by them ; for as the evident end of these ordinances is to represent and set forth something to us for our in- struction, edification, and comfort, these ends are gained, only so far as the thing represented is dis- cerned or believed, see Heb.iv. 2. Acts viii. 37. 1 Pet. iii. 21. 1 Cor xi. 29. * We must not imagine, that the water in baptism operates in the way of a charm, as the Papists believe of their holy water ; or that the •sacred name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is to be used as a spell, having no respect to the understanding of the subject. No ; it is an emblematical preaching to the judgment of the person baptized, and a com- fortable pledge to him of the remission of his sins, and of his fellowship with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, for the strengthening of his faith, the con- firmation of his hope, and so to influence his love to, * This Mr. Glas fairly owns, where he says, " For this is the nature «f the ordinances of divine service in the New Testament, that they are not complete in the outward and visible action, which is no more but the mean of engaging us in, or of expressing outwardly, the nature of the ordinance, which is spiritual and invisible : Thus baptism is not complete in the washing of the body with water, without the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience, which is the substance of that or- dinance, as we may see from Peter's words, 1 Pet. iii. 21. — And so ■when a believer of the gospel eats of the bread, and drinks of the cup, without feasting with God, as has been said, upon Christ's sacrifice, we may say, he did not eat the Lord's Supper." Glas's Works, vol. ir. p. 174, 175. 300 A Defence of and obedience of the gospel. Though infants can reap no benefit by gospel ordinances, of which they know nothing, yet they are at no loss, since the elect among them obtain that salvation represented by them, as well as the adalt believer does. Adults have no ground to glory over infants on account of any thing they do in the use of these ordinances, for the ordi- nances themselves hold forth no ground of hope to them, but what is equally free and efficacious for the salvation of infants who are incapable of observ- ing them, "We are charged with laying a self-righteous stress on the profession of the faith ; but a profession must at least be so far necessary to baptism, as to satisfy the baptizer (who cannot search the heart) that the person is a proper subject of that ordinance. And in this we agree with Mr. Glas, who says, " By this profession ONLY we (who cannot search the hearts of men) are capable to know the members of Christ in this world ; — whilst that appearance is to be seen in any person, there we must see a member of the body of Christ. — So far then as any continue in the confession of the word of the truth of the gospel, as it is the word of God, and as it sanctifies them, distinguishing them from the world, — so far they are proper objects of that love which he requires towards the known elect in his new commandment."* Now, this is the place we assign to a profession, and is all the stress we lay upon it with respect to baptism. We find that Philip demands it of the eunuch to clear his way for bap- tizing him. Acts viii. 37. and Mr Glas says, that bap- tism " cannot be administered to any but upon a con- * Glai'* Works, vol. iv. p. 38, lf8. Believers-Baptism. 801 fession, by which the baptized can be called disciples according to the scripture." To set aside the pro- fession of the faith by which alone we can discern who are disciples (i. e. persons instructed or taught in the truth, as the word imports) would be to overthrow at once the whole grounds of separation from the world, or any method by which it could be effected. Mr. Huddleston himself owns, " that a profession of faith before baptism does not indicate our disaffection to the salvation represented therein." * A conde- scending concession indeed ! How then comes self- righteousuess to be connected with this profession in the Baptists more than in others ? Because, says he, we " deny that this profession gives our infants the same appearance of being in a state of salvation, and the same title to baptism it gives us ; for while this is the case with us, it is impossible we should not have some self-righteous stress resting upon our profession."t This is a very strange reason indeed ! He blames us for laying too much stress upon a profession, yet when he comes to explain himself, the blame falls on the opposite side. We hold, that a profession indicates only the faith or state of the individual person that makes it, and cannot answer for any other, however nearly related to him by blood ; whereas Mr. Hud- dleston thinks that a man's single profession is suf- licient to denominate the whole of his house holy and of the kingdom of heaven, and so subjects of baptism : ?i"ow, I think it requires very little penetration to de- termine which of us lays the greatest stress upon a profession. Should a man's house, for instance, con- sist of ten persons, our author would lay ten times * Letters, p. S9. t Ibid. 302 A Defence of more stress upon the parent's profession than we caa admit of. It is certain, the scripture lays more stress upon Adam's sin, and Christ's obedience, than upon the sin or obedience of any other individual that ever existed ; and I leave you to judge, whether he does not lay something of a similar stress upon the parent's profession. Does he not make the parent a represen- tative of his house in the faith and profession of the gospel, even as Christ is of the whole household of faith in his finished work ? Yet this is the man that charges self-righteousness upon those who dare not in their consciences build such a fabric upon their profession ! But I cannot think he grounds this charge of self- righteousness solely upon this foundation. What he intends to insinuate is, that we deny that infants are capable of salvation, and his reason for this can be no other than our denying them to be capable of bap- tism ; for he does not appear to understand how those who deny their baptism can believe their salvation. Hence it is that he puts the question, " Upon what does the author rest his opinion, that there are elect infants to obtain this salvation in infancy?"* — Remove the baptism of infants, and the very basis upon which he rests his opinion of their election and salvation is overturned. Deny this, and it appears to him a " de- nying that any infants can appear from scripture to be elected to this salvation."t When we see the author gravely and earnestly combating his own shadow, in order to prove, what was never denied, that infants as well as adults are of the kingdom of heaven, % what propriety can we see in all this reasoning, if it be not * Letters, p. 37. t Ibid, p. 37. t Ibid, i>. 59. Believers" -Baptkm. 803 his opinion, that to deny the baptism of infants, is the same as to deny their being of the kingdom of heaven? Now, if we trace this sentiment to its source, we shall find it proceeds from his making baptism necessary to salvation ; for if he cannot see how the salvation of infants can be held without baptizing them, then their baptism and salvation must be so inseparably con- nected in his mind, as that a denial of the former, ne- cessarily implies to him a disbelief of the latter. This is the only foundation upon which his charge of self-righteousness can stand consistently. It is in- deed the old argument upon which infant-baptism was at first introduced, and upon which the Papists and many ignorant Protestants hold it to this day ; and hence we may account for the solicitude of parents to have their children christened (as they call it) when in danger of death. Now, if this be not placing salvation in something else than the thing signified by baptism, it looks too like it. The author perhaps will be loath to admit this ; but, (to return him his own words with a little variation,) " there wants but a suitable occa- sion, with all his caution, to make this fully manifest. Men are more ready to place that confidence in bap- tism which belongs to the thing signified, than directly to own it ; nay, they show themselves very unwilling to own it, whilst all their reasoning for infant-baptism, from first to last, serves to demonstrate it. Let the pretended friends of divine sovereignty be gravely told, that their little children may be members of the kingdom of heaven, and saved without their faith, and even without baptism, and it may open a view to the hypo- crisy of their friendship." This author asks, " Whether or not does the ap- pearance of Christ's kingdom in this world include 304 A Defence of every age, as well as sort of men, that shall obtain sal- vation through his sufferings, death, and resurrection?"* To this I answer. Though all the true subjects of this kingdom appear at one time or other in this world, (their bodies being as visible as those of others,) yet they are not all visible to us in that respect which denominates them Christ's subjects ; of such are elect infants, who cannot, and many adults who do not, give proper evidence to us thereof; so that here is an age, as well as sort of men, which do not belong to the appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world, and yet obtain salvation through his death and resurrection. These we call the unknown elect, and agree with Mr. Glas in distinguishing the known elect from them by the profession of the faith. The appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world in- cludes no age or sort of men of all the innumerable company that shall be saved, but such as confess the faith, and give evidence to their fellow men that they know the truth. But we cannot say how great a mul- titude may be saved that are not included in the ap- pearance of Christ's kingdom in this world, both in- fants and adults. It is probable the greatest number of his subjects are not included in that appearance. He asks further, " upon what we rest our opinion that there are elect infants, since we do not allow that they are visible subjects of the new covenant ?"t Answ. We rest our opinion and firm belief, that there are elect infants, not upon their being the chil- dren of believers, nor upon the faith and profession of their parents, nor upon any passage of scripture hat inseparably connects the salvation of a man's * Letter*, p. 57. + Ibid, p. 37. Believers'- Baptism . 305 house with his own salvation ; but upon the scripture doctrine of election itself; which election, the apostle says, took place before men were born, Rom. ix. 11. before the foundation of the world, Eph. i. 4. so that there must be elect infants, else there would be no elect at all, for all mankind are infants before they become adults. Election is not influenced by their having done good or evil, but is according to th© sovereign good pleasure of God's will, who hath mercy upon whom he will, Rom. ix. 11, 15, 18. and hence we conclude, that it will stand as firm and sure with re- gard to that part of the elect who die in infancy as with respect to those of them who survive the infant state, and shew their calling and election by their love and obedience to the truth. But were it our opinion, that election went upon what distinguishes the adult be- liever from his infant, or any thing done by man, (whatever it be,) then we must either deny the salva- tion of those who die in infancy, or hold with the Papists, that baptism saves them, or with the author, that they are saved by the faith of their parents. Our Lord says expressly of little children, that " of such is the kingdom of heaven," Mark x.4. This clearly shows, that there are elect infants ; and, for my own part, I am much inclined to judge favourably of the state of all infants dying in infancy. He observes, that the churches are exhorted to " bring up their children in the nurture and admoni- tion of the Lord, Eph. vi. 4. which does not suit with their being considered out of the Lord" * It is indeed the indispensable duty of Christian parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the * LetUrs, p. 31. X :306 A Defence of Lord, i. e. to give them such correction and instruction as the Lord hath enjoined in his words They are their peculiar charge by the very lavsr of nature ; and the gospel obliges Christian parents to study the good of their souls as well as of their bodies, to set a godly example before them, and to instruct them in the doc- trines of the Christian faith : but how does this duty of the believing parent prove that his children are in the Lord, or the proper subjects of baptism ? Were not the apostles commanded to teach all nations the doctrine of the Lord ? And did this not suit with the nations being considered out of the Lord ? Is a parent free from all obligations of duty to his children, unless he can consider them as saved ? The apostle ad- dressing those who were married to unbelievers, says, " What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband ? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife ?" 1 Cor. vii. 16. even so it may be said in this case. What knowest thou, O pa- rent, whether thou shalt save thy child ? When this appears to be the case by the profession of their faith, then must they be considered as m the Lord ; then may they be baptized, but not before. But Eph. vi. 4. is foreign to the point, for it speaks not of infant children, but of such as are capable of admonition : the word vH6E7ia signifies to fix instruction upon their minds. In ver. 1. these children are ex- horted to obey their parents in the Lord ; and in ver. 4. fathers are forbid to provoke their children to wrath, but to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ; so that here are exhortations to the mutual duties of parents and children, even as of husbands and wives, masters and servants, &c. which shows that the children here intended are not mere infants, but \ Believers' -Baptism. 307 believing ctilldren, visible members of the churches, capable of receiving and obeying the word of ex- hortation, which he enforces by its being the first com- mandment with promise, ver. 2, 3. and a duty well pleasing to the Lord, Col. iii. 20. As to the expression in the Lord, it does not intimate any pecw/mr spiritual connection betwixt a parent and his children : Chris- tians are exhorted to marry only in the Lord, 1 Cor. vii. 39. wives to submit to their own husbands in the Lord, Col. iii. 18. This phrase signifies, either that they should obey their believing parents who are in the Lord, and so it is an additional motive of obedi- ence ; or, that they should obey in the Lord their pa- rents, i. e. in the fear of the Lord, manifesting their subjection to him in so doing, and then it agrees with the exhortation to servants. Col. iii. 22, 23. Eph. vi. 5, 6, 7, 8. The argument from circumcision seems to be almost given up by the Scots Independents. The anonymous writer of the Remarks, has not so much as mentioned it, and Mr. Huddleston has sapped the very foundation of it, where he says, " The promise which is to be- lievers and their children, belongs to the covenant made after those days ; and it was never said to Abra- ham, thou shalt be saved and thy house." * Here he fairly owns, that the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham, was not the same with the new cove- nant to which baptism belongs, and consequently he cannot argue from the circumcision of infants under the former, for the baptism of such under the latter. But whilst he distinguishes the covenants, he confounds the distinction of the seeds, and so makes baptism to * Letters, p. 63. X2 dOS A Defence of belong to the natural seed of believers, even as circum- cision belonged to the fleshly seed of Abraham. *' As to what is observed (says he) of natural and spiritual, parents and children are alike, both natural and both spiritual.* — The fleshly seed of New Testament be- lievers are really the spiritual seed of Abraham." f When we remind him, that the spiritual seed, or sons of God, under the New Testament, are described as " born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," John i. 12, 13. — that *' the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed — even the called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles," Rom. ix. 3, 24 — that therefore we cannot henceforth know any man after the flesli, or by his descent from religious ancestors, as in the Jewish church, but " that if any man be in Christ Jesus he is a new creature," 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. to these, and such passages, he replies. Will the infants of believers being born of the flesh, prevent their being typified by Israelitish infants? Could these infants typify any other sort of persons but what are born of the flesh ? — I suppose believers are the same way born of the flesh that their infants are, were they not therefore typified by Abraham's fleshly seed V'X This approaches very near to a burlesque of these passages. But the Holy Ghost, in denying that the spiritual seed are the children of the flesh, or born of blood, &c. does not mean that they come into the world in a dif- ferent way from others, or that they are without natural parents ; but the meaning is, that their natural birth, be it of whom it may, can neither constitute them the t Letters, p. 45. t Ibid, p. 73. % Ibid, p. 75. V Believers -Baptism. 309> spiritual seed, nor distinguish them as such to us. The covenant of circumcision was made with the fleshly seed of Abraham, and so their natural birth, by which they descended from him, sufficiently distin- guished them in infancy as the subjects of circumcision ; but the new covenant to which baptism belongs, re- spects only the spiritual seed who are born again; and as these are not known to us till they profess the faith, it is demonstrably clear that they cannot be bap- tized in infancy. Thus stands the argument from cir- cumcision, which, with the distinction of the covenants, I have fully handled in my seventh Letter to Mr. Glas. Nothing can be more agreeable to scripture than what Mr. Glas advances upon the distinction of the fleshly and spiritual seed, throughout the greatest part of his writings. The whole of his excellent treatise on the kingdom of Christ as not of this world, is founded upon that distinction. There he tells us, that " the earthly birth, or that birth after the flesh, availed much in the state of the church erected at Sinai, as to the enjoyment of the privileges of it. But now, our Lord says to Nicodemus, Except a man be born again, (or from above,) he cannot see the kingdom of God." &c. * Would not any one think, that he here sets aside the fleshly birth, or connection with believing parents, as of no account in the kingdom of Christ? But it seems he meant no such thing ; for, by his rule of dis- tinguishing the infant subjects of the kingdom of heaven, he gives as much place to the fleshly birth, as ever it had in the Jewish church, and so builds again the things which he destroyed. But if his adherents will still maintain, that he keeps this distinction clear and consistent, T should oe * Glas'i Works, vol. i. p. 53. 310 A Defence of glad to be informed wherein it lies. The distinction does not lie in this, that the holiness of believers' chil- dren comes not by natural generation ; for neither did that of old Israel come by natural generation, but by a covenant separating them and their seed to be a pe- culiar people to the Lord : — Nor does it lie in this, that the word of God declares the infants of believers holy ; for so does it declare those of old Israel: — Neither does the distinction lie in this, that the fleshly birth does not entitle to the spiritual privileges of Christ's kingdom ; for neither did it entitle to the temporal pri- vileges of the earthly kingdom. Old Israel obtained the earthly inheritance by the covenant made with their father Abraham, Gen. xv. 18. abstract from this, they had no claim to it upon the footing of their birth or righ- teousness more than any other people, Deut. ix. 4, 5, 6. Wherein, then, did the fleshly birth avail more for- merly than it does now ? or what is the foundation of the above distinction? If his arguments for infant pouring (so he leads us to call it) hold good, it unde- niably follovi^s, that the earthly birth, or that birth after the flesh, avails more in the kingdom of God, than ever it did in the state of the church erected at Sinai ; for then it could only distinguish the fleshly seed of Abra- ham, who were typically holy, and entitled to the tem- poral privileges of the earthly kingdom; whereas, under the gospel, he makes it to distinguish the spiri- tual seed of Christ, who are truly holy, and entitled to the spiritual and everlasting privileges of the kingdom of heaven. I shall conclude these miscellaneous observations with a word or two upon Dr. Stuart's Sermon on the Kingdom of Christ. * Speaking of the distinction of * When the author wrote this, Dr. Stuart wis not a Baptist, but ha Ikecame one soon after-. Believers'-Baptism, 311 tJhrist's subjects from the world, he saj^s, " They are such as know the Father as he hath discovered him ; — receive and are firmly -persuaded of the' divine au- thority in Christ's words; — are brought into a de- lightful and complacential union with one another ; — are preserved in this, and in union with God, by the words of Jesus ; — through these too partake of his in- effable joy." * Distinguishing them from the subjects of the earthly kingdom by the nature of their hirth, he says, that John gives an account of the way that sub- jects were born to God under the law, John i. 10 — 14. but that the new and heavenly birth by which men enter into the kingdom of God, is set forth in Christ's discourse with Nicodemus, chap. iii. 1 — 6. f He dis- tinguishes also their holiness : " Israel indeed was a holy nation ; but the national holiness of Israel was only outward and typical. They were a holy people by virtue of their descent from the sons of Jacob, and by virtue of their observation of the covenant made with them at Sinai. But the holiness of Christ's kingdom is the substance of this. All his subjects are really and internally, as well as outwardly holy."| He denies that they can be distinguished without charity : " Outward appearances, which fall short of proving persons possessed of charity, shall no more mark them out, as once, the subjects of the kingdom of God." § He rejects the distinction between the sub- jects of Christ's kingdom as it appears in this world, and the spiritually holy nation of them that are saved, as a distinction only suited to a national church. " The apostles describe the kingdom of Christ by names, pri- vileges and characters, which do not belong, nay, are * Page 4. t Page 8. note. t Ibid. § Page 5. 312 A Defence of opposite to these which belong to the kingdoms of this world. They write to every particular congregation or church, and of them, as consisting of these, all of whom without exception they judged to be the childreh of God, chosen, redeemed, called, and separated from the world. — None, it is evident, were Cliristians in the sight or opinions of the apostles, who they were not bound to think, and did not think. Christians in God's sight."* I confess I was much edified and delighted with his description of Christ's subjects, and my heart warmed in love to the author for the truth's sake, which he so clearly and boldly maintains through the most of that Sermon. But how great was my disappointment when I advanced to page 43, and found him distinguishing the subjects of Christ's kingdom by characters very different from the above ! No sooner does he turn his thoughts to infant-baptism, than his views of the kingdom are immediately corrupted, and losing sight of the grand hinge of the difference, he descends into mere trifling with the national church about sponsors, bastards, and foundlings ; as if the distinction between Christ's subjects and the world stood in the faith of their parents, or the legitimacy of their carnal birth. Alas, what a falling off is here ! He cannot admit of sponsors, " because all the lines of argument in favour of infant-baptism issue from the faith of the parent as their centre ; but this device sup- • Page 8, 9. His brother, the anonymous Reniarker on Scripture Texts, is, however of a very different opinion, and charges those m ho bold the above sentiment with " ^leceiving the hearts of those who believe without proper evidence, and blinding the minds of those who receive not the simple sayings of the Son of God." But perhaps this is one of the things on which they have agreed to differ. Believers'- Baptism. 313 poses the contrary, at least its doubtfulness." * Yet the device of sponsors is far more ancient than the de- vice of the parent's faith, though both of them are de- vices equally void of foundation in the word of God, as marking the baptized with the sign of the cross, and giving them a mixture of milk and honey, a practice at least full as ancient as infant-baptism. After all, what is the parent in this case but a sponsor for his child in the strictest sense of the word ? Are the subjects of the kingdom of heaven then to be dis- tinguished by the faith of proxies? Does this distinc- tion correspond with any of the above ? Or rather, does it not overthrow them, and make all that has been said upon the subject much ado about nothing? Again, if infant-baptism rest entirely on the faith of the parent, then neither he nor his brethren can be sure they have obtained Christian baptism, unless they know their parents were believers. As to bastards and foundlings, where do we find the New Testament distinguishing the subjects of baptism from these ? Does the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the carnal birth make any difference in the kingdom of Christ? The Jews indeed claimed a relation to God as his children, from their being Abraham's seed, and not born of fornication, like the unlawful issue of idolaters; but our Lord repels their claim upon that footing, and gives them to understand, that unless they believed, continued in his word, loved him and did the works of Abraham, neither the faith of Abraham their father, (however distinguished,) nor the legitimacy of their carnal birth as descended from him, could avail * Page 43. note. 314 A Defence of them any thing, as to the enjoyment of the privileges of his kingdom, John viii. 31 — 48. Upon the whole, we may affirm, that no man can hold the distinction of the kingdom of Christ from the Jewish theocracy and kingdoms of this world, in any consistency with the arguments for infant-baptism. This point, however trivial it may appear to some, is of such a nature as to affect all our ideas of that dis- tinction, and leaven the whole. For, if we once admit the notion, that the subjects which compose this kingdom, may be known or distinguished by any thing, be it what it will, which comes short of their mani- festing their being of the truth, believing it, loving it, hearing Christ's voice, and following him, this single sentiment, if followed out, will infallibly lead us to blend the kingdom of Christ with the world, even in its visible appearance, and make all we advance to the contrary a jumble of inconsistencies. 11* STRICTURES ON In a Letter to Mr. Richards, of Lynn. DEAR SIR, In Mr. Carter's Remarks on your Observations on Infant-sprinkling, I find very little argument. Others, however, may be of a very different opinion; and hence it may be proper to say something by way of reply. Neither my time at present, nor the bounds of a single sheet, will permit me to enter fully into the sub- ject; and there is the less occasion, as you inform me that you intend to publish. His Letter I. is taken up with his own vindication. I hope you will do him all manner of justice. In Letter II. He still contends that the words bapto and baptize signify any mode of washing, particularly sprinkling and pouring, but he has not produced one passage where they must necessarily be so understood. Neither Mark vii. 4. nor Luke xi. 38. mention what he calls unbaptized hands. There is no such expression in all the scriptures, that I know of; and though there were, it would not favour either sprinkling or pouring, for hands are not ordinarily washed in such ways. He surely knows that nipto is the word for washing hands, Mark vii. 2, 3. and that the baptism, ver. 4. is such as was performed on cups, brazen vessels, tables or beds, which is expressed. Lev. xi. 32. by putting them into water. Though the Jews held things un- clean which really were not so, yet they are not blamed for using a different mode of cleansing from 316 Strictures on that prescribed in the law for things ceremonially pol- luted. The divers baptisms mentioned Heb. ix. 10. must signify the divers bathings prescribed both to priests and unclean persons, on diflferent occasions; because the apostle distinguishes sprinkling from these baptisms by another word, ver. 13. and the law distinguishes dipping, sprinkling, and pouring, as three difterent actions. Lev. iv. 6, 7. — If the law does not command one man to take another and plunge him under water, must it follow that Christ does not command one man thus to baptize another ? — I know not where he finds the scripture using the (derivative) word bap- tizo, " when only part of the body was washed." If you do, pray dash out this, and conceal my ignorance. The primitive bapto is indeed used to express the dipping (not the washing) of a finger, Luke xvi. 24. and an hand, Matth. xxvi. 23. but these may be as effectually dipped as the whole body. In Letter III. He insists that the promise Acts ii. 38, 39. is the promise made to Abraham, because the Apostle mentions that promise on another occasion, chap.iii. 19—25. (strange logic indeed !) — and because the blessing of Abraham includes the promise of the Spirit, Gal. iii. 14. as if that was the only promise of the Spirit which Peter could refer to in Acts ii. ! Yet Peter speaks not a word of the promise made to Abra- ham in the whole of that discourse, but cites at large the promise of the Spirit from Joel — shews its begun accomplishment in what was then seen and heard, and applies it to the Jews nearly in the very words of that Prophet — comp. ver. 39. with Joel ii. 32. — By the children he understands infants, but neither the pro- mise to Abraham, nor that in Joel, speak of infants. " They ivliich are of faith, the same are the children Mr. Carter's Remarks. 317 of Abraham," Gal. iii. 7. " They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham," ver. 9. And they ** re- ceive the promise of the Spirit through faith," or be- lieving, ver. 14. In Joel there is no mention made of any children but the sons and daughters, who should prophesy upon receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; and these are evidently the children the apostle speaks of. — By " all that are afar off," he un- derstands Gentiles. But whether Peter by that ex- pression intends Gentiles (which, from many considera- tions, is not likely,) or only dispersed Jews, it makes all one as to the argument, since he restricts the promise to those only whom the Lord shall call ; and none can appear to us the called of the Lord, but such as com- ply with his call to faith and repentance. Nor do we read of any, %vho were baptized on that occasion, but such as gladly received Peter's word, ver. 41. He says. Letter IV. " The apostle's words (1 Cor. vii. 14.) plainly imply, that in consequence of one of the pa- rents professing the Christian faith, their children are holy ; whereas if both were unbelieving their children would be unclean." But his words imply no such thing. The apostle says nothing of the lawful children of two unbelieving parents, nor does he give the least hint that such are unclean. Neither does he make the holi- ness of the children a consequence of one of the parents professing the Christian faith ; but of the unbelieving parent being sanctified. " The unbelieving wife (says he) is sanctified by the husband ; else were your chil- dren unclean ; but now" (since the unbelieving party is sanctified) " are they holy." Now what kind of holi- ness is it, that thus depends upon the holiness of an un- believer ; ''Not an holiness of nature, (says Mr. Carter) feutan holiness in themselves, i. e. an holiness of statt 318 Strictures on derived to them from the believing parent's covenant, or that new covenant in which the believing parent m interested ; and therefore a further holiness than that of the unbelieving parent." But where does the apostle thus distinguish the holiness of the children from that of the unbelieving parent ? If the children's holiness is derived from the believing parent's covenant, the holiness of the un- believer must be more immediately so ; because it is the medium tlirough which the holiness of the children is derived, and without which they would be unclean, *' else were your children unclean ;" and therefore the children's holiness cannot be a further holiness than that of the unbelieving parent through which it comes, but must of necessity be of the very same kind ; for new covenant holiness can never depend in any sense upon the sanctification of an unbeliever ; nor does it depend upon the sanctification of the believing parent himself, nor even upon the legitimacy of the natural birth. The bastard children of unbelievers may have new covenant holiness, and the legitimate children of believers may want it. I do not say that the holiness of the children is originally derived from the holiness of the unbelieving parent. The holiness of both is originally derived from the ordinance of God, making the one a lawful wife to the believer, and consequently the other a law- ful issue, which was not the case under that law whereby old Israel were separated from the nations. This is the only sense which suits the apostle's argu- ment, and the scruples of the believing Corinthians. Mr. Carter's account of the children's holiness agrees neither with the holiness of the old nor new covenant, bat is only a piece of corrupted Judaism. I must not Mr. Carter' $ Remarks, 319 stay however to examine it. He says, " The state of the unbelieving parent neither is nor can be declared holy;" yet the apostle declares that the unbelieving wife (vyiarai) is made holy ; must she not therefore be holy ? and what more is declared of the children ? Goodwin's remark upon the use of hagia instead of kathara is mere trijfling. His Letter V. begins with the argument from Mark x. 13, 14. Where I find nothing worth noticing except the following quotation. — " By such we must under- stand little ones properly so called.'' — Granted — "but not all such, since the persons who brought these in- fants or little ones to Christ, were without doubt his followers, or such as had an high veneration for him — • they were Jews, not heathens," &c. All this may be very true, for any thing T know ; but where do we learn that {tuv roinTuv) of such, has any the least reference (roig 7:§o(r(pE^ii<7iv)to those who brought them? The \\ords are not, of the children of such, as brought them ; but of such (-TTai^iuv,) little children is the kingdom of God ; i. e. the kingdom of God includes such young subjects as these. Here is no distinguishing of children by the character of their parents. Nor does this passage afford the least warrant for baptizing them, but the contrary. They were not brought to be baptized. Jesus himself did not baptize them, for he baptized none, John iv. 2. Nor did he command his disciples to do it ; nor would they have forbidden infants to have been brought unto him had they been accustomed to baptize such.— T^e kingdom of God here evidently means his invisible kingdom, for it is such as none can enter, but those who receive it as little children, ver. 15. or are converted and become as little children, Matth. xviii. 3. Whereas many enter his visible kingdom who 320 Strictures on are not really converted, Matth. xxv. 1—13. Yet to this last only does baptism belong, for this good rea- son, because it is not administered by Christ himself, who knows whom he hath chosen, but by fallible men, who can judge only by outward appearance. It is of little consequence whether we grant baptism to have come in place of circumcision or not, provided we keep clear the distinction between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise, which dis- tinction runs through the whole New Testament, and is particularly stated Rom. ix. and Gal. iii. and iv. Thi^ distinction cuts down at once all the arguments from circumcision. With this scripture distinction in our eye, we may freely admit, that as circumcision be- longed to all the fleshly seed of Abraham under the old covenant, who were known to be such by their natural birth ; so does baptism belong to all the spiritual seed of Abraham under the new covenant, when they appear to be such by the confession of their faith in Christ. Mr. Carter endeavours to confound this distinction ; " Where (says he) does the Holy Ghost apply the term carnal seed to the infants of believers ? Is not carnal always used to denote the character of adults who live according to the desire of the flesh, and of the mind ? This distinction therefore, the carnal and spiritual seed of Christians, is totally without foundation." p. 48, 51. — The term carnal is frequently applied to things as well as persons; see Rom. xv. 27. 1 Cor. ix. 11. 2 Cor. iii. 3. Heb. vii. 16. and ix. 10. When applied to adults, it generally marks something bad in their character or conduct, but not always to that extent he mentions ; for it is applied to Christians, 1 Cor. iii. 1, 3, 4. But the expression he excepts to is carnal seed; and where does he find this used to denote the character Mr. Carters Remarks. 321 of adults in distinction from that of infants ? Were there none of believing Abraham's children a carnal seed in their infancy ? How then were they " the children of the flesh," Rom. ix. 8. " horn after the flesh," Gal. iv. 23 ? But he has mistaken us altogether ; for we do not divide the infant ofi'spring of Cliristians into their carnal and spiritual seed. We affirm that, as the seed of Christians, they are all carnal, because in this respect Christians are only the fathers of their jlesh, or carnal part, in distinction from God the father of spirits, Heb. xii. 9. " That which is born of the flesh is flesh," or carnal, let it spring of whom it may, John iii. 6. Further, we affirm, that the infants of Christians are, in their first birth, " Shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin," Psal. li. 5. and are "by nature the children of wrath even as others," Eph. ii. 3. The first state even of the children of God is carnal, and this commences with their very existence, and con- tinues till they are changed. In both these senses they may very properly be called their carnal seed. But it is quite improper to call the believing children of Christians their spiritual seed ; for, as believers, they are the children of God, Gal. iii. 26 — the seed of Abraham, ver. 29. — the children of Jerusalem which is from above, the free woman, chap. iv. 26, 31. And, in this respect, not the children, but brethren of their be- lieving parents. — Indeed, if the parents are instrumental in begetting them to the faith, they may in that sense be called their children, as Timothy was Paul's son, 1 Tim. i. 2. and the Galatians his little children. Gal. iv. 19. But this relation is not peculiar to parent and child, nor can it take place in mere infancy; besides, the children may sometimes be instrumental in converting their parents. Y 322 Strictures on Letter VI. Contains some testimonies from the ancients ; but as he " cannot feel himself in the least moved by the authority of such ancients to believe that iwmerst on was the practice of the apostles of Christ, who enjoined the churches to do all things decently," p. 17. he cannot with any good grace urge their au- thority upon us for Infant Sprinkling, contrary to the commission and uniform practice of the apostles, sup- posing there were any such authority to produce before the latter end of the second century, which I believe there is not. I shall therefore proceed to Letter VIL Wherein he handles the Argument from the baptism of whole houses. In reply to the quota- tions from my pamphlet, he charges me with '' begging the question, or taking for granted the point in de- bate," p. 72. In answer to this charge I shall state the question. And see which of us has begged it. The question or point in debate, if I mistake not, is this. Whether there were any infants baptized in those houses? I denied there were — 1. Because in all the accounts of those houses, there is not a word said of infants or of their baptism ; for this I referred to the passages them- selves.— 2. Because it is affirmed of a// that were bap- tized in those houses, that they believed, rejoiced, 5fc. This also I rested upon the authority of these accounts, which was the best I could produce. I know nothing, therefore, which I have taken for granted, except it be this, that infants cannot be said to believe, rejoice, i^c. and for this I shall only appeal to common sense. — It might reasonably be expected that the Poedobap- tists, however firmly persuaded of their favourite point upon other grounds, would candidly give up those houses as unserviceable to their cause ; but instead of Mr. Carter's Remarks. 323 this they, with much confidence, beg one question after another in every step of the argument.— 1. They beg leave to assert that there were infants in those houses ; and — 2. They beg also to be excused from proving it, thinking they have sufficiently acquitted themselves when they put it upon us to prove the negative. Should we tell them there are many hotises ivithout infants, and that therefore their assertion is at best but uncer- tain— Should we come a little closer to the point, and remind them, that the scripture informs us all in those houses heard the word and believed, which infants were not capable of, and that therefore their assertion is evidently false ; they will then— 3. Beg to have it granted, that it was only the parent, not the house, that believed and rejoiced ; or, if that will not do, that the word all signifies only the adult part of a house, and that the other part consisted of infants. Should we, for argument's sake, grant them the unscriptural supposition, that there were infants in those houses, they have still — 4 To beg the question as to their baptism. How so ? Is it not said expressly, that all in those houses were baptized ? True ; but they have already begged that the word all might signify only a PART, i. e. the adult part of a house, therefore it can conclude for the baptism of none else ; so that to make out the baptism of these imaginary infants, they are obliged to reverse their former petition, and to beg they may be comprehended in the word all, from which they had before begged to exclude them. In short, when all in a house are said to believe, they re- strict it to adults ; but when all in the same passage, and in the very same house, are said to he ^ baptized, they extend it to infants : Why 1 Because they take it for granted that there were infants in those houses, Y2 324 Strictures on Mr. Carter's Remarks. and that they were proper subjects of baptism, which is the very point in debate. 1 am afraid there is some- thing worse than begging the question in this manner of arguing. It looks too like handling the word of God deceitfully. Mr. Carter's question, (p. 72) must be answered by him and his friends — we have nothing to do with it. I shall put it with a very little variation, and let him answer it if he can : *' By what rules of just and fair interpretation can" the Poedobaptists " prove that the same mode of expression which" they explain in one sense, when used of a house believing and rejoicing, " must be understood in a different point of view, when applied" to the same house baptized? If in the former" case " it can be referred only to" adults, " why, in the latter, must it be stretched any farther ?'* I am. Dear Sir, Yours, with all due respect Edinburgh, March 27, 1783, A LETTER TO A CORRESPONDENT; SHEWING That all the Argumerits for Infant-Baptism are ren- dered null by Pcedobaptisfs themselves ; and that there can be no positive divine institution without EXPRESS SCRIPTURE PRECEPT Of EXAMPLE. SIR, Though you admit that the Scriptures clearly sup- port our sentiments respecting the baptism of believers, as it is evident that those who were at first baptized must have been adult proselytes from Judaism or heathenism to the Christian faith ; yet still it is your opinion, that the baptism of their infants, though not expressly mentioned, is a thing very probable : and you think that the arguments which have been advanced for infant-baptism, by such a vast number of the most judicious, learned, and pious writers, if they do not altogether convince us, should at least make us less confident in our opposition to that practice. I am not in the least disposed to dispute either the learning or piety of those who have appeared as ad- vocates for infant-baptism ; and could I believe that it is a question of such an intricate nature as to require profound learning or distinguished abilities to determine it, I should certainly be very diffident of my own judgment. But if infant-baptism be really a positive institution of Christ, it can require no such singular qualifications to discern it ; and if it is not, then all the learning and reasoning in the world, however in- genious, can never convert it into one. •m 326 Examination of the Arguments It is very remarkable, that though Poedobaptists oi all denominations agree in the general conclusion, viz. that infants ought to be baptized, or, at least, that there is no harm in it ; yet they are far from being agreed as to the premises from whence they infer that conclusion ; for there is scarcely an argument which has been urged by any of them in support of it, but what has been contradicted by others of them, or con- sidered as inconclusive and foreign to the point : if you doubt the truth of this you may attend to the fol- lowing particulars. 1. The Poedobaptists differ widely among themselves about the grounds of the right which infants have to baptism. Some found it upon the universality of di- vine grace : others, upon the commission to disciple all nations. But many reject these grounds, and place it upon the law of circumcision, which they think war- rants the baptism of the infant seed of New Testament believers. Others doubt this, and affirm that it comes in place, or is rather a continuation of Jewish proselyte baptism ; while others deny that there was any such baptism previous to the Christian asra. Some ground it upon the entail of the covenant of grace on the na- tural seed of believers, at least during their infancy, and which gives them a right to baptism as being born holy and members of the true church for which Christ gave himself. Others deny this, and affirm, that it is by baptism they are brought into the bond of the cove- nant of grace, and constituted members of the true church. — Some place the right of infants to baptism on the engagement of a surety or sponsor, and many on the faith of the immediate parents, or, if these last happen to be ungodly, on the piety of their more re- mote ancestors, which they think conveys the right to respecting Infant-Baptism, 327 several succeedino^ generations ; but how far this ex- tends they are not yet agreed. Others deny any right derived from parents or ancestors, and place it on the faith and consent of the church, and some even on the authority of the Christian magistrate over his sub- jects. There are numbers who ground it on the sup- posed faith of the infant itself, which they presume it possesses in the seed, though not in the fruit ; and Lu- ther owns, " that little children should not be baptized at all, if it be true that in baptism they do not believe." Those who adopt this opinion seem to give up every other ground for infant-baptism, for they admit that nothing solid can be replied to the Baptists, without maintaining either that infants have faith before bap- tism, or that, in baptism, they are regenerated and be- lieve. In short, the various grounds upon which the right of infants to baptism has been placed, are not only contradictory in their own nature, but hav» actually been contradicted by Poedobaptists them- selves, one class of them overturning the hypothesis of another. II. The Poedobaptists are not agreed as to the sense of the scripture passages from which infant-bap- tism is inferred, nor as to the justness of the inferences or conclusions drawn from them. I shall take notice of those passages on which the main stress is laid. Gen. xvii. 7. " I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their ge- nerations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Many Poedo- baptists, not understanding that this covenant with Abraham had a twofold sense ; one literal and tem- poral, relating to his natural seed ; the other spiritual and eternal, respecting his spiritual seed, have applied 528 Examination of the Arguments it indiscriminately to the natural seed of New Testa* ment believers. But others of them admit this distinc- tion, and maintain, that, so far as this was a promise of spiritual blessings, it did not respect the natural seed of Abraham as such, but only his spiritual seed, by faith ; that in this view only does it include be- lieving Gentiles, Gal. iii. 26, 28, 29. but not the natural seed, of any as such, Matth. iii. 9. Rom. ix. 8. 2 Cor. V. 16, 17. See Zanchius, De nat. Dei, L. iv. c. v. § 5. Mr. Baxter's Disputat. of right to Sacram. p. 114, 115. Assem. of Divines' Annotat. on Rom. ix. 8. Beza's Annotat. on Gal. iv. 24. Venema, Dissertat. Sacrce, L. ii. c. ix. L. iii. c. ii. Mr. Williams's Notes on Morrice's Social Religion, p. 312 — 317. Gen. xvii. 12. " And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations," &c. From this command to circumcise the infant male seed of Abraham, it is commonly argued, that the natural seeadf believers should be baptized in infancy. But many Poedobaptists do not consider this argument as conclusive ; Lord Brooke says, " The analogy which baptism now hath with cir- cumcision in the old law, is a fine rhetorical argument to illustrate a point well proved before ; but I some- what doubt whether it be proof enough for that which some would prove by it ; since besides the vast differ- ences in the ordinances, the persons to be circumcised are stated by a positive law so express, that it leaves no place for scruple. But it is far otherwise in bap- tism, where all the designation of persons fit to be par- takers, for aught I know, is only such as believe. For this is the qualification that, with exactest search, I find the scripture requires in persons to be baptized ; and this it seems to require in all such persons. Now, respecting Infant- Baptism. 829 how infants can be said to believe, I am not yet fully resolved." Discourse of Epis. Sect. ii. chap. vii. p. 97. Venema, having observed that it is a received hypo- thesis that baptism succeeded in the place of circum- cision, says, " But what then ? Must I therefore allow, or does it thence follow, that the design and the end of baptism, and of circumcision, were the same? Certainly by no means. For according to the dif- ferent nature of the economies, there ought to be a different aspect of the sacraments, and a different end. — Circumcision, according to a twofold covenant, internal and external, which then existed, had likewise a twofold aspect, spiritual and carnal. The former re- ferred to the internal covenant of grace ; the latter to a legal, typical, and external covenant. That was concerned in sealing the righteousness of faith, as the apostle asserts (Rom. iv. 11.); this in the external pre- rogatives of Judaism, and in confirming external be- nefits. That was peculiar to the believing Israelites ; this was common to the whole people. — This twofold and different aspect of circumcision being supposed and admitted, the whole question will be. Whether baptism answers to both, or only to one of those dif- ferent appearances ? Whether it succeeds to circum- cision absolutely and in all respects, or in a restricted sense, and in some only ? Which controversy cannot be determined, but from a comparison of both econo- mies, a contemplation on the nature of each sacra- ment, and indeed the clear doctrine of scripture." And having observed, that the scripture no where afiirms that baptism holds the place of circumcision, and that Paul in Col. ii. 11, 1*2. only asserts that bap- tism answers to spiritual circumcision, he proceeds thus; "and seeing I perceive none [no reason] pro- 330 Examination of the Arguments duced for a perfect similitude, it is my intention to es- tablish an imperfect likeness, in order to make it appear that baptism succeeded circumcision, not ac- cording to an external, but only an internal and mys- tical consideration. The genius of the new economy affords the first and the clearest reason ; seeing a sa- crament of it cannot be foreign from its nature. Now that is spiritual, abhorrent of an external covenant, as I have endeavoured to demonstrate; wherefore it answers only to the spiritual part of the old economy/* From these considerations he concludes, that ** tO settle the external aspect and end of baptism, a com- parison of it with circumcision avails nothing at all." He also observes, that " our sacraments do not belong to any external covenant, as under the former dispensations ; but to the internal covenant of grace : which positive institutes no one can rightly or lawfully use, besides a true believer, who is internally a cove- nantee." Dissertat. Sacroe. L. ii. c. xv. See also Dr. Erskine's Theolog. Dissertat. p. 78, 79, 80. Mattb. xxviii. 19. " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" &c. Many of the Poedobaptists contend that infants are included in this commission ; that the word /xadyjreuffaTi, signifies to make disciples, and that infants are to be made disci- ples by baptism, and to be taught afterwards. But a great many of the most learned and judicious Poedo- baptist writers reprobate this gloss ; I shall instance only in three of them. Mr. Baxter says, " As for those that say they are discipled by baptizing, and not before baptizing, they speak not the sense of that text ; nor that which is true or rational, if they mean it abso- lutely as so spoken ; elstt why should one be baptized respecting Infant- Baptism. 331 more than another? — This is not like some occasional historical mention of baptism, but it is the very com- mission of Christ to his apostles for preaching and bap- tizing, and purposely expresseth their several works, in their several places and order. Their first task is by teaching to make disciples, which are by Mark called believers : The second work is to baptize them, whereto is annexed the promise of their salvation: The third work is to teach them all other things which are afterwards to be learned in the school of Christ. To contemn this order, is to renounce all rules of order; for where can we expect to find it if not here ? I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from this text, that it is one sort of faith, even saving, that must go before baptism, and the profession whereof the minister must expect." Disputat. of Right to Sacr. p. 91, 149, 150. Dr. RiDGLEY, having cited the words of the com- mission, says, ** I am sensible that some who have de- fended infant-baptism, or rather attempted to answer an objection taken from this and such like scriptures} against it, have endeavoured to prove that the Greek word signifies to make persons disciples — and therefore they suppose that we are made disciples by baptism, and afterwards to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded. — But I cannot think this sense of the word so defensible or agreeable to the design of our Saviour, as that of our translation, viz. Go teach all nations; which agrees with the words of the other Evangelist, Go preach the gospel to every creature. And besides, while we have recourse to this sense to defend infant-baptism, we do not rightly consider, that this cannot well be applied to adult baptism, which the apostles were first to S32 Examination of the Arguments practise : for it cannot be said concerning the heatheii/ that they are first to be taken under Christ's care by baptism, and then instructed in the doctrines of the gospel by his ministers." Body of Div. Quest. 166. Dr. Whitby thus comments upon this passage, ** Teach all nations. MaSnrtvEiv here is to preach the gospel to all nations, and to engage them to believe it in order to their profession of that faith by baptism ; as seems apparent. — 1. From the parallel commission, Mark xvi. 15. Go preach the gospel to every creature / he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. — 2. From the scripture notion of a disciple, that being still the same as a believer. — If here it should be said, that I yield too much to the Antipoedobaptists — I desire any one to tell me how the apostles could, fiuxQnTtveiv, make a disciple of an heathen, or unbe- lieving Jew, without being (jm^toi, or teachers of them ? whether they were not sent to preach to those that could hear, and to teach them to whom they preached, that Jesus ivas the Christ, and only to baptize them when they did believe this ?" &c. Matth. xix. 14. " Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me : for of such is the kingdom of God." Much use has been made of this passage in support of infant-baptism; but several Poedobaptist writers admit, that it is of little or no service to the cause. Mr. Poole's Continuators on the place give this caution, " We must take heed we do not found infant-baptism upon the example of Christ in this text ; for it is certain that he did not bap- tize these children. Mark only saith. He took them into his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them." Dr. Doddridge says, '' I acknowledge these words of themselves will not prove infant-baptism t«> respecting Infant-Baptism. 833 be an institution of Christ." Note on the place. Dr. "Whitby, having attempted to shew that these words are fitly used at the celebration of infant-baptism, adds, " But, say the Antipoedobaptists, Christ neither did baptize them, nor command the apostles to do it. Ans. That is not to be wondered at, if we consider that — Christian baptism was not yet instituted ; and that the baptism then used by John and Christ's dis- ciples, w^as only the baptism of repentance, and faith in the Messiah, which was for to come. Acts xix. 4 ; of both which infants were incapable." Annotat. on the place. With this Mr. Burkitt's note agrees almost verbatim. But here a question occurs. How are infants more capable of Christian baptism than they were of the baptism of John? Is it because Christian baptism requires neither faith nor repentance as that did ? Or are infants mentioned as subjects of the one any more than of the other ? Acts ii. 39. " The promise is unto you and to your children, axid to all that are afar ofi", even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." These words have also been frequently urged in favour of infant-baptism ; but many learned Poedobaptists deny that they have any relation to that subject. Thus Dr. Hammond says, " If any have made use of that very incon- cludent argument, [viz. from Acts ii. 39,] I have" nothing to say in defence of them — the word children there is really the posterity of the Jews, and not pe- culiarly their infant children." Works, vol. i. p. 490. LiMBORCH, having shewn that the apostle hyrtKvcc did not mean infants, but children or posterity, concludes thus, " Whence it appears, that the argument which is Yery commonly taken from this passage for the bap- tism of infants^ is of no force, and good for nothing ; 334 Examination of the Arguments because it entirely departs from the design of Peter. It is necessary, therefore, that Poedobaptism should be supported by other arguments." Comment, in loc. Dr. Whitby on the place says, " These words will not prove a right of infants to receive baptism. The promise here being that only of the Holy Ghost, men- tioned ver. 16, 17, 18. and so relating only to the times of the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, and to those persons who by age were made capable of these extraordinary gifts." Acts xvi. 15. " When she was baptized and her household." — Ver. 33. " And was baptized, he and all his, straightway." — 1 Cor. i. 16. " I baptized also the household of Stephanas." As many of the Poedo- baptists take it for granted that there were infants in those households, so they conclude that they were bap- tized : But here again their Posdobaptist brethren con- sider this argument as altogether uncertain. As to the household of Lydia, Dr. Whitby paraphrases the passage thus, " And when she, and those of her household, were instructed in the Christian faith, and in the nature of the baptism required by it, she was baptized, and her household." Limborch on the place says, " Whether any infants were in her house is uncertain. An undoubted argument, therefore, cannot be drawn from this instance, by which it may be demonstrated that infants were baptized by the apostles. — There might be [little] children in these families; yet the Holy Spirit furnishes me with no solid argument whereby I can demonstrate it — it does not expressly say there were any children in them : And though this should be granted, yet we are not in- formed that they were baptized together with their parents ; on the contrary, all those who were baptized respecting Infant-Baptism. 335 »Tc said to give thanks to God, which children could never do." Of the Jailer and his house it is said. He rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house. Acts xvi. 34. On which Mr. Henry observes, " There was none in his house that refused to be baptized, and so made a jar in the harmony ; but they were unanimous in embracing the gospel, which added much to the joy." With respect to the household of Stephanas, Dr. Hammond says, *' I think it unreasonable that the apostle's bare mention of baptizing his household should be thought competent to conclude that infants were baptized by him, when it is vmcertain whether there were any such at all in his house," Works, vol. i. p. 494. Indeed it appears clear there were none such in his house ; for the apostle in the same epistle •ays, " Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," 1 Cor. xvi 15. On which place Dr. Doddridge remarks, " This seems to imply, that it was the generous care of the whole family to assist their fellow Christians ; so that there was not a member of it which did not do its part." ] Cor. vii. 14. " The unbelieving husband is sanc- tified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanc- tified by the husband ; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." This text is strongly urged by many as a decisive proof of infant-baptism ; but there are also many learned and judicious Poedo- -baptist writers who differ from them, both as to the sanctification of the unbelieving parent, and the con- sequent holiness of the children, and deny that it has any relation to baptism. In opposition to that ex- ternal covenant holiness which many plead for, Vel- 836 Examination of the Arguments THUYSius says, ♦* Some think, by that holiness, men- tioned in 1 Cor. vii. 14. is to be understood such an external holiness as was possessed by an Israelite and a Jew, even though his life made it appear that he was not a true Israelite, whose praise is not of men, but of God. Now those who are of this opinion suppose, that there is a kind of external covenant under the gospel ; on account of which covenant some are called holy, though nothing appears in their lives to prove them real saints. But I see no intimation of this external covenant in the whole gospel." Opera. Tom. 1. p. 801. To the same purpose Vitringa writes, " We would have it observed, the apostle does not mean, that all the children of believers and saints are truly partakers of the Holy Spirit, and by him in- grafted into the body of the church ; for there is no promise of this prerogative made to believing parents ; nay, rather, the events of every day teach the contrary — [therefore] the generality of our divines recur to an external holiness, which has its original from an ex- ternal covenant. So that the children of believers are holy, because being separated from the world, they live and are educated in the communion of the external church. Like as the Israelites in former times, being chosen out of the other nations of the world, are called a holy nation, Exod. xix.6. though a very great part of them was impure ; and their children are denom- inated a holy seed, Ezra ix. 2. comp. with Neh. ix. 2. — But this is inconsistent with the clear doctrine of the divine word, and absolutely contrary to the genius of the new covenant. — So far from an external holiness of this kind having any place under the New Testament, that, on the contrary, this is the prerogative of the New Tes- tament or Covenant, that no one belongs to it, except h« fr*»' respecting Infant-Baptism. 337 be truly sanctified : no one is called holy, except he be truly considered as internally holy ; and in this consists the difl'erence between the Old and the New Covenant — that this is entirely spiritual, entirely internal." — But after all we must remember, that Vjtringa was a Poedobaptist, and therefore, though he denies that there is any external covenant holiness under the New Testament; nay, though he denies that the apostle means that all the children of believers are truly holy as being partakers of the Holy Spirit, or that there is any promise of this prerogative made to believing pa- rents ; yet he adds, " The infants of believing parents are therefore called holy, because we justly presume, that they are sanctified by the Holy Spirit in their pa- rents. For seeing God has conferred his grace on the parents, or on one of the parents, by a judgment of charity we presume, that he will afford the same grace to the infants as long as the contrary is not manifest to us." Observat. Sac. L. ii. c. vi. § 25, 26, 27, 28.— " We justly presume — by a judgment of charity we presume." — Presume what? " That infants are sanc- tified by the Holy Ghost in their parents." Does the apostle say so ? No. Is there any promise to that effect? No. Then to presume it, and to act upon it, is indeed presumption, mere presumption, and nothing else. As to the sanctificafion of the unbelieving parent, and the consequent holiness or cleanness of the children, many of the Poedobaptists agree with our view of both. Take the tbUowing for a specimen; " The apostle does not mean the sanctification of a married person, by which he becomes truly righteous and holy ; but that by which the use of marriage may be honourably enjoyed." Justinianus: apud Chamierum, Pa««fraf . Z 33S Exatnination of the Arguments Tom. iv. 1. V. c. X. § 47.—-" The sanctification intended relates to marriage." Salmero. Ibid. — " The children are called hobj in a civil sense ; that is, legitimate, and not spurious. — As if Paul had said, If your marriage were unlawful, your children would be illegitimate. But the former is not a fact; therefore not the latter/' SuARES and Vasques, Ibid.—" Hath been sanctified ; that is, legitimated, so that their marriage is lawful. This the apostle proves from the natural effect. For if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified, i. e. legi- timated, by the wife ; and if the unbelieving wife be not sanctified or legitimated by the husband, your children are unclean ; that is, they were born of an unlawful marriage ; rather of an illicit commerce. But now are they holy ; that is, legitimate, not bas- tards, or born of unchastity." Dietericus; apud Wolfium, Cur(e, in loc. — " We attribute this sanctifi- cation, that is cleanness, not to the faith of the be- lieving yokefellow, but to the marriage, by reason of the appointment of God ; with Hierome, who saith, because by God's appointment marriage is holy ; and Aaibrose, who hath it thus, the children are holy, because they are born of lawful marriage. — Nor is any other holiness or cleanness of children meddled with, than that which agrees also to unbelieving parents ; for to them no other agrees, than that which is by lawful marriage." Musculus. — " The unbeliever is said to be sanctified by marriage with the believer ; not as to the person, which is not sanctified, except by faith ; but as to use, and conjugal intercourse. — Paul here treats concerning a mutual participation of such holi- ness as depends upon conjugal custom, as Chry- sosTOM teaches ; a holiness which the believing and imbelieving partner have in common between them- respecting Infant-Baptism. 339 selves. Whence it follows, that these thhigs have been rashly and violently applied by Calvin, Beza, Paraeus, and others, to a natural or original holiness of children born of believers." Calovius' Bihlica Illustrata. Many other Poedobaptist writers agree in this sense of the passage. Indeed I know of no Scripture text which has been adduced to prove infant -baptism, which many of the most judicious Poedobaptists themselves have not considered either as entirely foreign to the point, or at least very doubtful. * III, Those who practise infant-baptism differ much from each other in their opinion as to what benefit in- fants derive from their being baptized. The Romish and Greek churches hold it to be necessary to their sal- vation. Protestants in general deny this, though many of them lean to that side. — The church of England aflSrms, that by it they are made the members of Christ the children of God, and the inheritors of the kingdom of heaven : others deny that baptism makes them such, but only seals and confirms these blessings to them. — Some maintain that it initiates them into the true in- visible church ; others, into the visible church ; while many insist that they are naturally members of the visible church by being born within the pale of it, and that their baptism is only an acknowledgment of this. — Many consider baptism as sealing to infants the be- nefits of an external covenant, which they think is made with believers respecting their offspring, an- swerable to the covenant which God made with Abra- ham respecting his natural seed, though they are not * Several of the foregoing qnotations from foreign Poedobaptist writers, I have selected from Mr. Booth's Pcedohaptism Examined. 2d edit, a book which I recommend to your perusal. Z2 3^40 Examination of the Arguments agreed as to the nature of these benefits : but others deny that any such covenant exists under the gospel. ViTRiNGA says, ** The sacraments of the New Cove- nant are of such a nature, as to seal nothing but what is spiritual ; nor are they of an Y advantage, except with regard to those who really believe in JesujB Christ." Many of them are quite undetermined as to the ef- ficacy and usefulness of infant-baptism. Mr. Booth has produced three of their celebrated writers who ac- knowledge this. WiTsius says, " The question rela- ting to the efficacy and usefulness of Christian baptism, in reference to the elect infants of parents who are in the covenant, is peculiarly arduous and obstruse ; and as of old, so very lately, it is embarrassed by the sub- tilty of curious disputes." Miscel. Sac. Tom. ii. exercit. xix. § i. Mr. Jonathan Edwards speaks to the same purpose, " God's method of dealing with such infants as are regularly dedicated to him in baptism, is a matter liable to great disputes and many contro- versies." Inquiry into Qualijicat. for Commun. Ap- pendix, p. 13. So also Saurin ; " Does an infant par- ticipate in the blessings of a covenant, which he may perhaps reject when he comes to the age of reason ? Is baptism useless, then, till such as have received it shall perform the vows that have been made for them ? Why do not we wait then till that time before rt be admin- istered ? We do not pretend that these difficulties are insurmountable ; but we think that means more con- sistent than those which are commonly employed should be offered." Abrege de la Theologie, p. 202* Nay, some of them do not view infant-baptism as of any benefit at all. They consider it not as directly implying that the infants themselves have any interest respecting Infant- Baptism. 341 in it, or in the thing signified by it ; but as part of the parent's own profession of Christianity. Thus it appears that the Poedobaptists are not agreed among themselves as to the grounds of the right which infants have to baptism ; nor as to the sense of the Scripture passages commonly alleged in support of it ; nor as to the benefit which infants de- rive from it. IV. The Poedobaptists universally admit, that there is no express precept nor plain precedent for infant- baptism in all the word of God. But to admit this, (and admit it they must) is, in fact, to give up the cause. Baptism is confessedly not a moral hvA. positive institution ; that is, it is not founded in the nature of things, like moral precepts, but depends entirely on the authority and revealed will of the Institutor. Now, if infant-baptism have neither scripture precept nor ex- ample to support it, it can have no existence as a divine institution. But it may be proper to explain more fully the diflference between moral and positive precepts, which I shall do nearly in the words of Poedobaptist writers. Moral duties are founded not merely in external commands, but in the nature and reason of things. To love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves, are duties arising from the character of God, and our relation to him and one another, and so right and fit in their own nature antecedently to any external command. But positive institutions are founded solely in the will of the Institutor. To eat of the tree in the midst of the garden was in itself altogether indifferent, till it became sinful by the Divine prohibition. So circumcision, and the various rituals of the Mosaic law, had no foundation in the nature of things, but became ;342 Examination of the Arguments duties merely by positive institution. Yet we are uot to consider positive institutions as mere arbitrary im- positions ; for God appoints nothing but for some wise reason, and for some good end ; but then it is not the reason or end but the authority which makes the in- stitution ; and therefore though we should not un- derstand the reason of this or that appointment, yet if we see the command, we must obey. Again, moral doctrines and duties may be deduced and inferred from others of a moral nature, and all of them from their first principles. Thus love is the principle required in the moral law, and from this we may justly infer a prohibition from working any ill to our neighbour, as being contrary to the nature of love, (Rom. xiii. 10.) and also a command to do him all the good that properly lies in our power, for that is nothing but the natural and practical exercise of love. So that a genuine inference from a moral principle, and relating to things of a moral nature, has all the cer- tainty of the principle itself. But with regard to - positive institutions the case is quite different : For as they depend wholly upon the will of God, so they can- not be deduced or inferred from any thing known to us, abstract from the express declaration of his will. Such laws admit of no commutation, mutilation, or alteration by human authority ; because in them we see nothing beyond the words of the law, and the first meaning, and the named instance. It is that in in- dividuo which God appoints, fixing it so and no more, and no less, and no otherwise : For when the will of the Lawgiver is all the reason, the first instance of the law is all the measures, and there can be no product but what is just set down. No parity of reason can infer any thing else ; because there is no reason known respecting Infant- Baptism. 343 to us but the will of God, to which nothing can be equal ; which will being actually limited to this spe- cification, this manner, thisinstitution, whatever comes besides, has no foundation in the will of the Lawgiver, and therefore can have no warrant or authority. It is plain therefore, that as moral duties may be deduced from moral principles and the reason of things, it is not necessary that every duty of this nature in all its supposeable modes, occasions, objects, and circum- stances, should be expressly stated and particularly specified, for that would be endless : But with respect to positive institutions, as these depend entirely on the will of the Institutor, and cannot be deduced from any thing else, so they can have no existence but by the express declaration of his will in their appointment, without which they cannot be said to be instituted, and so there can be no obligation to observe them. Moral duties are oi perpetual obligation, because founded in the nature of things, or the essential and unalterable distinction between right and wrong : But positive institutions, being appointed only for a limited time,theiT obligation ceases when that time has expired. Thus circumcision and the rituals of the old law were set aside at the end of the Jewish dispensation ; and so Baptism and the Lord's Supper will cease when Christ shall come again. But here it must be observed that our obligations to obey all God's commands, whether moral or positive, are absolute and indis- pensable; and that commands, merely positive, ad- mitted to be from Him, lay us under a moral obligation to obey them, an obligation moral in the strictest and most proper sense. Surely obedience to God's com- mand is a moral excellence, though the instances of that obedience may lie in positive rites. A disposition * 344 Examination of the Arguments to obey divine orders, either positive or moral, is part of that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. We may be saved without a sacrament, but we cannot be saved without a disposition to obey God's authority wherever we see it. Positive precepts are the greatest and most perfect trial of obedience, because in them the mere authority and will of the Legislator is the sole ground of the obligation, and nothing in the nature of the things themselves ; and therefore they are the greatest trial of any person's re- spect to that authority and will. Whatever difference there is between moral and positive precepts, and how- ever excellent the former are in themselves in com- parison with the latter, the obligation is the same in both, viz. the command of God. We shall now apply these observations to the sub- ject in hand. The Poedobaptists admit that baptism is a. positive institution. — They also admit (and I know none of them who deny) that a positive institution de- pends solely on the will of God the Institutor ; and so cannot be deduced or inferred from any thing known to us, besides the express declaration of his will con- cerning it. — Further, they are obliged to admit, that there is no express precept or example in all the word of God for infant-baptism. Now, by these concessions they entirely, though un- designedly, give up the cause of infant-baptism ; for a positive institution for which there is neither express precept nor example, is an absolute contradiction, as no positive institution can have any existence but by the express declaration of the will of the Institutor, which is its very institution ; nor can we know any thing about it unless it be expressly recorded or exem- plified in the holy scriptures. respecting Infant-Baptism. 845 Still, however, it is maintained, that though there is no express scripture precept or example for the bap- tism of infants, there are many other considerations from which it may be deduced or inferred. This is the common mistake in which all the Poedobaptists unite, and so depart from the true nature of the sub- ject in question, which is a positive rite, not deducible from any principle known to us, but depending- en- tirely for its being, and all that relates to it, on the will of God ; consequently, not the subject of inference, but of express positive institution. Were it a natural or moral duty, it might be fairly argued from general principles, moral considerations, analogy, expediency, fitness or utility, because the known nature and rela- tion of things furnish the proper data : Nay, a duty of this nature may be fairly inferred from many texts of scripture where it is not particularly mentioned, nor perhaps has entered into the thoughts of the inspired writers when penning these texts : But as to baptism the case is quite different, it being a particular ritual institution which derives its whole being and authority from a positive law respecting itself, and therefore can be deduced from no other principle whatever. Since therefore the Poedobaptists cannot produce a plain scripture precept or precedent for the baptism of in- fants, all their arguments in favour of it are quite in- applicable and to no purpose. Many Poedobaptist \vriters confess, that " the scrip- ture does not clearly determine the baptism of infants" — " that it is so dark in the scriptures, that the contro- versy is become so hard, as we find it" — " that it is not so clearly delivered, but that it admits of a dispute which has considerable perplexities in it. Therefore some of them wish to shift the state of the question, 346 Examination of the Arguments and turn the argumeut upon another hinge. Thus Vitringa; " He, in my opinion, that would argue prudently against the Anabaptists, should not state the point in controversy thus ; Whether infants, born of Christian parents, ought necessarily to be baptized? but, whether it be lawful, according to the Christian discipline, to baptize them ? Or, what evil is there in the ceremony of baptizing infants ?" Observat. Sac. Tom. 1. L. ii. c. vii. § 9, Thus also an anonymous author, " In the controversy about infant-baptism, the enquiry ought not to be. Whether Christ hath com- manded infants to be baptized ? but, whether he hath excluded them from baptism ?" Cases to Recover Dis- senters, Vol. ii. p. 405. This prudent manner of arguing, by shifting the en- quiry from a command or example to a prohibition, demonstrates in the clearest manner to what a sad pinch the more thinking part of the Poedobaptists are reduced. To maintain the baptism of infants as being either commanded or exemplified in scripture, is to place it upon a ground which they find to be altogether untenable ; but they think that if infants are not ex- cluded from it by an express prohibition, there can be no evil in it, i. e. it must be a thing perfectly harmless and indiflferent ! And it will be granted, that if they do not intend it as a divine institution, there can be no evil in bathing or washing infants as often as there is occasion for it, and as they are not excluded from this, it is perfectly lawful. But if they perform it as a re- ligious act of divine worship, and administer it in the sacred name of the Divine Three, then it involves in it a complication of evils. It is a profane abuse of the adorable name of the Trinity, and a misapplication of the outward sign : It supersedes, or sets aside, t]i<^ respecting Infant-Baptism. 317 baptism of believers which Christ hath instituted, and so makes the commandment of God of none effect, by substituting a human tradition in its place. Mat. xv. 3,6. And as it is founded upon the negative ground of its not being particularly and expressly prohibited, it establishes a principle that will justify all manner of superstition and will worship, which the Lord ex- pressly condemns and rejects, saying, " But in vain do "t they worship me, teaching for doctrines the command- ments of men," ver. 9. see also Col. ii. 20, 22, 23. It is said that infants are not excluded from baptism : But does not our Lord commission his apostles to baptize persons of a certain description, viz. those whom they should teach or make disciples by the preaching of the gospel? and is not the subject of that ordinance plainly described to be, he that believeth ? This certainly excludes infants who cannot be taught or believe, and there was no necessity that he should further exclude them by a particular express pro- hibition ; for when the subjects of a positive ordinance are described, all who fall not under that description are of course excluded. Thus you may see, that the arguments in favour of infant-baptism have no tendency to make us less con- fident in our opposition to it. The Poedobaptists themselves destroy the force of one anothers arguments ; for while they hold by one general conclusion, they differ as to every part of the premises whence it should be drawn. I am. Your, &c« BAPTISM MUST PRECEDE VISIBXiE CHURCH-FELIiOWSHIP, In a Letter to a Friend. SIR, While you seem to admit, that the scripture war- rants the baptism of none but believers, you cannot be reconciled to our making it a term of communion. Your words are : " But granting your view of baptism to be perfectly agreeable to the original institution, yet still I think you lay an undue stress upon that or- dinance when you make it a term of communion. A3 it must be admitted that there are many sincere Chris- tians who are differently minded from you on that sub- ject, I cannot help thinking, that your refusing com- munion to such, merely on that account, is contrary to charity, and making a positive institution, or external rite, of as much importance as moral precepts, or the faith itself, wherein all true Christians are one, whereby it becomes an occasion of dividing the real children of God." It is very surprising, that while you acknowledge baptism to be an ordinance of Christ, and even suppose that we observe it agreeably to his institution, you should yet object to us for refusing communion to such as, upon this supposition, are entirely without baptism, and have substituted a human invention in its place. I must be so free as to tell you, that this objection argues no great reverence for Christ's authority, or acquaintance either with the nature of true charity or Baptism must precede, S^c. 34D church-communion ; but proceeds at bottom from an opinion, that the institutions of Christ are not ab- solutely binding, but may be sacrificed to our good opinion of men. It is very remarkable, that in pro- portion as that kind of charity you plead for bulk* in your eye, in the same proportion does the im- portance and obligation of Christ's institutions sink in your esteem ; hence you distinguish his precepts into moral and positive, as if the latter sort were not so much to be regarded as the former, nor his authority the same in both ; and you speak of baptism in par- ticular in such diminutive terms, as too plainly indicate that the authority of its Institutor has not its proper weight upon your conscience. Was it not the trans- gression of a positive law which introduced sin and death into the world ? You may approve of moral precepts upon the principles of pure Deism, as per- ceiving them founded in nature and reason ; but you cannot be influenced to this by Christ's authority, while you make light of his positive institutions, in which that authority appears more simple and conspicuous. We hold it as a fixed principle, that there can be no real Christianity without charity ; but at the same time we are fully persuaded, that true charity must ever con- sist with a strict and conscientious adherence to all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded, and that no true Christian communion can take place upon the avowed principle, that one of the least of his laws should be dispensed with in favour of any, however serious they may appear, and however much cause we may have to esteem them on other accounts ; for we can never be so certain of the Christianity of such as refuse to submit to Christ's ordinances, after they have been set before them^ as we are of the ordinances 350 Baptism must precede themselves, and of the indispensable obligation that lies upon all Christians to observe them. We admit, that there is but one faith essential to salvation, viz. That Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, that he was delivered for the offences and raised again for the jus- tification of sinners, * and that whosoever believeth this shall be saved : f But we think it no dispa- ragement of this one faith to maintain, that there is also one baptism which corresponds with it, J and which, by the will of its Institutor, is inseparably con- nected, at least, with the scriptural confession of that faith, § and so essentially necessary to the visible com- munion of saints. Besides these general hints, we offer the following reasons for holding believers-bap- tism as a term of visible communion. 1. Baptism is of indispensable obligation upon all Christians who can possibly obtain it, because Christ hath commanded it, and because he had sufficient power and authority to do so. (1.) That Christ hath instituted baptism admits of no doubt ; for he says, " Go teach all nations, bap- tizing them;" II which is not only a command to his apostles to baptize, but to those whom they made dis- ciples to be baptized;*^ for how could the apostles ad- minister baptism, if none were obliged to receive it ? The same command we have in Mark xvi. 16. " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." The obligation to be baptized is the same here with the obligation to believe the gospel ; for it is * John XX. 31.— Rom. iv. 24, 25. t Rom. x. 9, t Eph. iv. 5. § Mark xvi. 16. B Mat. xxviii. t?. f See Acta ii. 38. x. 48, and xxii. 16. Visible Church-fellowship. 851 not simply said, " he that believeth," but " be that be- iieveth, and is baptized ;" so that whatever difference there is between these two in other respects, there is none in point of obligation. It can admit of no doubt that our Lord means baptism in water ; for so his in- spired apostles understood him, as appears from their practice, Acts viii. 38. how else could the forbidding of water be a withstanding of God ? * This command is not limited to any particular nation ; for he bids them " teach all nations, baptizing them." Nor is it confined to the apostolic age ; for he promises to be with his disciples in observing it, " alway, even unto the end of the world" f (2.) That Christ had sufficient power and authority to institute baptism and every other ordinance of the gospel, and an indisputable right to our obedience, cannot possibly be denied by any Christian. Th© Father declares him to be his beloved Son in whom he is well pleased, and commands us to hear him. J He hath loved the Son, and given all things into his hand ; § he hath put all things under his feet, and given him to be head over all things to the church ; j| and upon this supreme power and authority with which he his vested, he grounds the commission to disciple and baptize ; " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, THEREFORE, disciple all nations, baptizing theffl,"^J &c. To dispute Christ's power to make laws, or his rightful title and claim to our obedience, is in fact to deny that he is the Christ, and to renounce Christianity altogether. His having all power in heaven and in earth, excludes not only all rival, but • Acts X. 47. and xi. 17. t Matth. xxviii. 20. % chap. xvii. 5. ( John iii. 35. H Eph. i. 22, 23. f Matth. xwiii. 18, 19. 352 Bapism must precede conjunct authority, either in angels or men, to set aside, dispense with, alter, or add to his laws, he being the alone Sovereign and sole Lawgiver of his church. Accordingly the latter part of the commission runs thus : " Teaching them" (i. e. the baptized disciples) " to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." * They were to teach them to observe only what he had commanded ; and not their own inventions, or the traditions and commandments of men ; f — to teach them all things whatsoever he had commanded, with- out keeping back, making light of, or dispensing with any of the least of his commandments. :]: Now if Christ has instituted baptism as a standing ordinance to the end of the world, if he had suificient power and autho- rity to do so, and if neither angels nor men have any right to dispense with, or alter his institutions, then the baptism of believers must be of indispensable obligation, and so essentially necessary to visible church communion. II. The order in which baptism stands in the com- mission, proves it to be an indispensable pre-requisite to church communion. It comes immediately after being made disciples by preaching the gospel to them, and before they are taught to observe all things what- soever Christ hath commanded. The supreme Law- giver has expressly enjoined — first, to make disciples — then, immediately to baptize the disciples — lastly, to teach the baptized disciples to observe, keep, or obey his laws or institutions. It must be admitted, that church-fellowship, and the Lord's Supper, fall under the last head ; and if so, then according to the order of • Matth. xxviii. 20. t chap. xv. 4, 5, 6.— Col. ii. 8. t Matth. V. 19.— Acts xx. 20, 27. Visible Cliurcli-fellowsliip. 353 the commission, men can no more be admitted to church'fellewship or the Lord's Supper before baptism, than they can be admitted to baptism before they are made disciples. III. The apostles strictly adliered to the order stated in the commission, and never admitted any to church-fellowsliip till once they were baptized. On the day of Pentecost, Peter — first preached the gospel, and exhorted the convicted Jews to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins * — " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" -f — Lastly, the baptized disciples were added to the church, and observed all things what- soever Christ had commanded ; for it follows, " and the same day there were added mito them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." :i; Through the whole history of the Acts we find them observing the same order. They went about every where preaching the gospel — those who believed it were immediately baptized — of such baptized believers only did they form churches — and to such churches did they deliver the ordinances to keep as they had received them of the Lord. § IV. This order is not accidental, but founded in the very nature of things. Baptism is the sign of our spi- ritual birth, and entrance into the kingdom of God ; || but church-fellowship and the Lord's Supper represent us as already entered into his kingdom, and feasting upon Christ's sacrifice. ^ Now as we cannot in the nature of things have a place in the kingdom of God ♦ Acts ii. U— 40. t Ver. 41. $ Ver. 41, 42. i 1 Gov. xi. 2, 23. li John iii, 5. ^1 Cor. v. 7, 8. A A ' , 354 Baptism must precede before we enter it, nor feed upon Christ till once we are born from above, and possessed of spiritual life ; so, if there is any correspondence in the signs to what they respectively signify, we can with no propriety be added to a visible church, and partake of the Lord's Supper, till once we receive baptism, the sign of our regenera- tion and entrance into the kingdom of God. Whether, therefore, we consider the order of our Lord's com- mission— the practice of hi§ inspired apostles in exe- cuting it — or the nature and import of the ordinances themselves, it is clear, that baptism must always pre- cede admission to a church, or communion in the Lord's Supper. You will perhaps make a distinction between the in- stitutions of Christ and the terms of communion; between our obligation to observe them ourselves, and our right to urge them upon others who may desire fel- lowship with us. But we can admit of no such distinc- tions; for, 1. The very nature of church-communion requires, that we should not only observe Christ's institutions ourselves, but also take heed that our brethren observe them likewise. Christians separated from the world, and connected together in a church state agreeably to the word of God, have a peculiar relation to, and concern in each other. They are united together as members of one body, that they should have the same care one for another. * The bond of their union is the truth, and mutual love for the truth's sake, as perceiving it visibly dwelling in each other, f by the confession of the mouth and obedience of the life. By this appearance they know one another to be the * 1 Cor. xii. 25. t 8 John, Ycr. 1, f. Visible Church-fellowship. 855 jiroper objects of that love which Christ has enjoined in his new commandment ; * and without it they could not possibly love one another for the truth's sake, or be united in the bonds of the gospel. They must therefore be deeply interested in one another's princi- ples and conduct. Accordingly, they are commanded to exhort one another daily,lest any of them be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin ; f to look diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God^, J to warn them that are unruly, &c. § which implies, that they have a mutual charge one of another, and cannot say, like Cain, " Am I my brother's keeper?" — The discipline which Christ hath appointed in his house, is strongly expressive of the mutual concern they have in one another's sentiments and practices. || It is intended to preserve purity of communion and the exercise of bro- therly love, by enforcing obedience to his laws, re- claiming transgressors, and expelling impenitent and incorrigible offenders. If Christ has given such a power to his churches, they must have an undoubted right to exercise it, and be culpable in neglecting it ; and so the whole church at Corinth are blamed for to- lerating the incestuous person. ^ If a single private trespass, committed against a brother, must, without repentance, exclude from the communion, according to Matth. xviii. 17. by what rule are we to receive into our communion such as neglect or despise a plain and public institution of the Lord Jesus Christ? This would be to assume a dispensing power, to connive at their neglect, and to become partakers of their sin; nay, in many respects we should be more guilty and in- • John xiii. 34, 35. t Heb. iii. 13. if Chap. xii. 15. i 1 Thes8. V. 14. Ij Matth. xviii. 15—21. If 1 Cor. v. A A 2 356 Baptism must precede consistent than they. More guilty, as knowing moro of the obligation, nature, and importance of baptism than they are supposed to do. — More inconsistent; because, according to our principles, we must look upon them as entirely without baptism ; whereas they either consider themselves as baptized in infancy, or have no principle respecting that ordinance at all, as we profess to have. Christ has committed his truths and ordinances to his churches to keep and hold fast till he come, * but not to dispense with in favour of any. We are therefore not only bound to observe his institutions ourselves as individuals, but to take heed that every member of the body with which we are con- nected observe them also. 2. We hold every institution of Christ to be a term of communion ; because, should we avowedly dispense with any of them, we, by oifending in one point, are guilty of all ; f i. e. we disregard the authority of Christ in one ordinance, which is the same in all, and so must be deficient in our regard to it in any. Hereby also we give up the general principle upon which we can consistently hold any of his institutions whatever as a term of communion. Should one who is of the Quakers' sentiments, as to the Lord's Supper, apply for admission, with what consistency could we urge that ordinance upon him, after having dispensed with his baptism ? We could not show him from the word of God, that the Lord's Supper was instituted by a higher authority, is more important and indispensable in its nature, more sacred in its signs, or significative of more valuable blessings than baptism is ; and there- fore, to be consistent with ourselves, it behoved us to * Rev. ii. 55. t J«inc» ii. 10. Visible Church-fellowship. S57 yield that ordinance also, and so all the rest which are founded solely upon Christ's authority. No scrip- tural reason can be assigned for preferring the Lord's Supper to Baptism. To adopt the words of a sensible writer on this subject, " When we consider how much more frequently baptism is mentioned in the New Testament than the sacred supper; how often repenting and believing sinners are exhorted, by the apostles, to be baptized ; how soon that ordinance was adminis- tered to Christian converts after they believed ; what exhortations are given to professing Christians on the ground of their being baptized ; and when we reflect, that the Holy Spirit commends them that were baptized by John, as "justifying God ;" while he severely cen- sures others, as " rejecting the counsel of God against themselves,* being not baptized of him :"t I say, these things considered, it is amazing to observe in what small estimation baptism is held by the generality of professors in comparison of the Lord's Supper ; nay, the positive contempt with which that divine ordi- nance is treated by many, calling it a non-essential external rite, a circumstantial ceremony, a shadow, a mere outward form, &c. But to think that some pro- fessed Baptists themselves should treat it in the same profane manner, to justify their novel scheme of free cbmmmiion, is really astonishing. % They may boast * See Mr. Booth's Apology for the Baptists, p. 136. t Luke vii. 29, 30. % Several Baptist congregations in England admit unbaptized per- sons into their communion, and so are denominated free-communion Baptists. Mr. Booth, in his Apology, has fuUy exposed the absurdity and inconsistency of such a heterogeneous communion, especially on the part of the Baptists ; though I think he pays too great a compli- ment to their sbtceriiij, conscientiousness ^ and integrity. 358 Baptism must precede of their pretended candour, generosity, liberality of sentiment, and charity, in opposition to bigotry and narrow-mindedness ; but it does not appear, nor is true charity obliged to admit, that such truly fear God, regard his authority, or tremble at his word, who can knowingly, deliberately, and from avowed principle, make light of any of his acknowledged institutions, and assume a power to dispense with them. B3' making baptism a term of communion, you say, " it becomes an occasion of dividing the real children of God." We admit the fact, but refuse the blame. We freely admit, that there are multitudes of God's dear children unenlightened as to baptisn^^ many of them have never attended to the subject ; and others, through the influence of custom and false instruction, have seriously taken up with infant-sprinkling in its stead. It is also a fact, that whilst they and we con- tinue in our present sentiments, we must remain di- vided as to visible church communion. But the ques- tion is. Who are to blame ; those who observe and stand to the scripture rule, or they who do not comply with it ? And whether should Christians unite in ob- serving Christ's institutions, or in dispensing with them ? The very state of the question is a sufficient answer to such as hold the institutions of Christ of in- dispensable obligation. We are grieved to think that so many of the real children of God are living in the neglect of the very first ordinance of the gospel ; we endeavour to hold it forth to them consistently by our example, doctrine, and separate communion : we cor- dially invite them to fellowship with us in this, and all the other institutions of Christ, according to the order in which he has placed them ; and we earnestly pray Visible Church-fellowship. 359 to their Father and ours, that he Tfould dispel their ignorance, remove their prejudices, and subject their consciences to this and every other part of his revealed win • but while they remain in their present mind, we dare not meet them any nearer, nor step over the sacred boundaries which Christ hath marked out in his word, in order to give them the right hand of fel- lowship. Indeed the great body of Poedobaptists themselves act upon this principle ; for they will not receive any to communion with them in the Lord's Supper, unless they consider them as having been bap- tized in some way or other. This, you will say, is contrary to charity. Christian forbearance, and the apostolic exhortation to " receive one another as Christ also hath received us to the glory of God," Rom. xv. 7. It is indeed very opposite to that profane com- pliant charity so much cried up in the professing world, which has neither the word of God for its rule, nor the truth for its object ; which esteems conscientiousness in error equivalent to soundness in the faith, and le- gitimates a kind of Christianity which stands indepen- dent of keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus : But it is perfectly agreeable to true charity, which consists in love to the truth, and to those who are of the truth for its sake, as perceiving it dwelling in them by its genuine effects. If we esteem all the commandments of the gospel to be plain, im- portant and indispensable ; if we see them to be effects of divine wisdom, benevolence, and love ; if we are persuaded that men's interest lies in observing them, and that there is danger in neglecting them ; then re- gard to the Divine authority, love to the truth, and 360 Baptism must precede charity to men, require that we dispense with none of them. If by Christian forbearance you mean, an agreement to differ quietly about the commandments of Christ, as not essential to church-communion, there is no such thing enjoined in the scripture. It would be absurd to suppose, that Christ would give ordinances to his church, and at the same time a command to dispense with any of them. The mutual bearing with each other insisted on, Rom. xiv. and xv. has no respect to any of the precepts of the gospel, but to the peculiarities of the Mosaic law respecting meats and days. We are exhorted to forbear one another in love ;* but this does not respect any settled difference as to the com- mon rule of our faith and obedience, but a just al- lowance for one another's weaknesses and imperfec- tions in coming short of the acknowledged rule, with the exercise of meekness, tenderness, and long-suffering towards each other in this imperfect state. The exhortation, " Receive ye one another as Christ also received us to the glory of God," f does not sig- nify, that they should receive one another into church- fellowship disagreeing about the institutions of the gospel, or that they should receive any into their com- munion without baptism. The parties exhorted were believing Jews and Gentiles, who differed not about baptism, but about the peculiarities of Moses' law, as has been noticed. Christ had received the Jew ob- serving that peculiar law, and indulged him in it for a time ; % he had also received the Gentile, who was Eph. iv. 2. t Rom. xv. 7. X Acts xxi. 25. 1 Cor, vii 13. Visible Chureh-fellowship. 361 never under that law, and now forbid to observe any such thing. In these peculiar circumstances, they are exhorted to imitate the example of Christ in re- ceiving one another as he had received them both to the' glory of God, without making any difference of Jew or Gentile. I am. Sir, Your, &c. Edinburgh, 1780. AN I£,]LUST]RATI©M OF The Prophecies OF THE OLD TESTAMENT RESPECTING THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, AND THE NATURE OF THE BIiESSINGS PROMISED TO THAT SEED. ILLUSTRATION, &c. In a Letter to a Friend, DEAR SIR, At your repeated solicitation, I send you my view of the prophecies concerning which you wrote me ; but want of time, and the valetudinary state of my health, have prevented me from digesting it with that accu- racy, or comprising it into the bounds I would have chosen. However, not to detain you with circum- stantials, I shall state what I take to be the argument from these prophecies for infant-baptism, and then jive such an answer as may occur. The argument I think stands thus : " There are many promises in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament respecting Israel and their seed in conjunction with them, such as Psal. cii. 26, 27, 28. Isa. Ixv. 22, 23. Jer. xxx. 18 — 23. Ezek. xxxvii. '^b. &c. and as it cannot be denied that these prophecies have a respect to gospel times, they must point out a spiritual connection betwixt New Testament believers and their seed, in the great salvation ; and if so, then the infants of Christians ought to be baptized, even as those of old Israel were circumcised." Now, though the premises were admitted as here stated, yet the conclusion is far from being necessary or certain. Children may have the promise of salva- tion, and yet have no peculiar connection with their parents therein ; and they may even be connected 1 366 Illustration of the Prophecies with their parents in the promises, without any title to baptism in their infancy. Baptism proceeds upon evidence that the promises have begun to take effect in their calling, which is obtained from the confession of the mouth unto salvation, and can never go before this, according to the scripture. It is not like cir- cumcision, which was connected with the fleshly birth, a thing visible in infants ; but it is connected with the evidence of the spiritual birth, which is not visible till they profess the faith, and thereby evidence them- selves the true children of Abraham, the antitype of these circumcised infants. So that you see, supposing I were to admit the principle, the inference of infant- baptism will not follow. And here I would remark, that when people are obliged to have recourse to the Old Testament to establish a New Testament ordi- nance, it indicates that they think the New Testament not clear and express enough upon the point, or that they want to model it in some way which the New Testament does not admit of. It puts me in mind of the abettors of national churches and covenants, who, finding nothing of that kind in the New Testament, or at least not so clear as they would desire, betake them- selves to the Old Testament, and bring their materials from the typical earthly economy, to erect a worldly kingdom to Christ, or rather to the clergy. These also dabble much in the prophecies,. and strange work they make of them when they have a point to drive. The Seceders can even find their party, and the bond for renewing the covenant, prophecied of in Isa. xix. 18 ; and many can show from Isa. xlix. 23. that the kings of the Gentile nations were to have the same office and power in the spiritual Zion that David and his suc- cessors, who were anointed types of the Messiah, ha /ueMovtoj awvor) the father of the future age, or world to come, i. e. of the gospel economy, see ver. 6. So that what the apostle argues. Gal. iii. 29. " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed," will in like manner hold here ; if they are Christ's children, then are they the children of ancient Israel, seeing Christ sprang from that nation as well as from Abraham ; and they may with as great propriety be called their children, as Christ's throne is called the throne of his father David, Isa- ix. 7. Luke i. 32. The apostle represents the believing Gentiles as naturalized and adopted children into the commonwealth of Israel, from which they were formerly strangers and aliens, £ph. ii. 12 — 21. He likewise represents them as branches of the wild olive tree, and grafted in among the natural branches (i. e. the believing Jews) into the good olive tree, and with them partaking of the root and fatness thereof, and standing thereon by faith, * * The twelve apostles of our Lord, who were children of Old Israel, may he conside. ed as the fathers or patriarchs' of the Christian church, 1 Cor. iv. 15. Rev. xxi. 12, 14. and so this church may be called the children's children of that people. 'i>i 398 Illustration of the Prophecies Rom. xi. 17 — 25. For these and other reasons old Israel are called the fathers of the New Testament children ; and so the prophecies delivered to them respecting their children and children's children, do not respect the natural children of New Testament believers, but believers themselves, whether of Jews or Gentiles, whether parents or children, they being all children of old Israel in the prophetic style, according to the sense explained. Or in other words, these pro- mises are not made to New Testament believers, as fathers, but to old Israel, and that because Christ was to spring from them, who is the father of the New Testament children. Lastly, I would observe. That the prophecies were actually accomplished to the natural children of that ancient people even in their spiritual sense. Peter addressing the Jews says, " Ye are the children of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers — Unto you first God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities," Act iii. 25, 26. And Paul addressing the Jews at Antioch, before he turned to the Gentiles there, says, ** We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers, God hath /^(^/Zcd the same unto us THEIR CHILDREN, in that he hath raised up Jesus again," &c. Acts xiii. 32, 33. The promises had a primary respect unto their natural posterity, and so it behoved them to have iheix first accomplishment among them. Christ's mission wsis first to them, and hence he says to the woman of Canaan, " I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," Matt. xv. 24. among them alone he exercised his personal min- istry upon earth, and, during that ministry, he prohi- bits his apostles from going into the way of the Gen- respecting the Seed of Abraham. 399 tiles, Matt. x. 5, 6, and even after his resurrection when he extends their commission to all nations, they were commanded to preach the gospel first unto the Jews, Luke xxiv. 47. and this the apostle says was necessary, Acts xiii. 46. Thus " Jesus Christ was made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God^ to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:" Rom. XV. 8. Among them did Christ first set up his king- dom after his resurrection ; among them he had the " first fruits of his new creatures, begotten by the word of truth," Jam. i. 18, and from them did the word of God sound out unto the nations, begetting children to the faith. — Thus far, then, the promises made unto old Israel in the prophecies were accomplished to their natural children or descendants ; which will at least partly vindicate the truth of God in these pro- mises made to the fathers, and show how they were accomplished to their children and children's children ! Now all the senses that have been given with respect to the parentage of the children mentioned in the pro- phecies, perfectly agree and harmonize one with another. — l.They are Abraham's children as springing from the promise made to him. — 2. Of consequence they must be the children of the Jerusalem above, the free woman, Sarah's antitype. — 3. As they are Christ's, they must of consequence be the children of old Israel, from whom Christ came, as well as the children of Abraham ; and it behoved those of them, who were Jews by birth, to be their children, both in a natural and spiritual sense. But none of these senses will favor the point contended for ; for in all the prophecies there is no promise made to New Testament believers as natural parents, or in relation to a natural seed springing from them ; but both parents and children. 400 lUuslration of the Prophecies if they are of the true Israel, are Abraham's seed, and the children of the promise made to Christ of seeing his seed ; Isa. liii.lO. they are both the children which God hath given him, Heb. ii. 13. As Jer. XXX. 20. is much insisted on to show that tlie infants of New Testament believers are to be bap- tized, even as those of old Israel were circumcised, I shall, to what has already been said, add another hint for explaining it. I have already observed, that many of the prophecies, and particularly those respecting the children, were delivered during the captivity, and have a literal respect to the delivt^rance of old Israel from that calamity, and to their peace and prosperity in their ancient inheritance. I have also hinted in ge- neral that this temporal deliverance was a type of the great salvation by Christ, which he intimates himself in opening up his mission from Isa. Ixi. 1. see Luke iv. 18 — 22. But it also appears from comparing the book of the Revelations with the visions and prophecies of the Old Testament to which it alludes, that the cap- tivity of that typical church in Babylon was a type of the captivity of the church of Christ during the reign of Antichrist. We cannot doubt that Babylon was a type of the mystical Babylon, the mother of harlots, see Rev. xvii. and that her fall was also a type of the down-fall of the other, see Isa. xiii. chap. xxi. 9. chap, xlvii. Jer. li. 6 — 69. compared with Rev. xiv. 8, 9, 10. chapters xviii. and xix. — The woman, or true church, is represented as flying from the face of the dragon into the wilderness. Rev. xii. 13 — 17, where she is nourished for a time ; even as Elijah did from the face of wicked Jezebel, where he was also miraculously fed, 1 Kings xix. which represents a period of the church, wherein the true followers of the Lamb werf respecting the Seed of Abraham. 401 to be as obscure and indiscernible as the 7000, who had not bowed the knee to Baal, were in the days of Elijah, ver. 18. The two witnesses are said to pro- phesy in sack-cloth, Rev. xi, 3. that is, in the garments of their captivity, for it alludes to Joshua's filthy gar- ments, Zech. iii. 3, 4. They are called the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth, ver. 4, in which there is a plain reference to Zech. iv. 3, 11, 14. where the success of Zerrubbabel in building the second temple is set forth. These witnesses have power to inflict judgments on the wicked, " They have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will,"' even as Moses and Aaron did in Egypt. Again, " if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy," ver. 5, 6. even as Elijah inflicted these punishments during his pro- phecy, 1 Kings xvii. 1. 2 Kings i. 2 — 8. The state of Christ's people during this prophecyingof the witnesses, must of consequence be similar to the state of Israel in Egypt, to that of the 7000, who did not bow to Baal, in the time of Jezebel, and to that of the captive Jews, when their temple and the wall of their city lay in rub- bish, that is, a state of bondage, obscurity, and cap- tivity, and not in that separated visible church state and order instituted for them by Christ. If then we consider the captivity of old Israel in Babylon, as a type of the captivity of Christ's people, under the reign of Antichrist, the mystical Babylon, then the prophecies, concerning the restoration of the typical people, may be explained of this spiritual restoration of Christ's people from the power of Antichrist. And D D 402 Illustration of the Prophecies, 5fc. so when it is said, Jer. xxx. 20. " Their children shall be as aforetime, &c." (that is, the children of Jacob's tent, see ver. 18.) it cannot signify that the infant seed of New Testament believers shall be as the infant seed of old Israel (for they were not so aforetime) ; but it means that the spiritual children of Israel's tents, or the dwelling places of mount Zion, shall be as they themselves were aforetime, viz. in the days of the apostles, when delivered from the tyranny and usurpation of Antichrist, they shall enjoy the primitive doctrine, order, and ordinances, and when there shall be a revival of the ancient brotherly love, and patient ibllowing of Christ, in opposition to this present world, in the hopes of conformity to him in his glory. I am, dear Sir, Yours in the truth, ARCH» M'LEAN. STRICTURES ON THE SENTIMENTS OF Dr. JAMES WATT AND OTHERS, RESPECTING A Christian Church, the Pastoral Office, and the rig;ht of private Brethren to dispense the Lord's Supper. D d2 NOTICE TO THE READER. The Reader is requested to keep in view that the chief prin- ciples which are opposed in the following miscellaneous Stric- tures are, 1. That two or three believers constitute what the Scriptures call a Church. 2. That they are competent to do every thing without Pastors which they can do with them. 3. That there is no work or function peculiar to the pastoral office. 4. That the institution of the Lord's Supper is unlimited, and not to be confined either to a church, or to the administra- tion of a Pastor. 5. That a visible organized church is not the body of Christ in any other sense than as being members in particular of his one body. STRICTURES, Sic, The present day is considered, by some, as a time of great improvement in religious knowledge. How far this is really the case, I will not venture to de- termine ; but I should be happy to think that the ob- servation was well founded. One thing is certain, that there is much speculation afloat respecting the external order and social practices of the primitive churches ; but how far the true spirit of Christianity keeps pace with it, is another question. It should ever be kept ia Tiew, that the end of the commandment is love, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned ; and that without this, the understanding of all mysteries and all knowledge is unprofitable. If we may judge of things by their efl"ects, it does not as yet appear, that many of the supposed improvements of the day have any great tendency to produce Chris- tian humility, charity and unity among brethren. On the contrary, they have been the occasion of mul- tiplying parties and divisions in abundance. Yet, w^hile the leaders in this admit the appearance of con- fusion, they consider it as " the only way to unity and harmony among the disciples of Jesus," and flatter themselves that " a day is coming when they will be viewed as the witnesses of Christ, the salt of the earth which prevented universal corruption, and preserved the precious doctrine in which all the disciples of Jesus shall be united," &c. 406 Strictures on the Sentiments of Mr. Walker of Dublin, and the Messrs. Haldanes of Edinburgh, have been remarkable for new dis- coveries. The former has found out, that the ordi- nance of baptism is derived from a Jewish tradition, and that it belongs only to a man and his infants upon his conversion to Christianity from Judaism or hea- thenism, but ought not afterwards to be administered to any of his descendants. And he and the Messrs. Hal- danes have discovered, that two or three believers constitute a church of Christ, and possess a full power or right to adminsiter and observe all church ordi- nances previous to their having office-bearers, and without them, and are bound to do so as their imme- diate duty. Mr. Walker does not scruple to assert, that " They know not the scriptural nature of a church, or of its elders, who conceive that the elders are to enable or authorise the church to do any thing which it was not bound to do before it had any elders, and without them :" And adds, " But I know that where the sentiment against which I c ontend is held, there can be no scriptural church." That is, if a society of Christians hold the sentiment, that elders are necessary to them in any respect, they cannot be a scriptural church : and if we want proof for this strange asser- tion, let us rest in this, that Mr. Walker knows they cannot ! But I have no inclination to intermeddle in other men's matters ; nor should I have taken any notice of these things, were it not for the division and animo- sities which such sentiments are producing among ourselves, and which are encouraged and promoted by the Messrs. Haldanes and their coadjutors. About three years ago, Mr. Ewing of Glasgow published " An attempt towards a Statement of the Doctrine of Dr. James Watt and others. 407 Scripture on some Disputed Points/' in which he presumed to disapprove of some of Mr. Haldane's in- novations, and among the rest, of his sentiment about observing the Lord's Supper without elders. Since that time, a number of antagonists have appeared in magazines, and other publications, against Mr. Ewing, who have fastened upon him with repeated attacks, as if they could never be satisfied till they had worried him outright.* Among this number have appeared Messrs. Jackson, Baltantine, Carson, and Dr. Watt, who is one of the elders of our sister church at Glas- gow, and who, through the sides of Mr. Ewing, has been striking at some of the principles which were universally held by the Baptists in Scotland when he joined them. By disseminating his principles among the brethren, and receiving into the church a number of those who were of his own sentiments, he has obtained the ascendancy of a prevailing party in the church at Glasgow, while his colleagues have been too inattentive, or too timid to oppose the growing progress of these principles. And now finding himsell supported by so numerous a party, both at Glasgow and elsewhere, he has, in a reply to Mr. Braidwood of Edinburgh, openly impugned the principles of the profession which he once made, as to the nature, fel- lowship, and order of a church of Christ, and has at- * Tliough I differ from Mr. Ewing as to several things contained in that publication, yet I could not help being disgusted at the man- ner and number of their answers. Mr. Haldane had a riglit to answer for himself ; but the group of his keen retainers from dif- ferent quarters, have manifested a very litigious spirit. Mr. Ewing. in his section on the duties of office-bearers in a church, p. 130— 143. will stand his ground against the whole posse of his antagonists; because the Word of God clearly sujsports him. And what he says in another section, p 157 — 168^ deserves serious consideratiou. 40S Strictures on the Sentiments 6f tempted to vindicate Mr. Walker and Mr. Ballantine ill the most obnoxious of their sentiments. In all this he is supported and encouraged by Mr. R. Haldane, with whom he hath joined counsels ; and who, it is said, has taken a good number of his pamphlets to disperse gratis. Another writer, in two letters to Mr. Braid- wood, has also of late declared himself of these senti- ments, and argued for them, of which some notice shall be taken in the following pages. They inform us now, that they have been long in their present sentiments ; but if they were established in these sentiments when they joined us, it belongs to them to reconcile their conduct with uprightness and sincerity : They well knew our principles, both with regard to the doctine and precepts of the gospel, and also with respect to our social religious practices and church order; for these were then published to the world ; and they also knew that had they then pro- fessed and avowed their present sentiments, they would not have been admitted into connection with us. And now that they have got in amongst us, Dr. Watt urges us to bear with him and his party on account of their numbers; but we never considered numbers as a test of sound principles, but frequently of the opposite. He also urges forbearance, because " multitudes of dear brethren wish to unite with us, but cannot submit to the commandments of men which rest only on strained figures, and texts misapplied." I shall after- wards take notice of this unjust charge : But while these multitudes of dear brethren view our sentiments in that light, with what consistency can they wish to unite with us? And while we, on the other hand, firmly believe that our principles are founded on the doctrine and precepts of our Lord and his inspired Dr. James Walt and others. 409 »,postles, how would it consist with the fear of God that we should relinquish any of these principles for the sake of union with them? From Dr. Watt's reply to Mr. Braidwood, we may see that we have little for- bearance to expect from him, unless gross misrepre- sentation and contemptuous treatment be considered as forbearance. And from this printed letter which he hath since sent to be disseminated among the members of the church at Edinburgh, we see the nature of his forbearance. It is allowed to be such forbearance as consists with our giving over visiting some of the societies in our connection ; or, if we visit them, consists with our withdrawing, instead of sitting down with them at the Lord's table ! Such forbearance is as opposite to that which the scripture inculcates, (Eph. iv. 2.) as darkness is to light ; and it will soon mani- fest itself by its effects in obstructing real brotherly love, and estranging the churches from each other, as it has done in part already ; and this indeed seems to be part of the scheme. Would it not be far more honest and consistent, fairly and openly to separate and part in peace, than to give place to such unscrip- tural forbearance, which can serve no other end than to keep up a hypocritical profession of unity which does not in reality exist? We have received some into the church at Edinburgh who were doubtful as to the principle of observing the Lord's Supper without elders, and we bore with them in love ; and should any of these come to be fixed in that sentiment, they have it still in their power to act as honest con- scientious persons by declaring themselves, and with- drawing from the connection ; for we never professed to bear with any who avowed themselves to be esta- blished in that opinion, if they should raise disputes 410 Slriciares on the Sentiments of about it, practise it even occasionally, or endeavour to ^ propagate it among the members. But the sentiment, that a church may and ought to observe the Lord's Supper without elders, is but a small part of the present diflerence, as will appear by taking a view of the avowed principles which are con- nected with that sentiment, and have been brought forward in support of it. I. The first principle that I shall mention is this, viss. " That the execution of the commission given by Christ to his apostles to teach and baptize, is not con- fined to any official description of men who are parti- cularly fitted for and appointed to that work ; but is competent also to private brethren, according as the circumstances of mere conveniency may happen to dictate for the time." Though I have stated this senti- ment in my own words, yet they cannot disclaim it, because it is a well known fact that they have acted upon it. A number of years ago a society at Paisley, who had separated from the Secession, and turned Baptists, proceeded upon this principle, and baptized one another, and that without any necessity. Mr. Walker's pupils, at Dublin, when they embraced bap- tism, followed the same plan ; and a number of Mr. Haldane's connections have adopted the same sen- timent, and acted upon it. Indeed it is their avowed ►sentiment, as we shall see immediately. If this can be justified in any case, it can be only in a case of absolute necessity, such as was the case with David and those that were with him, in eating the shew-bread, Matth. xii. 3, 4. which few in Britain can plead. But we are reminded by one of our brethren, that " It is written. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved;" and he asks, " What would you Dr. James Watt and others. 411 think of the modesty, and, I may add, the Christianity of that man who should add, if baptized by an ordained minister ? Yet we know, that some zealots have thus limited the divine promise, in opposition to its legitimate meaning and design, and to the plain and most explicit evidence, that private brethren, durin^^ the age of the apostles, both preached the gospel and baptized the disciples." To this I answer. That we think it would be equally needless to add, if baptized by an ordained minister, as it would be unscriptural to add, if baptized by a private brother. But as to those zealots who limit the promise of salvation to the baptism of an ordained minister, we know not how this comes to be mentioned on the present occasion, unless it be to insinuate that we hold that principle, or something a-kin to it. It has ever been our declared sentiment, that many will be saved who have never been baptized at all according to scripture rule, either by private persons or ordained ministers ; and we have also received some who have been baptized by private persons without rebaptizing them. Not that we ap- proved of that irregularity, or of the principles and character of the persons who presumed to baptize them ; but because we did not ^iew it as affecting their salvation, and because we have no scripture pre- cedent for repeating baptism. But to return to the principle under consideration, which does not respect the promise of salvation at all, but the authority or right which men have to preach the gospel and baptize. It is asserted above, that there is " the plainest and most explicit evidence, that private brethren, during the age of the apostles, both preached the gospel and baptized the disciples." By private brethren, I understand those who have no par- 412 Strictures on the Sentiments of ticular call nor distinguished qualifications for public teachers. But it is certain, that the commission to teach and baptize, (recorded in Matth. xxviii. 19, 20. and Mark xvi. 15, 16.) and which is the authority for preaching and baptizing to the end of the world, was not delivered by Christ to private brethren, but to those whom he appointed as public teachers ; and the work he assigned them sufficiently demonstrates this. The first order of these teachers were his apostles, — men whom he had called, chosen, and, in an extraordinary degree, qualified for that important work, by infallible inspiration, and other miraculous powers and super- natural gifts of the Spirit, both for the purpose of giving forth the New Testament revelation, and con- firming the truth of it, Heb. ii. 4. These supernatural gifts were distributed in various kinds and degrees among many others besides the apostles ; to some one kind of gift, to others another, 1 Cor. xii. 4 — 12. By these some were qualified for being prophets, some evangelists, some pastors, some teachers, &c. ver. 28 — 31. Eph. iv. 11. the nature of the gift pointing out the work assigned them, as well as their call to the exercise of it, Rom. xii. 6 — 9. All who possessed and exercised these extraordinary gifts were not what are called private brethren, but were fitted for and en- gaged in public official services, either in the churches or in preaching the gospel at large. When revelation was completed, as we have it now in the inspired writings of the New Testament, these extraordinary gifts ceased, (as was foretold, 1 Cor. xiii. 8.) having accomplished their design : But the work of preaching the gospel and baptizing the dis- ciples was not to cease with the miraculous gifts, but to continue to the end of the world, as is clear from ^. ...igrt..,. .,y^w-r>^.<~^ Dr. James Watt and others. 41S Christ's promise, Matth. xxviii. 20. Now, upon whom did this work devolve ? Upon private brethren ? By no means ; for, during the days of the apostles, and by their directions, ordinary standing office-bearers were appointed for carrying on this work. Acts xiv. 23. Tit. i. 5. And Paul thus exhorts Timothy, " The things which thou hast heard of me, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," 2 Tim. ii. 2. These are distinguished from private brethren by certain characters and qualifications, by the special work assigned them, and by their official designations. The characters and qualifications by which they are to be chosen, are described in 1 Tim. iii. and Tit. i. 5— 10. And though some of the first of them might be possessed of extraordinary gifts, yet none of these are mentioned among their essential qualifications. The work assigned them is peculiar ; viz. to oversee, rule, and labour in the word and doctrine, and thus to feed the church of God, 1 Tim. v. 17. Acts xx. 28. 1 Pet. v. 1 — 5. They are also distinguished by their official de- signations, such as elders, pastors, teachers, bishops, &c. and the only other ordinary standing office is that of deacons. Acts xx. 17. Eph. iv, 11. Phil. i. 1. 1 Tim. iii. 2 — 8. These things, duly considered, it will require very plain and explicit evidence indeed to prove, that private brethren, during the age of the apostles, either publicly preached the gospel, or baptized the disciples, or that they were appointed to do so in after ages. We may, however, take notice of a few things which are urged to this purpose. We read, that " there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusulem ; and they were ALL scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea 414 Strictures on the Sentiments of and Samaria, except the apostles. Therefore, they that were scattered abroad, went every where preach- ing the gospel," Acts viii. 1 — 4. Some from these words imagine, that every individual of the church at Jeru- salem, except the apostles, were scattered abroad, and that the whole of them went every where publicly proclaiming the gospel ; and hence they conclude, that private brethren must have been among those who were thus engaged. This, indeed, at first sight, ap- pears plausible, and I make no doubt that many pri- vate members, both men and women, fled from Jeru- salem on that occasion : But it must be noticed, 1. That the word all must frequently be taken in a restricted sense : Thus it is said, " There went out to him (i. e. John the Baptist,) all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins, Mark i. 5. Yet we are told, " that Jesus made and (by his dis- ciples) baptized more disciples than John," John iv. 1, 2. And it is said, " that all men came to him," chap, iii, 26. We also know, that a great number rejected the baptism of both, Luke vii. 29, 30. In this limited sense, the word all is very frequently used, see Luke iii. 6. Mat. iii, 5. John xii. 32. Acts. ii. 17, &c. 2. We know that all the individuals of the church at Jerusalem, except the apostles, were not scattered abroad ; for there were a number both of men and women belonging to that church whom Saul dragged from their houses and committed to prison, Acts viii. 3. though it is likely that the public meetings of the church were at that time discontinued. Before this persecution was ended, we find that, besides the apos- tles, there were a number of disciples at Jerusalem to whom Saul essayed to join himself, but they were Dr. James Watt and others. 415 afraid of him until he was introduced to them by Bar- nabas ; and when the Jews went about to slay him, some of these brethren brought him down to Cesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus, see Acts ix. 26 — 31. Thus we have explicit evidence that the whole church at Jerusalem were not scattered abroad. And had it not been for the comfort and encouragement of the church there during that persecution, it will be hard to account for the apostles continuing there ; especially too as public teachers were the most exposed. 3. When it is said that " they who were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word," Acts viii. 4. we have reason to believe that all those who did so were public teachers ; that they were furnished with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which were so copiously bestowed on the church at Jerusalem, from whence the word of God was to go forth to all nations ; and that these gifts both pointed out the work to which they were designed, and sufficiently qualified them for it. The history of the progress of these public preachers is resumed, chap. xi. 19 — 21. where we are told, that " they travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching (or speaking) the word to none but unto the Jews only :" That " some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them," not only in giving effect to their doctrine, but confirming it by miracles, " and a great number be- lieved, and turned unto the Lord." Thus we see, that they were men eminently gifted and qualified for their work, and remarkably coun- tenanced of the Lord, in laying the foundation of the 416 Strictures on the Sentiments of first of the Gentile churches. Any of them who arc particularly mentioned, were evidently public teachers. The first we read of was Philip, the evangelist and deacon, chap. viii. 5.; and as others of them were the means of converting a great number at Antioch, it is likely that they were among the teachers men- tioned in the church there, chap. xiii. 1. There is, therefore, no explicit evidence that they were private brethren, but very much evidence that they were qualified and appointed to the work in which they were engaged. It is also afiirmed, that, during the age of the apos- tles, private brethren baptized the disciples. If they did, then they were not acting according to the com- mission, which was not given to men as private brethren, but to men appointed and qualified as public teachers ; and which connects the administra- tion of baptism with the preaching of the gospel. It is alleged that the six brethren who accompanied Peter to Cesarea were private brethren, and that Peter commanded them to baptize Cornelius and his kins- men, Acts X. 48. Here are two things afiirmed with- out any explicit proof. There is no evidence that those six brethren were private persons. Their being termed brethren does not prove this, else it will equally prove that apostles, evangelists, and other public teachers, were private persons, for they are also termed brethren, see Matth. xx. 24. Acts xv. 22. Phil, i. 14. 2 Cor. viii. 23. chap ix. 3, 5. Again, it is not said that Peter commanded these six brethren to bap- tize the converts, but that he commanded the converts themselves to be baptized, which does not determine who baptized them, whether Peter himself or those brethren ; for Ananias commanded Saul to be bap- Dr. James iVafi and others. 417 tized, though he himself baptized him. Acts xxii. IG. So that there is no proof cither that these persons m ere private brethren, or, supposing they were, that they baptized Cornelius and his kinsmen. Some imagine that Ananias was not a public teacher, and yet he baptized Saul, Acts ix. 17, 18. It is amazing to observe how persons will strain mat- ters in order to support a favourite hypothesis. This conjecture is perhaps founded upon his being called a disciple, ver. 10. yet both the apostles and the seventy are throughout the gospels termed disciples. Though Ananias should have had no particular commission before, he got an immediate divine commission then, which sufficiently authorized him to do what he did, see ver. 10, 11, 15. And it must farther be observed, that he had both the miraculous gift of restoring Saul's sight, and the power of conferring the Holy Ghost upon him, ver. 17. powers which were conferred only on the most eminent public teachers. To show that 'any private brother may preach the gospel and baptize, some have instanced in Philip, who was one of the seven deacons, and who preached to and baptized the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch. Acts viii. 12. But it should be noticed, that Philip was not only a deacon but an evangelist, chap, xxi. 8. that he confirraed his doctrine at Samaria by miracles, chap. viii. G, 7. and that he had an imme- diate call to preach the gospel to the eunuch and bap- tize him, ver. 29. From the whole, therefore, I am fully warranted to conclude, that there is no explicit evidence, nor indeed any evidence at all, that private brethren either publicly preached the gospel or bap- tized, during the age of the apostles ; nor is there thti least intimation that this work was to devolve upon such in succeeding ages. E E 418 Strictures on the Sentiments of II. Another radical principle of their scheme is, " That a church is the organ through which the power of dispensing ordinances is conveyed to elders." This principle is true in a certain sense ; but observe the argument they draw from it, viz. that as no church can transfer powers which it does not possess in itself, so it must possess in itself the power of dispensing or- dinances, otherv/ise it could not transfer that power to elders. It will be necessary here to examine what powers a church possesses in itself, and what powers it transfers to its elders ; for these are not in all respects the same. The powers which a church possesses in itself, while it is without elders, can be none of the powers of office, for without the office these do not exist; and the powers which it transfers to elders cannot respect the duties required of itself ; for its own proper and indispensable duties are not transferable. The question at issue is not. Whether a church is possessed of a power or right to chuse its own pastors ? for that is freely admitted on all hands ; nor is that the power which a church transfers to its pastors in chusing them, for they had it before as private members. But it must here be observed, that the power which a church possesses of chusing its pastors is not arbitrary and unlimited, but is under the restrictions and direc- tions of Christ's law, by which its choice must be cir- cumscribed and regulated. No church has any warrant from Christ, nor any legitimate power in itself, to chnse any to that office, but such whose qualifications and characters answer, in some measure, to those which are particularly specified in his word, as in 1 Tim. iii. 1 — 8. Tit. i. 6 — 10. ; and it may be questioned, on the other hand, whether a church has a right to with- i>r. James Watt and others. 41D hold its choice from those who appear to be thus qualified, since it is only by these visible characters and qualifications that it can possibly know who are called of God to that office. No church can, by virtue of its choice, convey any gifts or fitness for the pastoral ollice which the persons did not previously possess, according: to the measure of the gift of Christ, Rom. xii. G. Eph. iv. 7. ; and this fitness must appear to the church previous to its choice, and as the grounds of it. The pastoral office itself is not the institution of the church, but of Christ, Luke xii. 14. The qualifications necessary to it are bestowed by him ; and both these and the persons possessing them are his gifts to the church, Eph. iv. 12. The peculiar duties and functions of that office, together with the church's subjection to the scriptural exercise of it, are all prescribed and en- joined in his law ; so that nothing of church power or arbitrary authority can have place here, but the au- thority of Christ alone, to which all are bound to be subject. The relation between pastors and flock is not formed merely by the choice and call of the church, but re- quires also the consent and acceptance of the persons called. It is the solemn mutual consent and agreement of both parties which constitutes that relation, and lays them both under mutual obligations to perform the respective duties of that relation according to the law of Christ. The choice of the church of persons fit for the pastoral office, empowers the persons so chosen to take the oversight of it as pastors, while it also engages the church to be subject to their minis- trations in the Lord, and to perform all the other duties it owes them as enjoined in the word of God. On the other hand, those who accept of and undertake that E K 2 420 ^strictures on the Sentiments of office, are engaged to perform with faithfulness all the official duties and functions belonging to it as the ser- vants of Christ, to whom they must give an account, and as the ministering servants of the church for Christ's sake. Whatever other scriptural solemnities may be used on the occasion, this is the simple amount of the whole transaction. But in all this, the church does not transfer, or make over, to its pastors any powers which it previously possessed in itself. It still retains all the power that ever it had to chuse its own pastors, and may still exercise that power whenever there is occasion for it. And what is this power? It is well described by one who had closely studied the scriptures on that subject. Speaking of what belongs to elders in ordaining men to the pastoral office, he says, "They have no right to separate any man to that office, whom God has not called :" (by which he means nuaiitied). " His law gives them only the powder of obedience, in separating the men who are called by him according to his word." And, with respect to the people, he says, " No people have a right to elect any whom God has not called, or to reject those whom he calls ; but they must obey him in receiving and doing all that he requires of them in his word, towards them that are by him qualified according to the description given in his law. It cannot be so well shown where the New Testament says. That it is ?ny election thai makes a man my minister, as where it forbids me to reject a minister of Christ, and obliges me to receive a man because he is one, according to the description of a minister in the Christian law.— The turning of the part that men have to act, in the choice and ordination of ministers, out of the channel of humble obedience to the plain word of God, has been the spring of all Dr. James Watt and others. 421 the confusion and disorder that has taken place in the world about the ordination of ministers."* But, as has been observed, the power of a church to chuse its own pastors is not the point in dispute, nor what our brother has in view. The whole scope of his letter abundantly explains his meaning- to be, That a church, previous to its having pastors, possesses in itself all the powers, and is competent to exercise all the functions which the word of God assigns to pastors, otherwise it could not by its choice transfer these powers to them. Or, in other words, a church or Christian society, as such, must possess in itself a right to perform every part of the pastoral work, before it has pastors, otherwise it can have no power or right to set apart any of its number to that office. One would think that the bare statement of this sen- timent is a sufficient refutation of it. It is true, none can transfer, or make over to others a right to any property, unless that property is in their possession, and at their own disposal : But it is equally true, that a society, by its right of election, may confer an office on some of its members w hich it was not itself pre- viously possessed of, and which, till that election was made, neither the society at large, nor any of its mem- bers, had a right to assume or exercise. This is a well known principle with regard to all offices and official powders which are conveyed by a free election. A Christian society, though it possesses the right of election to an office under the limitations already men- tioned, yet that is a very different thing from its pos- sessing the office itself, or being qualified for it, or having a right to exercise the powers and functions * Glas's Works, vol. ii. 236, 237, 240. Perth Edit. 422 Striclurcs on the Sentiments of which are attached to it, not by the authority of meii^ as in worldly societies, but by the authority of Christ himself. If the pastoral office be an ordinance or ap- pointment of Christ in his house, — if he has clearly distinguished, in his w ord, those who are fit for it from the body of the church, by certain qualifications, by the official designations given them, and by the min- isterial work and charge assigned them ; then it is plain to a demonstration, that neither the office, nor the work belonging to it, are vested in the church at large, but only in those who are qualified, chosen, and solemnly set apart to execute it. Now if it is true, that a society of Christians is com- petent, and bound in duty, to do every thing without elders that it can do with them, and that no part of the order, worship, ordinances or government of a church has any dependance on the ministrations of the pas- toral office, then it must follow, 1 . That a church has no right or authority to transfer any part of that duty from itself to elders ; for what- ever is its own proper, immediate, and indispensable duty cannot be transferred from itself to an official substitute or proxy, any more than the personal duties of brotherly love or morality can Nor has any per- son a right to accept of such a transfer, 2. It makes the scriptural qualifications for the elder's office not necessary : This consequence is evi- dent ; for if a society of private Christians, who have none among them possessing the qualifications of elders (otherwise they ought to chuse them) can do every thing without them, or perform every part of the work assigned to elders without these qualifications, then such qualifications cannot be necessary to the performance of that work. And why then are the cha- Dr. James Watt and others. 423 racters and qualifications of elders or bishops so pointedly stated and required in the word of God ? 3. This principle renders it needless to chuse and set apart men to the pastoral office. The word of God not only mentions the qualifications necessary to that sacred office, and by which alone we can distinguish those who are called of God to it ; but it also informs us, that such persons were actually chosen in distinc- tion from their brethren, and solemnly set apart and ordained to the pastoral office by prayer with fasting, and laying on of hands. Acts xiv. 23. 1 Tim. v. 22. Now if this conveys no official authority, nor any pe- culiar function or work, but what all, or any of the brethren, have a right and are bound in duty to exercise, without either the qualifications or the office, it must undoubtedly follow, that the whole of this solemn pro- ceeding is not only a mere unmeaning ceremony, but its Very solemnity must be superstition, if not gross prophanity. 4. According to this principle, elders have no pecu- liar work or charge committed to them which does not equally belong to all the brethren, and so elders can be under no special obligation or responsibility for the discharge of that work but what is common to all : For if a church is bound in duty to do every thing without, or previous to its having elders, then it is plain, that no peculiar work, charge, or responsibility is attached to the elder's office. But what then shall we make of the solemn charge given by Paul to the elders of the Ephesian church, and which he en- forces by his own example, " Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own 424 Strictures on the Sentiments of blood/' Acts XX. 28. Again, Peter writing to the dif- ferent churches throughout Pontus, Galatia, &c. gives this charge to the elders among them : " The elders who arc among you I exhort, who am also an elder — leed the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not by constraint, but willingly ; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind ; neither as being lords over God's heritages, but being ensaraples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away," 1 Pet. V. 1—5. These passages sufficiently shew, that there is a peculiar work assigned to elders in relation to the flock over which they are set. Farther, this principle makes the official designations given to elders in the scriptures, such as pastors, overseers^ leaders, guides, or rulers, presidents, stewards, teachers, ^c. to be words without meaning, or mere empty sounds ; and surely they can be nothing else, if they are not expressive of any official power, function, or work peculiar to elders, and which the brethren in common have no authority to assume or exercise. 5. Another consequence of this principle is, that it frees a church from any particular obligation of duty to their elders as such, or on account of any official work which they perform among them : For if there is no peculiar work or duty due from pastors to the flock, there can be no peculiar duty due from the flock to their pastors. But in opposition to this, let US hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches : Paul, writing to the church of the Thessalonians, says, " And we beseech you, brethren, to know them who labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you ; and to esteem them very highly in lo\^e for their work's sake, and be at peace among Dr. James Watt and others. 425 yourselves," 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. And, writing to the Hebrews, he says, " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves ; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief, for that is un- profitable for you," Heb. xiii. 17. Since we are on this subject, it may be proper to mention another duty which a church owes to its elders, and that is maintenance ; for thus the churches in Galatia are exhorted, " Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teachetli in all good things," Gal. vi. 6. And Timothy is directed to instruct the church at Ephesus in this duty : " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, es- pecially they who labour in the word and doctrine : For the scripture saith. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn ; and, The labourer is worthy of his reward," 1 Tim. v. 17, 18. As this also is disputed by some, we may observe, that the word honour here signifies not only respect, but maintenance, as is clear from the reasons enforcing it, in ver. 18. and from the use of the word in several other places, see Matth, xv. 4—7. Acts xxviii. 10. 1 Tim. v. 3. It ought also to be noticed, that this duty is not founded merely in the law of charity, which obliges Christians to supply the wants of the poor ; but it is founded in strict justice and equity, such as the right which the labourer has to his reward, in which there is a reference to our Lord's words, Luke x. 7.; and the apostle places it on the same footing with the right which the priests had to a maintenance by the Mosaic law. " Do ye not know, that Ihey who min- ister about holy things live of the things of the temple ? and they who wait at the altar are partakers with the 426 Strictures on the Sentiments of altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel," 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14. And though Paul declined taking any thing from the Corinthians, for reasons which he assigns, 2 Cor. xi. 7 — 13. yet he maintains his right to it, 1 Cor. ix. 6 — it), and received supply from other churches, 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9. Philip, iv. 14—19. It is indeed honourable in pastors to decline their right to maintenance, if they can do without it. Acts xx. 34, 35. but it is very dishonourable in churches to withhold the reward of the labourer if they are able to afford it ; and in this respect the Corinthians were inferior to other churches, 2 Cor. xii. 13. Now, as pastors, on the one hand, are set over the flock, and have a special charge to feed them, by ruling, watching over, admonishing, and ministering the word and ordinances to them, as they that must give account; and, on the other hand, as the flock are commanded to know and esteem them for their work's sake, and to obey, submit to, and support them in the discharge of that work, nothing can more clearly set forth the distinction between the duties of the pastoral office and those incumbent on the church at large. From what has been already said, it is clear to a de- monstation, 6. That the principle under consideration renders the elders' office altogether unnecessary ; for if a church possesses all the powers of that office in itself; if it can do every thing without it, and without the qualifi- cations necessary to it, and is bound in duty to do so, it can be of little or no consequence whether it has elders or not. In a church where all the members are possessed of the same powers, and are under the same obligations to perform every part of the public service. Dr, James Watt and others. 427 there can be no such thing as any peculiar or distinct office. An office which has no exclusive prerogative, no powers, functions, or duties peculiar to it, is a mere non-entity, and to apply to it any of the distin- guishing designations of office, is an absolute ab- surdity. III. Another principle assumed in support of this scheme is, " That the peculiarity of the pastor's work does not consist in the kind of employment in which he engages, but in the degree." Now, if this be the case, then the pastoral office has no peculiar kind of work or charge attached to it ; nor have pastors any peculiar kind of official authority, power or rule vested in them for the discharge of that office, but what belongs to all the brethren, who, according to this, must be all, in fact, leaders, rulers, pastors, teachers, &c. in kijid, though not in the same degree. The scripture, indeed, never applies these official designations to the brethren in general ; but why ? Is it because, though they are en- gaged in the same kind of work with their pastors, they do it not in the same degree ? If so, it will be ne- cessary to ascertain what degree of the same kind of work is necessary to constitute the peculiarity of the pastor's office, and whether that degree is to be mea- sured by the quantity or quality of his work, or both. To settle this with precision will, perhaps, require all Dr. Watt's skill, especially as he denies that there is any difference in the pastor's work from that of the brethren as to its nature or kind. It may happen that some of the brethren may be equal to, or perhaps excel their elders in abilities for performing different parts of their work, who yet, upon the whole, would be very unfit for that office in respect of experience, temper, or character ; in which case it 428 Strictures on the Sentiments of would at least be very diflficult to perceive any pecu- liarity in the elder's work as to its degree. Should a brother perform diflferent parts of the public service equally well as an elder, there would be no distinction in the degree of their work in this case, for equality does not admit of it ; and so the elder cannot be dis- tinguished by the degree of his work from that brother, if there is nothing else to distinguish him. But should the brother in any degree excel the elder in that work, then that degree constitutes him the elder, it being accor- ding to this rule, the only distinction in which the pe- culiarity of the elder's work consists. If it be said, that he cannot be an elder, because he is not chosen by the church, and because there may be something in his character which unfits him for that office ; I answer, this is to admit, that there are other peculiarities ne- cessary to the office and work of an elder besides its degree, and so contradicts the principle above laid down. If there is any distinction between rulers and ruled, stewards and households, pastors and flock, teachers and taught, &c. as the word of God abundantly shews, then there must of necessity be a dilference in the nature of their relative and respective duties answer- able to these distinctions. It must be the official work of pastors to rule, lead, watch over, feed, and instruct the church committed to their charge, according to the word of God ; and, on the other hand, it must be the duty of the church to obey and submit to them that are over them in the Lord, and to receive and comply with their instructions, so far as these are agreeable to the word of God. It is evident, therefore, that the respective duties of pastors and flock in relation to each other are different Dr. James Watt and others. 429 in kind: And though the reciprocal duties of bro- therly love and mutual edification, belong to all the members in their sphere, and according to their ability ; yet they are not teachers or rulers by office, nor are they entrusted with the charge of feeding the flock, and of taking care of the church of God: but pastors being vested in a peculiar sacred office appointed by Christ over the church, and with the official powers and au- thority which are essentially necessary to the discharge of it, they must have a work and sphere of action dif- ferent in kind as well as degree from what is common to them with those who are commanded to obey and submit to them in the Lord. And those who oppose or resist them in the proper exercise of their office, resist the authority of Christ himself, whose ordinance they are. Dr. Watt, in defending this principle of his against Mr. B. discovers a remarkable talent at quibbling and shuffling. He says, " The term pastor or feeder applied to elders, is no proof that none else may pre- side at the Lord's Supper ;" and to this negative asser- tion he adds another as the proof of it, viz, '' for it is not chiefly on account of presiding at this ordinance that the elder is called a pastor," p. 38. But as there are different parts of pastoral feeding, so unless he denies that dispensing the Supper is any part of it, to what do his assertions amount 1 Or why does he use the word chiefly in this connection ? Our argument does not rest upon its being chiefly on account of ad- ministering the Supper that the elder is termed a pastor or feeder, nor upon its being the most literal act of feeding; but upon its being included in that feeding of the flock which belongs to pastors. If, therefore, he would say any thing to the purpose, he r 430 Strictures on the Sentiments of must deny this; and then he may inform us what right or authority he himself has to administer the iSupper, more than any private brother in the church ? Is it because he officiates in a more perfect degree than any of the rest can ? I do not think he can plead this. Why then does he not call on the brethren to officiate in this ordinance, even as he calls on them to pray? Or why may not any of the brethren who chuse spon- taneously step forward and officiate in this, even as they do in the duty of exhortation ? Till he adopt this plan, we can perceive no consistency in any of his ar- guments on this subject ; nor are we obliged to believe that he is sincerely and firmly established in the prin- ciple while his practice contradicts it. He says, " That even those things on account of which the elder is called pastor, are not exclusive to him," &c. But if those things which are the very reason and ground of his being called a pastor are not exclusive to him, how comes the designation oi pastor to be applied to him exclusively? There are many duties which belong to the members and elders of a church in common ; but it is not on account of these things that elders are called pastors, though in such things they ought to be examples to the flock ; but they are called pastors on account of what is peculiar to them, such as the qualifications and characters by which they are distinguished ; their being chosen and set apart to the pastoral office ; their being vested with the official powers and authority necessary to the dis- charge of the duties pertaining to it, and their actual discharge of these duties in ruling, leading, feeding, and taking care of the church of God. Because private brethren may occasionally teach, admonish, exhort, and comfort one another, and give their voice in Dr. James Watt and others* 431 public discipline, therefore Dr. Watt imagines there is no ditference between these mutual duties of brethren and the work and charge assigned to a pastor, except in the degree of employment, he being more constantly engaged in these things; nor does he seem to admit that a pastor is possessed of any official authority ; for he atfects not to understand what Mr. B. means by the use of the terms official and authoritative, though he knows that Paul thus exhorts Titus, " These things speak, exhort, and rebuke with all authority," Tit. ii. 15. The word is zmrayy), which is rather stronger than slso-ia. No office can include rule with- out including some authority in the exercise of it, and which belongs not to those who are commanded to be subject. But the Doctor confounds the authority of the pastor with that of private brethren, by attempting to shew that every brother has the same kind of authority with him. He says, " a private brother may state to his brother a command of Christ, and call him to obey it. He can refuse Christian fellowship to incorrigible sinners, or even churches, by withdrawing from them," p. 44, 45. But what similarity has this to the official authority of a pastor over the flock ? And what exercise of authority i^ it in a brother to withdraw himself either from an individual or a church? Several have withdrawn from us from time to time ; but we never looked upon this as an exercise of authority over us, nor do I believe that they themselves viewed it in that light. He supposes, that the majority of a church may agree, in opposing the pastor's exercise of power, in some one case, and asks, *' Of what use would his power be ?" I answer, of none at all to the majority ; though he had ever so right a cause, all he can do is 432 Strictures on the Sentiments of to deliver his own soul. But he says, " Every rational man must a,a:ree that the probability (viz. of being right) was in favour of the majority." In a general view the probability may, but in fact the right may notwith- standing be on the other side, as it has often been. The majority of Israel opposed their faithful teachers, and fell into idolatry ; and if the probability was in their favour, the Lord of Hosts was against them. The majority in the churches of Galatia had fallen from the doctrine of grace ; yet as they were in a dangerous error, the apostle thought it his duty, as far as in him lay, to controul those churches, and recover them to the faith. The majority is far from being infallible, nor is its voice any test of truth ; and this Dr. Watt himself admits, where he supposes private brethren withdrawing from incorrigible churches. Yet, without determining whether the opposition of the majority to their pastors be right or WTong, he says, " no pastor ought to controul a church." He farther asks, " Whether is the judgment of the church, or of the elders, to be followed ? Whether do the elders or the church rule?" p. 41. I answer, that judgment which is according to truth ought to be followed, whether that be the judgment of the church, or of the elders ; and if both of them are wrong, (which is also a supposable case), then neither of them ought to be followed. As to the other question, " Whether do the elders or the church rule?" The word of God never assigns what is properly called rule to any ex- cept to office-bearers ; but a church may deprive their elders of the rule, if they have just cause ; and without such cause they would only demonstrate their own unruliness ; for they have no authority to act arbitrarilf in this matter. Dr. James Watt and others. 483 After having argued at large in defence of his prin- ciple, viz. that the teaching and ruling of private bre- thren are of the same kind with that of eiders; or, in other words, that there is no peculiar kind of function pertaining to the pastoral office, he says, " that his (iVIr. B's.) distinctions of teaching and ruling, &c. into official and non-official, authoritative and non- authori- tative, are of a different consideration." A different consideration ! From what ? From the point in hand ? By no means : These distinctions are directly in point, and of the same consideration. Mr. B. mentions several things which distinguish pastors from private brethren, and among the rest their offi.ce, and the authority with whicli they are vested for the discharge of it, and which belong to private brethren in no degree, otherwise they must in some degree be pastors. Instead of meeting this directly, Dr. Watt endeavours to evade it, by asserting in general that these things " are of a different consideration," without stating in what respects they are so, or whether he views them of any consideration at ail. But indeed it is all one to him of what consideration they are, for he asserts that they are of none in the administration of the Lord's Sup- per, p. 43. All his arguments, or rather assertions, on this head amount just to this, that there is nothing peculiar to the pastoral office but the name, and per- haps, a greater proportion of the work which is com- mon to them with private brethren. As the necessary consequence of this and of the foregoing principles, it is maintained. IV. " That private brethren have a right to admin- ister the Lord's Supper to a church of Christ." Some indeed add, " provided they have no elders, or if Iheir elders are absent." This would intimate, that private Ff 434 Strictures on the Sentiments of brethren have a right from the word of God to admin- ister the Supper, but that the same word forbids them to do so when elders are present ; yet there is not the least hint in the Scriptures of any such right, nor con- sequently of any such restriction upon it. But that the reader may form a just vie^vv of the controversy upon this head, it will be necessary to state the argu- ments on both sides. We maintain, that no society of Christians can regularly observe the Lord's Supper while they have none among them who, by office, is authorized to administer it to them. This is plain, 1. From the example of Christ himself at its first institution, see Mat. xxvi. 26—29. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 26. Here we see that he acted not merely as the institutor, but also as the administrator of this ordinance : "• He took bread, blessed it, brake it, and gave it to his disciples. Then he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them." These actions he accompanied with words, explaining the mystery of the bread and cup, and the use they were to make of them ; " Take, eat ; this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. This cup is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you ; drink ye all of it ; this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." These are the actions and words of Christ as the administrator, the actions of the receivers being distinguished from them, and are their taking the bread and cup, and, their eating the one and d)inking the other, and doing both in remembrance of Christ. Here we see, that Christ hath set an exam- ple how this ordinance is to be dispensed in the churches of the saints till he come again ; and it is the only rule or example afterwards referred to in all the New Testament; see 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 26. chap. Dr. James Watt and others. 485 X. 16, 17. It cannot be denied that Christ, in ad- ministering the Supper to his apostles, acted as the chief Shepherd and Bishop of his church ; and if it be lawful for any to administer this ordinance after his example, it must belong only to such as are appointed officially to feed the church of God, and not to the members in common, or to any private brother who may assume that office for the time. This argument is vehemently opposed, and, by one of our brethren, in a way not very consistent with charity, or even with that common candour which we might expect from him. He first misconstrues our meaning, as if we were impiously affirming, that elders or pastors hold a similar station to Christ in the church, as he is Lord and Lawgiver, the institutor and sacrifice in this ordinance ; though he well knows, a,nd every one may see, that our argument respects only the administration of it ; a service which was not to end with Christ's personal ministry, but to continue till he come again ; but as to elders holding a similar sta- tion to Christ in this, he knows that we abhor the blasphemous thought. He seems to think, that insti- tuting and dispensing the Supper are all one action, because Christ did both at the same time. But if they are, it must follow, that none can dispense the ordi- nance after his example, any more than they can institute it. Though this is a plain consequence, yet I am far from thinking it is his sentiment ; for there is a wide difterence between instituting and dispensing an ordinance. Christ instituted baptism, but he never dispensed it outwardly to any, John iv. 2. He, as the great Lawgiver, instituted the Supper, and that once for all, so that there can be no farther institution of it, Ff2 436 Strictures on the Sentiments of for he has delegated his legislative authority to none r lie also, at the same time, dispensed it to his disciples, ill which he acted among them as he that serveth, Luke xxii. 27. but this service which he performed must be repeated by others as often as the disciples afterwards come together to break bread. Dr. Watt also attempts to set aside Christ's ex- ample of dispensing the Supper from being any rule to us: He says, "We never can obtain, nor dare we imitate the Head of the church ; the Lord Jesus Christ presiding in a church on earth. No pastor may per- sonate the Lord, and say, This is my body broken for you," p. 16. Though there is some ambiguity and want of proper arrangement in these words, yet the concluding sentence explains the whole ; and it amounts to this, that no pastor can copy Christ's ex- ample, or imitate him in the service of dispensing the Supper, without personating him ; that is, without as- suming Christ's station as head of the church, and counterfeiting his person, and so holding himself forth to the church, instead of Christ, as the mystery of the bread and cup in that ordinance ! One would have thought that Dr. Watt, who steps forward on all oc- casions, (and indeed without occasion), to display his critical and argumentative talents, might, at least, have easily distinguished between a pastor's dis- pensing the Supper, by repeating the words of insti- tution expressly as Christ's words, and his repeating them as his own words, and so declaring that it is his own body that is broken for them. Such a distinction is obvious to every one possessed of common sense. He admits, that a private brother, or even a sister, may dispense the Supper, by reading or repeating the same words, and doing the same actions which Christ Dr. James Wall and olhers. 437 did on that occasion, wilhout any such shocking im- putation ; but a pastor (whose proper charge it is (o feed the church oCGod) cannot, according to him, do the same thing without personating Christ, and telling the church that it is his own body that is broken for them! I believe that few will think this reasoning merits a serious refutation ; and whether it deserves a greater share of pity or contempt, I leave to the judg- ment of the candid reader. If Dr. Watt be a pastor, as he calls himself; if, as such, he dispenses the Sup- per, reminding the church of our Lord's words on that occasion, and doing the same actions, he acts that very part which he condemns. And if he dispenses it only as a private brother, and is really persuaded that any of the brethren has the same right to per- form that service, why does he not allow them to do so when pastors are present ? One would be apt to conclude from this, that his arguments (if they deserve that name) are as much at variance with his real con; viction as they are with his practice. He says, " Christ gave this ordinance to his apos- tles, and commanded them as his disciples, and on the common footing of the privileges of all his disci- ples. Do this in remembrance of me ; and he did not limit the observance to an organized society," p. 16. Another brother says, " From the institution, we learn who are to observe it," viz. disciples ; " in what man- ner it is to be administered, and the gracious ends for "which it is appointed. But the institution does not inform us by whom (i. e . by what order of men) the Supper is to be dispensed Jesus does not say, Do this in remembrance of me ; but it must be dispensed by office-bearers," &c. There can be no doubt that this ordinance was 438 Strictures on the Sentiments of j^ivcn to disciples to be observed by thera. All things were given to the disciples, and for their benefit ; all ordinances, and all gifts and office-bearers, even the most eminent and extraordinary, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, or teachers ; all things are theirs, 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22. Eph. iv. 11, 12. But what is the inference from all this ? Is it that office-bearers, as such, have no peculiar charge to feed the church of God by dis- pensing public ordinances : or, if they have, that the Lord's Supper is an exception ? This would be a strange and unnatural inference indeed. But it is said, "Jesus does not say, It must be dispensed by office- bearers." True ; but neither does he say. It may be dispensed by private members. Here then the balance appears equal ; but if we place in one scale the ex- ample of Christ in dispensing it, with the ministry he hath avssigned to office-bearers, the other scale, light as air, will quick up fly, and kick the beam. To take the commandment, " Do this in remembrance of me," abstractedly by itself, and then to argue from what it does not expressly say, is both an injudicious and unfair method of arguing, and would make sad work of a great part of the word of God. This command- ment does not expressly say in what manner the Sup- per is to be administered; whether it belongs to a church, organized or unorganized ; whether it must be a church coming statedly together into one place to eat it, or whether it may not be observed by solitary individuals; for precepts are often addressed to mul- titudes which require detached individual obedience. Nor does the commandment inform us how often the Supper is to be observed, whether yearly, quarterly, monthly, or weekly, nor on what day of the week. Dr. James Wait and others. 439 Oiir opponents must here confess, that they do not ga- ther these particulars from the commandment itself, but are obliged to have recourse to other passages of Scripture : And is it reasonable that they should restrict us to the commandment for proof that the Supper belongs to an organized church, and that it ought to be dispensed by office-bearers? Or are they at liberty to deny these things if not expressly men- tioned in the mandatory part of the institution ? Dr. Watt says, that " the commandment of Christ in this instance, without any example but that re- ferred to in the commandment, is a sufficient rule," p. 16. And the other writer above referred to admits, that "from the institution we learn in what manner it is to be administered :" But if the commandment refers to Christ's example as to the jnanner of ad- ministering it, then it must be an imitable example, and commanded to be imitated by those whom he hath appointed to feed the flock of God. Yet the Doctor says, " We dare not imitate the Head of the church, the Lord Jesus presiding in a church on earth." If so, how can he view the commandment as referring to that example ? and if he dares not follow it in his manner of administering that ordinance, where is his rule for administering it at all? I am of opinion, that the command, " This do in remenbrance of me," refers both to the dispensing and receiving of that ordinance; and that as it refers to the former it is given to office-bearers, but as it refers to the latter it is given to them all, "drink ye all of it;" for both these parts were distinctly exemplified. He farther says, " Mr. B. complains, that we here take many things for granted which we ought toprove^, This would be a just charge, perhaps, if we rested 440 Strictures on the Sentiments of solely on such reasoning for our warrant for the observance of the Lord's Supper. But we rest on the broad ground of unlimited institution, and use these arj^uments as concordant to the institution, and also in opposition to arbitrary limitations," p. 18. He has no doubt a meaning of his own to the words unlimited institution ; but surely the institution of the Supper is not unlimited, either as to those who have a right to dispense or receive it, or as to its substance or design. Unlimited institution appears to me an absurdity; for every thing that is instituted must be limited and regulated by the law of its institution. If he means to say, that they admit of no other limitations than wJiat are expressly stated in the words of the institution, this is not the case ; for [ know none, except himself, who do not limit it to what they call a church, and to the first day of the week, though the words do not express this; and while they extend to private brethren the right of dispensing this ordinance in certain cir- cumstances, they limit it in others, though there is not the least hint of that right, nor of the circumstances under which it is to be limited, either in the words of institution or any where else. I cannot suppose that he imagines the institution is so unlimited as to leave us at liberty to observe it in any manner we please ; and therefore, if he means any thing to the point, it must be this, that the dispensing of the Supper in all circumstances, is, by unlimited institution, made the equal right of every member, even as the receiving of it is. This, I apprehend, is the broad ground on which he rests his reasoning. But as it is the very point in debate, it requires more than his bare assertion to determine it; and if his broad ground of unlimited institution be itself a wild and unfounded imagination, Dr. James Watt and others. 441 as it evidently is, what will become of all his concordant reasonings which he rests upon it? Christ, in adminis- tering the Supper, has set a plain example how those who are appointed office-bearers in his church should administer it till he come again ; and all the contradic- tory reasonings that have been urged against this, whether, on the one hand, from its being inimitable by any, or, on the other hand, from its being competent to every private brother, are altogether unworthy of a se- rious answer. 2. The peculiar worky with the corresponding official designations given to elders, clearly shew, that dis- pensing the public ordinances is assigned to them, con- sequently the dispensing of the Lord's Supper. They are commanded to feed Christ's sheep and lambs, John xxi. 15 — 18. — to feed the church of God, Acts XX. 28.— to feed the flock of God, 1 Pet. v. 2. The original word poimainein, rendered to feed, properly signifies to perform the office of a shepherd. It im- ports rule and authority, and is figuratively used to ex- press the exercise of civil government, 2 Sam. v. 2. Psal. Ixxviii. 71, 72. but more frequently the exercise of a religious office in the church, Jer. iii. 15. ch. xxiii. 4. Hence elders or bishops are termed Poimenai, i. e. shepherds, pastors, or feeders, Eph. iv. 11. as being official feeders of the flock committed to their charge ; which feeding comprehends all the duties of their office, such as watching over, ruling, teaching, exhorting, comforting, and admonishing them, and, among other ordinances, administering the Lord's Supper to them, in the name and after the example of Christ the (Arcliipoimen) Chief Shepherd, 1 Pet. v. 4. Hence also elders or bishops are termed (oikonomoi) stewards of God, Tit. i. 7. The word signifies one 442 Strictures on the Sentiments of who is set over a household, and hath the charge and care of its affairs committed to him, and particularly to deal out or dispense the necessary provisions to the family ; so our Lord explains it, " Who then is that faithful and wise (oikonomosj steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season ?" Luke xii. 42. It is therefore evident, that pastors have a peculiar and ap- propriate charge and work assigned them, and which pertains to their office ; an office involving authority, and which none can warrantably assume or exercise till they are scripturally chosen and set apart to it. To this it has been answered, " That the brethren nourish one another with the words of faith and good doctrine, which, it is presumed, is the same as feeding ; and that therefore it is not the exclusive work of pastors." Though it is the duty of brethren mutually to exhort and admonish one another ; yet the passage alluded to in 1 Tim. iv. 6. says nothing of that, but re- spects the exercise of Timothy's office, " as a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished by the words of the faith and of the good doctrine, to the knowledge of which he had attained." The word feeding is never applied to the mutual instructions and exhortations of brethren, but is a term expressive of, and appro- priated to the exercise of the pastor's office. The word of God no where represents the brethren as official teachers or pastors, or as set over the flock with a charge to feed it ; nor is the ministry of the word and dispensing of ordinances committed to them. But Dr. Watt soon gets rid of this argument. He has nothing to do but to observe, that the words pastor, feeding, ^c. are metaphors; and to assert, that the Dr. James Watt and others. 448 most of our proofs of the point at issue " rest on no sounder basis than strained figures, verbal criticisms, applied to figurative expressions; and that this is a species of reasoning neither proper nor necessary for plain Christians, nor within their reach, " p. 26, 27. But this misrepresentation of our reasoning and proofs is of small consequence when compared to his treat- ment of the language in which the Holy Spirit saw proper to communicate a considerable part of revela- tion to men. He says, " Strict reasoning requires de- finitions ; as definitions reject metaphors, and as these expressions (viz. pastor, f ceding, Sic.) are metaphorical, we can expect little conclusive reasoning from them.'' Here he lays it down as his rule of strict reasoning, to reject all scripture metaphors, as having no certain or determinate sense or application; and so finds himself at liberty to set aside every argument as incon- clusive, which rests in any degree on the current sense of a metaphor, though explained and applied by the Holy Spirit himself, as are the metaphors he objects to in the present case. For instance, the word shepherd or pastor literally signifies one whose business is to feed or take care of a flock of sheep, Luke ii. 8.; and though it is often figuratively applied to God in respect of his people, Psal. xxiii. 1. Ixxx. 1. ; to Christ, Isa. xl. 11. John x. 11, 14. and also to the elders or bishops of a Christian church ; yet its meaning, in such applications, is, at least, as obvious and determinate as its literal sense is, and is by far more fully explained by the Holy Spirit. The same observation will apply to the word feeding, which comprehends every part of the shepherd's work in relation to the sheep ; and this is more particularly set forth in the figurative than literal use of it, see Psal. xxiii. Ixxx. 1. Isai. xl. 11, 444 Strictures on the Sentiments oj Ezek. xxxiv. 11—20. All the directions given (o office-bearers respecting the exercise of their ministry, are just so many literal explanations of the manner in which they are to feed the flock of God, see Acts xx. 28—36. with the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. I know not therefore why he should accuse us of straining these figures for maintaining, that dispensing the word and ordinances is part of the pastor's work in feeding the flock. To affirm that " this is a species of reasoning neither proper nor necessary for plain Christians, nor within their reach," and that strict rea- soning rejects metaphors, however clearly explained and applied, is to throw a dishonourable reflection upon the diction of the Holy Spirit, as not cal- culated to make the simple wise, and to offer an insult to the understanding of the plainest Christian ; for what Christian is so ignorant (unless confounded by artful sophistry) as not to know, that it belongs to the pastors of a church to administer the word and ordi- nances to the flock committed to their charge, and that for the purpose of their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace ? Yet he at the same time maintains, that it is within the reach of these same plain Chris- tians themselves, to administer the word and ordi- nances to each other, and to interfere with every part of the pastor's work, p. 21. He says, " The principal idea intended by the terms shepherd and feeding, as applied to churches, is that of guidance and leading. — Pastors are guides or leaders to a society on their journey through this world hea- venward," p. 21. Feeding, no doubt, implies guidance or leading, as necessary to it ; and we may add, it re- quires seeking out, ruling, watching, and protecting the sheep, as these and other particulars are detailed Dr. James Wait and others. 445 in Ezek. xxxiv. 11—25. But on what authority does he afSnn, " that the principal idea intended by the term feeding, is guidance or leading in a journey?" This sense is not the strict meaning of the word ; for when leading is simply or chiefly intended, it is always expressed in Greek by other terms. A shepherd, in feeding his sheep, does not lead them in a journey, but to green pastures where they may feed, see Psal. xxiii. 2, 5. Ezek. xxxiv. 14, 15. John x. 3, 4, 9. Leading is not the principal idea intended, nor indeed the proper sense of the word (Troi/xaivco) to feed, at all, though it is connected with and implied in it, even as riding is ; for a shepherd, if he would feed his flock in proper pastures, must both lead and rule them. And as the original term is never used solely, or even chiefly, to signify leading ; so it occurs where neither leading nor ruling is implied, but simply feeding with food, as in Jude, ver. 12. Now as the word of God is often com- pared to food, suited both to babes and those of full age ; as the Lord's Supper represents a church feeding on Christ's sacrifice; and as pastors, agreeably to their official designation, are enjoined to feed the church of God, being appointed as stewards over his household to give them their portion of meat in due season, what sober-minded and unprejudiced Chris- tian can desire stronger evidence, that the church must be fed by administering to it the word and ordinances ; and that this is a work and charge peculiarly assigned to pastors, as distinguished from those whom they are commanded to feed ? Is there any straining of figures here, or is it a method of reasoning beyond the reach of the plainest Christians ? He says, " To render the argument from the word pastor, and the term feeding of any use, it should be 446 Strictures on the Sentiments of shewn, that the expression feeding applies solely or chiefly to presiding at the Lord's Supper." — But the argument requires no such thing. It is sufficient to shew, that dispensing the Supper, according to the pattern which Christ hath given, is part of that feeding which belongs to those whom he hath appointed as pastors over his church. — He farther adds, that it must also be shewn, " th3.t feeding is so peculiar to the pastor, that none else may, in any degree, interfere with it," p. 20. But it is enough here to shew, that feeding a church is connected with leading and ruling it, and is assigned only to such as sustain a public office, who are scripturally qualified, and have been chosen and set apart to that work. To such alone is the charge expressly given to feed the church of God ; and therefore to such it peculiarly belongs. But as he affirms that this feeding is competent to private bre- thren, it belongs to him to shew the scripture authority for it. The duties of mutual edification enjoined upon the brethren in common will not prove this, unless he can shew that the pastoral work is committed to them, and that they are under a solemn charge to feed the church of God. He thinks that private brethren are not excluded from interfering with the exercise of the pastor's office. Yet we know that the divine displeasure was awfully manifested against all who presumed to inter- fere with the priests' office under the law. Numb. xvi. 1 Sam. xiii. 11—15. 2 Chron. xxvi. 16—21. The chil- dren of Israel might plead that all the Lord's people were holy ; that many religious duties were common to them with Aaron and his sons ; and Saul, on account of the priest's absence, might plead necessity for what he did ; but none of these pleas were sustained as suf- Dr. James Wait and others. 447 ficicnt to justify their interference with the priest's office. I am aware of all the objections that can be brought against the application of this to the present case, but I consider them as of no weight at all ; for though the pastors of Christian churches are neither sacrificing^ priests, nor types of Christ in his priestly office ; yet their office is equally of divine appointment, and the official functions pertaining to it equally pecu- liar to them. Will any affirm, that the ministry assigned them is less sacred, spiritual and important than that which was assigned to the ministers of reli- gion under the law ? or that the character and qualifi- cations necessary to the proper discharge of it are of less consequence? If these things cannot be affirmed with truth, then it must be equally presumptuous in private brethren to interfere with what belongs pecu- liarly to the pastoral office, as it was in what belonged to the priestly ; nor does the difference between these two offices, as to their nature and end, make any dif- ference in this respect. The Christian roi/al priesthood (1 Pet. ii. 9.) have no right to interfere with what is pe- culiar to the pastoral office, any more than the Jewish kingdom of priests, (Exod. xix, 6.) had to interfere with what was peculiar to the priestly. Referring to his Essays, he says, " It is no part of the controversy in these Essays, whether it be proper to call a small society, meeting for worship vi^ithout elders, a church or not. — Though it could be proved that such a society is not a church, it cannot be proved that they may not eat the Lord's Supper. — But this writer," (viz. the Editor of the Christian Ad- vocate,) "takes it for granted, that the Lord's Supper is allowed to be a church ordinance, which, in arguing with me, is in part begging the question." We have. 448 Strictures on the Sentiments of indeed, hitherto understood our opponents as admit- ting that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance. They have expressly declared this ; and, upon any other principle, they had no occasion to contend so strenuously, that the lowest plurality, even two or three, constitute a church of Christ : But here Dr. Watt maintains, that as to observing the Lord's Supper, it is of no consequennce whether they be a church or not. It is not my intention here to prove that the Lord's Supper is a church-ordinance, that being abundantly proved by other hands,* and fully allowed by many of our opponents ; but shall only observe, that the multitude of disciples at Jerusalem, at Corinth, and at Troas were churches ; that these observed the Lord's Supper, and are the only instances of this recorded in scripture ; that they came together into one place to eat it, and are forbidden to eat it separately, but are commanded to tarry one for another. Acts xx. 7. 1 Cor. xi. 20, 21, 33. that they may exhibit the joint participation of the body of Christ, 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. But Dr. Watt does not limit this ordinance to any thing that can be called a church : He rests his war- rant for the observance of it on what he calls tJie broadlground of unlimited institution; so that, ac- cording to him, it may be observed by any company of Christians, whether it has elders or not ; whether it consists of many, or only of two or three ; nay, whether it can be called a church or not ; these are with him mere circumstances of no consideration in this matter; the Lord's Supper must be observed at any rate ; and to take it for granted that he allows it to be an or- dinance peculiar to a church, is only begging the question. * See Letters on various Subjects, by W. Braidwood, p. 48 — 70. Dr. James Watt and others. 449 He observes that " the Reviewer," (viz. the Editor ©f the Christian A.Jvocate) " urges, that the opposite seatiment deduced would lead to the idea, that tivo females meeting together for Christian worship, &c. ought to communicate in the ordinance of the Supper ;" to this the Doctor answ^ers. And why not ? The Re- viewer considered this idea as absurd ; but to this he again answers, Why absurd? p. 29. So that, according to him, no reason can be assigned why two females may not meet by themselves, and communicate in the ordinance of the Supper ; and that there is no absurdity in maintaining this. But when the Reviewer took no- tice of this cis a plain avowal of that sentiment, and a vindication of the practice, he makes the following shuffling reply, " When it was supposed absurd to say, that two females meeting together for Christian wor- ship, &c. ought to communicate in the Lord's Supper, I answered. And why not ? I made in the quotation a blank, or &c. in order to steer clear of the question, whether such two females are to be called a church or not, which I judge very unimportant. But with regard to the Lord's Supper, I observe, the case is one of my opponent's making. I have said. Essays, p. 6. the discussion of it is necessarily trifling." But though he declines to answer the question, as to whether the two supposed females are a church or not ; yet from what follows, it is clearly his sentiment, that, however they may come together, whether statedly, occasionally, or accidentally, if they join in any act of worship at all, they ought to observe the Lord's Supper; for he again asks, " Why not ? What is there in this more than in any other social ordinance, that they cannot observe ?" And, according to his sentiments, he might also have asked. What is there in observing it in communioa •'«»aPiB*»v»: •- - '■-'serve also, that those brethren Avho hrive been qualitied to judge in matters of verbal criticism, have been, and are, in general, opposed to Mr. Braidwood on this point," p. 27. He surely cannot Ihink that the generality of learned men are on his side, and opposed to Mr. B. in this controversy ; for he knows the contrar}'. By men qualitied to judge in verbal criticism, therefore, he must mean himself, and two or three more who of late years have embraced the same sentiments; though it does not appear that this has arisen from their superior skill in solid Bibli- cal learning. It would be exceedingly vain and silly in any of us to vie with Dr. Watt in learnhig. But while we yield him the palm as to that, we think it would be more to his real honour if he made a less ostentatious display of it, and of his qualifications for verbal criticism, especially as he is not alwajs very correct in his learned explanations of scripture words. In his Essay on " the covenant of Jehovah with Abraham," he begins with a learned critical expla- nation of the Hebrew beritfi, and the Greek diatheke, which our translators render covenant, and sometimes testament. " Berith," he says, " literally applies to Cuttingy and may express either the same idea as iiii Strictures on the Sentiments of intersection, division, and separation, or be equivalent to pattern, form, or shape, viz. made by cutting." Now, though I cannot pretend to Dr. Watt's know- ledge of the Hebrew, yet 1 can learn from ray lexicon, that bcrith does not signify cutting at all. The Hebrew phrase for making a covenant is carath berith, which signifies to cut a covenant, so that it is not berith that signifies to cut, but carath. How a Hebrew critic should fall into this glaring mistake is not easily accounted for ; and it may lead some to suspect that he knows little or nothing of the Hebrew. As to berith, which we render covenant, it is derived from a root which signifies to purify ; answerable to this it some- times signifies soap, Jer. ii. 22. Mai. iii. 2. and so the Hebrew phrase carath berith literally signifies to cut a purifier, or to cut off a purifying victim, alluding to the ancient manner of making a covenant upon sa- crifice. Gen. XV. 10, 18. Exod xxiv. 8. Psal. 1. 5. Jer. xxxiv. 18, 19. The Greek translation of berith is diatheke, which, he says, " literally applies to what is set between, or interposed, and expresses nearly the same literal idea as the words interposal, interposition, or intercourse.^' But whatever be the etymological sense of diatheke (of dia and tithemi) the LXX paid no other regard to that than as they found it the fittest word to express the usual sense of the Hebrew berith, and to have aimed at any thing else would have been pernicious pedantry. He gives many other senses to the word covenant, as that " it may literally refer to commerce, but more likely to coming together^ or convening.'^ All these, he says, " may be viewed as nearly equi- valent," and then gives this mathematical demonstration of it, "for ihe point or line at which objects meet, is Dr. James Watt and others. 465 the point or line of their intersection or division." So that from this hint we may learn that he has been studying? Euclid. But he has not yet exhausted his catalogue of senses ; for he says, " The general idea which will suit all these cases, and all the texts in which the words occur, may well be expressed by th« term project, or plan of intercourse " &.c. Now I ask the reader, whether, from all these dif- ferent and even opposite senses, (which, with the Doctor are all one) his mind is in any degree enlight- ened as to the nature of "the covenant of Jehovah with Abraham ?" Or whether, on the contrary, they have not confused and perplexed him? But the Doctor hates the confined use of words ; it does not suit his learned and enlarged ideas ; and by his fertile talent at coining a variety of senses, he can easily explain the Word of God into any sense he thinks proper. I shall only farther observe, that he is not very scrupulous at using unwarrantable freedoms with the Word of God when it serves to display his enlarged mind, and emancipation from popular trammels. In his Key to the Song of Solomon, he boldly denies that it has any reference to Christ and his church*. And in shewing how Paul became to the Jew as a Jew, he says, " He employed the circumstances of their religion, and perhaps even their prejudices, for the purpose of leading them to Christ." " A most emi- nent illustration of this," he says, " is given in the epistle to the Hebrews ; and what in that epistle ap- pears most striking, is his application of the Levitical service and Aaronical priesthood to his purpose f.'> * Edinburgh Evangelical Mag. vol. ii. p. 54, 59. t Edinb. Evang. Mag. vol. Ii< po 1<15, Hh 4G6 Strictures on the Sentiment >< of Dr. Watt. If this principle is admitted, it will not be easy to determine when the apostle, in that epistle, is writings according to the truth of things, or, only according to Jewish prejudices. I am sorry to have had occasion for these Stric- tures, uhicli miuht be greatly enlarged: It is a task very disagreeable to me, and especially to be laid under the necessity of publishing them : But as Dr. Watt has violated every rule of christian discipline and brotherly love, by a most uncandid appeal to the public, and also by dispersing printed letters among the churches in the connection, containing perverse things, with a view to foment divisions, and draw away disciples after him ; in these circumstances, I had no choice left, but to meet him in the same public manner in which he has made the attack. I have little expectation that any thing I have said, or can say, however clearly supported by the Word of God, will make any impression upon him, though the Lord is able to change his mind, and to convince him of the guilt of his present conduct, which is producing such desolating effects among the churches. But if the foregoing pages should be blest for establishing those who are wavering, or for recovering any of our beloved brethren who have been led aside by his sophistry,, my end is gained, and for this I earnestly pray. LETTERS ON IMPORTANT SUBJECTS. ON Disinterested ZiOve to God; AND THE Principle of Fear considered as a Motive to Obedience. [In a Letter to a Friend.] DEAR SIR, I HAVE been busily employed in writing several long letters since I received yours, and I now answer you in your turn. I never blamed you for being attached to the scrip- ture system of divine truth, but for attending too much to human writings and systems. A favorite precon- ceived system in a man's mind, is like a mould, which gives its own form to all his conceptions of the word of God, and hinders him from attending to the form of sound words in their own native connexion and sim- plicity. You will never make much progress in the knowledge of the Scriptures, till you are convinced the Bible is a plain book in every thing essential, and can risk yourself entirely upon it as able to make the simple wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus ; and until you are bold enough to abide by its plain and simple meaning, in opposition to the most renowned authorities for orthodoxy. There cannot be a clearer instance of your mind being warped with human systems, than the descrip- tion you give of a true christian, viz. " One who by faith rests on the righteousness of Jesus Christ, as his 470 On Disinterested Love to God, justifying righteousness, and in this rest does every piece of commanded duty, witkout being influenced either by the fear of hell, or the hope of heaven." The first part of this description I admit, tkking justification in Paul's sense, Rom. iii. but from whence did you learn the last part of it? Not from the word of God, for that sets before christians, both the hope of heaven to encourage them in duty, and the terrors of hell to deter them from sin, or to alarm them when they fall into it. Can a true christian then disregard both ? I g^rant that when christians are in heaveii, they have no occasion to hope for that which they have in posses- sion, nor yet to fear hell, of which they are in no more danger. But while in this imperfect state of trial and temptation, they need to be stimulated to their duty, both by the rewards and punishments of a future state. The Lord saw this to be necessary, and therefore hath set both these motives before them in his word. I grant also, that as hope prevails, its opposite, fear, must subside, and that the full assurance of hope and perfect love casteth out tormenting fear, and which is incon- sistent with the spirit of adoption, 1 John iv. 18. Rom. viii. 15, 16. Yet, even in this case, there is a fear o^ hell which hath no torment, and which answers in the spiritual life to the principle of self-preservation in the natural. This principle does not in ordinary cases give torment, but makes us cautious to avoid every thing we apprehend to be hurtful. When I see a coach coming up on the street, I step aside to let it pass, and feel my mind quite composed and easy ; yet on ex- amining my motive for getting out of the way, 1 find it was no less than the fear of being rode down, or per- haps trode to death. This fear is absolutely neces- sary to the very preservation of life, and yet in ordi- and the Principle of Fear. 471 nary cases ^\\es a man very little uneasiness. It is equally necesvsary, and srili more important in the spi- ritual iile, and perfectly con.sistent with happiness of min.l and peace with God. Adam had the fear of death set beibre him, whilst he was both holy and happy, Geo. ii. 17. this fear was very consistent with his pre- sent enjoyment of God's favour, and tended to preserve that enjoyment ; and happy had it been for him uad his posterity, had he been move under its inliuence. But there are certain cases vvhich require that this fear should be awakened to a very high, and even a paioful degree. Christains may leave their first love, and grow lukewarm ; in others the things which remain may be reu-dy to die ; in short, their relish for divine things may m a great measure subside, and their love of this present world may gain ground ; and all this may be accompanied with insensibility, and a kind of false ease and security of mind To take comlort in this situation, from the doctrine of election, the per- severance of the saints, their former attainments, their being once in Christ, and so always in Christ, because God's love to them is unchangeable, and his promises faithful, would be only fostering themselves in pre- sumption, and hardening their hearts in carnal security ; and therefore the scripture beats them off from all these refuges, and tells christians roundly, that if they deny Christ, he will also deny them ; that if they be- lieve not, yet he abideth faithful, and cannot deny him- self, 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13 And that if any man draw back, God's soul shall have no pleasure in him, Heb. X. 38. It sets before them the danger, and awful con- sequences of apostacy, ver. 26—32. in order to alarm their fears, and renew them again unto repentance. Thus it is that God keeps his people from totally 472 On Disinterested Love to God, falling: away, by a seasonable application of the motive of fear as well as hope. But the only principle of obedience you approve of, is pure disinterested love, without being influenced either by hope ox fear. Now hereby you raise a chris- tian above the state of a dependent creature, who de- rives all his happiness from God. Did we possess in- dependent happiness in and of ourselves, we might, in that case, love God disinterestedly, purely for what he is in himself, because we could have nothing to hope or fear from him. God necessarily loves his own hap- piness; but he holds it of none, and therefore his love to his creatures must be disinterested. It is also essential to our being to love our own happiness, but we derive it all from God, and therefore cannot love him disinterestedly ; for it is essential to our depen- dent state to be under interested obligations to love him, as the source of our being and happiness. We cannot love (however much we may approve of) his perfections, till we have some ground to hope they are engaged in our behalf. In any other view the neces- sary love of our own happiness makes us averse to them. The noblest principle of obedience enjoined in scripture is gratitude, which is not disinterested love, but arises from benefits received or expected. In short, if we love God at all it must be because he first loved us, i. e. because we either have, or expect hap- piness from him. — You may call this selfish and mer- cenary, if you will ; but the Spirit of God approves of this principle of obedience in the highest manner, and states it as an effect of faith. Abraham was influenced in his obedience by the prospect of the heavenly country, and the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God, Heb. xi. 10, 10. Moses and the Principle of Fear. 47S despised all the pomp of Egypt, and pleasures of sin, and preferred the reproach of Christ to them, because he had respect unto the recompence of the reward, ver. 24—27. The Hebrews took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, because they knew in themselves they had in heaven a better and enduring substance, chap. X. 34. Christ frequently encourages his disciples, both in obedience and sufferings, by the promise of a great reward in heaven, Matth. v. 11, 12. ch. x. 42. Luke xiv. 14. The apostles were constrained by Christ's love to live unto him, 2 Cor. v, 14 — 16. Paul pressed toward the mark for the prize of his high-call- ing, Phil. iii. 14. And Christ himself /or the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, Heb xii. 2. It would be needless to quote any more to this purpose ; the scripture is full of such motives and examples. With respect io fear, you admit of none but the fear of sin, and of temporal corrections, such as those threatened against David's natural transgressing seed, who were to succeed him on the throne, Psal. Ixxxix. 30 — 34. but even this, you say, '* if it influence to duty is mercenary and seltish." That we should have " a fear of offending a holy and gracious Father in Christ, and of ungratefully acting towards him," I heartily admit, and think we can never exceed in it ; but this is not a disinterested fear ; it arises from gratitude for the love bestowed upon us, and the sense of obligation arising therefrom. The fear of temporal corrections may likewise be admitted, see 1 Cor. xi. 30. Rev. iii. 19. though they are not much insisted on in this view imder the New Testament, but as an evidence of God's peculiar love, which we ought neither to despise nor faint under, seeing they are for our pro$t, Heb. xii. 474 On Disinterested Love to God, 5 — 12. But there is a more avvtul consequence of sin than this set before us in scripture, as an object of fear, when the other, perhaps, would have very little effect, viz. the fear of hell or misery in a future state, but this fear you altogether explode as unsuitable to a christian, in any case or in any degree, if I mistake not. I shall therefore lay before you a few texts out of many, which hold forth this motive of fear to chris- tians.— Our Lord commands his disciples to pluck out a right eye, and cut off a right hand, by this argu- ment, that it is better for them to do so, than " that their whole body should be cast into hell," Matth. v. 29, 30. chap, xviii. 8, 9. — In opposition to the fear of man, he exhorts his apostles to " fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," chap. x. 28. Here it is evident, that the fear of God includes in it such a fear of hell, as overbalances the fear of tem- poral punishment from men. — The apostle, speaking of the rejection of old Israel, draws this awful caution from it to awaken the fears and beat down the high- mindedness of believers, "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God : on them who fell severity ; but towards thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness : otherwise thou also shall be cut off,'' Rom. xi. 20, 21, 22. The cautious fear here enjoined is not a fear of mere fatherly cor- rection, but of God's severity in cutting off such as through unbelief continue not in his goodness, which must be the fear of hell, for he that believeth not shall be damned. He warns the Corinthians from wronging and defrauding one another, by this consideration, and the Principle of Fear. 475 *■" that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God," and he bids them not be deceived with any con- trary thought, 1 Cor. vi. 9. I know no medium between inheriting the kingdom of God, and being cast into hell. He urges the Hebrews to give the more earnest heed to the things which they had heard, lest at any time they should let them slip ; from this considera- tion, that it was impossible for them to escape if they neglected so great salvation, Heb. ii. 1 — 4. and having set before them the awful example of Israel, in the wilderness, who fell through unbelief, and came short of the promised rest, he exhorts them to " fear, lest a promise being left of entering into his rest, any of them should seem to come short of it ; and to labour to enter into that rest, lest any of them fall after the same example of unbelief," chap. iv. 1, 11. Is he exhorting them only to fear temporal correction, and to labour to enter into an earthly rest ? No ; The rest is the eternal inheritance, chap. ix. 15. and to come short of that rest, is to be punished with everlasting destruction, (see 2 Thess. i. 7 — 10.) and so he describes the pun- ishment of those who draw back from the faith, to be fiery indignation which shall devour them as adver- saries, chap. X. 27. Innumerable are the texts which might be quoted to show, that the fear of hell is one motive of the christian obedience ; but if you can turn off these plain texts already mentioned, it would be in vain to attempt to convince you by scripture. If it be asked. How can such passages be reconciled with the doctrine of election, the unchangeableness of God's love, his faithfulness to his promise, the assu- rance of our interest in Christ, &c. ? I answer, 1. That though I could not reconcile them with these doctrines, yet stilll should believe them reconcileable; 476 On Disinterested Love to God, because, as there can be no doubt as to their meaning, so it is equally certain they are the words of inspira- tion, and so must be true and consistent with every other part of revelation. If I cannot perceive th« consistency, let me freely own my ignorance ; but let me never presume to explain away the word of God, under pretence of reconciling it. But 2. I apprehend these passages may very well be reconciled with the above points. The general doctrine of election is clearly revealed in scripture ; but no man can know his own particular election, but in believing and obeying the gospel ; for that is the evidence of it. Men are chosen unto salva- tion through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, 2 Thess. ii. 13. They are elect, not only accord- ing to the foreknowledge of God the Father, but also through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. i. 2. Ass therefore election cannot be known but by its effects, there is room left for every man to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, 2 Pet. i. 10. and in doing these things he is assured he shall never fall; but if he remits that diligence, the evidence of his election is proportionably weakened ; so that there is still room for cautious fear, as a spur to that diligence, whereby he obtains and preserves the knowledge of his election. God's love to his elect is unchangeably the same in itself, but not so in its manifestation and manner of exercise towards the changeable objects of it. The motives of hope and fear, are the two great stimula- tives to duty in this imperfect state, and his love is exercised in making each of them produce their proper effect, as circumstances require ; whilst the end he in- and the Principle of Fear. 4r77 variably pursues in both is the salvation of their souls. If he make all things, even things of an opposite na- ture, wrork together for their good, does this argue that he is changeable in his love ? He is also faithful to his promise of salvation to him that believeth ; but no person can know his own salvation by this promise, any farther than he is at present holding fast the faith and influenced by it. It is not a promise that he shall be saved at any rate, whether he believe and continue in the faith or not. On the contrary, God hath declared, that he that be- lieveth not shall be damned ; and that his soul shall have no pleasure in him that draweth back from the faith. Should we therefore think of denying him, we must also think, that if we do so, he also will most assuredly deny us, and yet abide faithful to all his promises notwithstanding, 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13. — The apostle is so far from cutting out cautious fear by the promise, that he connects both together, " Let us therefore /car lest a promise being left of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it," Heb. iv. 1. — The promise is not to him that for a while believeth, like the stony ground hearers, Luke viii. 13. but to him that endureth to the end. Matt. X. 22. abideth in Christ, John xv. 6, 7. continueth in God's goodness, Rom. xi. 12. continueth in the faith grounded and settled, and is not moved away from the hope of the gospel. Col. i. 23. that lives by faith, and does not draw back unto perdition, Heb. x. 38. The apostle thus exhorts the believing Hebrews, " Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without waver- ing," and uses this argument, " for he is faithful that promised," Heb. x. 24. yet in connection, and in a. perfect consistency with this, he tells them, " if we sia 478 On Disinterested Love to God, wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins ; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries," vcr. 'S.ij, ti7. God's promise therefore still leaves open a door for cautious fear upon all proper occasions, without any impeachment of his faithfulness. The final perseverance of the saints is also consistent with this fear. God keeps them by his power through faith unto salvation ; and this faith apprehends the motives of fear as well as hope, Heb. xi. 7. Fear is one of the methods whereby he hedges in their way, and also reclaims them when they have gone astray, Jude, ver. 23. Rev. iii. 8. It is an ingredient, in that fear of him which he puts in their heart, that they may not finally depart from him, Jer. xxxii. 40. This cautious fear likewise consists with the assu- rance of our interest in Christ. The scripture assures every one that believes, of his interest in Christ, and salvation by him. Of this he may be as sure as he is that he truly believeth in him. But the scripture gives no man such an absolute assurance of salvation, as to make him think he is quite secure from future misery, independent of his keeping the faith and abiding in Christ, John xv. 6. nor has he ground to think, that God will keep him by his power in any other way. A man who has escaped perishing in the waters, may contemplate with joy his deliverance, and find himself secure from drowning whilst he abides on firm land ; but this security will not make him less cautious of falling again into the deep, or less afraid that he would perish if he did so. An assurance which utterly ex- cludes a cautious fear of sin, and its awful conse- quences, would be very unsuitable to our present stat* and the Principle of Fear. 47^ of imperfection and trial. It comports not with th<^ christian life, which is compared to a warfare, whereia circumspection, vigilance, sobriety, and vigorous ex- ertion are necessary to detect the stratagems, and repel the attacks of the enemy, lest we be overcome, Eph. vi. 10—19. 2 Tim. ii. 3—6. 1 Pet. v. 8, 9. It i& also compared to a race, wherein if we would so run as to obtain the prize, we must be temperate in all things, and lay aside every weight, and the sin that doth so easily beset us, 1 Cor. ix. 25. Heb. xii. 1. Paul himself, who had the highest assurance that any can pretend to in this world, was not without the in- fluence of cautious fear, both in fighting and running, lest that by any means, when he had preached the gospel to others, he himself should be a cast-away^ (^a^oxt//,og) unapproved, rejected, and so fail of the prize, 1 Cor. ix. 26, 27. He had the most assured hope that he should obtain the prize, in that course which he was pursuing, (see it described, Phil. iii. 7 — 15.) but he had every thing to fear, should he go back or turn aside fiom it; he therefore laboured, that whether present or absent, he might be accepted of Christ in the judgment, 2 Cor. v. 9, 10. and so every christian is exhorted to be diligent, that they may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless, 2 Pet. iii. 14. and that they may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming, 1 John ii. 28. I shall illus- trate this by two plain examples. Noah and his family were assured of salvation in the ark, and it would have been sinful in them in the least to doubt it ; nay, they had the distinguishing enjoyment of present sal- vation there, whilst the whole world were swallowed up in the flood ; but then, it behoved them at the same tiiae to know, that if they abode not in the ark, they 480 On Disinterested Love to God, Jjc. would as certainly perish. So, abiding in Christ we have the strongest assurance of salvation ; but then, it is only in him ; we must therefore take heed, lest there be in us an evil heart of unbelief, departing from him. Again, when Paul and the rest in the ship were likely to be lost, the Lord absolutely determined that none of them should perish — he positively promised to Paul that they all should escape. Acts xxvii. 24. But though Paul believed God, that it should be even as he had told him, ver. 25. yet he thought it very consistent with this belief to tell them afterwards, " Except these abide in the ship ye cannot be saved" "ver. 31. — Whilst God gave them assurance of safety in his own way, he gave them as certain grounds to fear they should perish in any other way; and this fear was the means of their safety, by making them abide in the ship. The application is easy. ON THE Universal Restoration Seheme* DEAR SIR, At our last interview., you requested to have ray thoughts on Rom. viii. 19—24. Though I have little hope that my opinion of that passage will be of any service to you, yet I believe I gave you ground to expect it ; but the conversation I had with you and Mr. S. fully convinced me that it would be to no pur- pose, as " The Universal Restoration of the creature" is not the only point upon which we differ ; and as I plainly perceived you were less disposed to receive instruction from me, than to disseminate your princi- ples, which in my opinion are little short of avowed infidelity, and directly lead to it ; I therefore did not consider it as useful to have any more correspondence on the subject, as it could produce nothing but vain jangling. With regard to the passage above mentioned, though. I should not be able to give a clear and satisfactory explanation of it, that would be no proof that your view of it is right, or that it in the least favours your sentiments. I never pretended to understand every passage in the word of God ; but 1 hold it firmly as a principle, that the word of God is consistent with itself, and that no explanation of a difficult passage can be right if it contradict a number of other plain passages, as your view of this evidently does. But though Paul in his epistles has written some things I I 482 On the Universal hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scrip- tures, unto their own destruction, (2 Pet. iii. 16.^ yet I think what he says in Rom. viii. 19 — 24. is not so hard to be understood, but that it may be explained in a perfect consistency with himself, and with the other scriptures, I shall therefore otFer a few general remarks upon it. 1. It is evident that the apostle is speaking of that time when the whole frame of creation shall be reno- vated, and when the saints shall be raised from the dead and glorified. For it is the time when the Spirit of him that raised up Christ, shall also quicken their mortal bodies, ver. 11. when they shall obtain the adoption for which they wait, namely, the redemption of their body, ver. 23. and when that glory shall be revealed in them, with which the sufferings of the pre- sent time are not worthy to be compared, ver. 17, 18. 2. In the whole of this passage the apostle says nothing of the resurrection or future glory of the wicked and finally impenitent. He speaks only of the resur- rection and glory of the saints, or the manifestation of the sons of God, ver. 19. whom he describes as in Christ Jesus, walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit, ver. 1. as spiritually minded, having the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them, ver. 6, 9. as the sons of God, who are led by his Spirit, and have the spirit of adoption witnessing with their spirit that they are the children of God, and so heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, and who shall be glorified together with him, ver. 14 — 18. It is for the manifestation of the sons of God as thus described, that the earnest expec- tation of the creature waiteth, ver. 19. but not a syl- lable is here said of unbelievers who die impenitent. Restoration Scheme. 483 True indeed, we read elsewhere that they also shall be raised from the dead, but it is not in glory, nor to receive glory, bat to everlasting shame and contempt, Dan. xii. 2. it is unto the resurrection of damnation, John V. 29. for they shall then be sentenced to ever- lasting punishment. Matt. xxv. 41, 46. and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, 2 Thess. i. 9. So th^t this passage cannot have the least respect to their restoration to a better state ; for the manifesta- tion of the sons of God, for which the creature waiteth, takes place at that very time when the wicked shall be sentenced and go away into everlasting punishment, and there the scripture leaves them. Let us now consider, 3. What is meant by the creature, or the wJiole creation, which is represented as earnestly expecting, groaning and travailing in pain together until now. Though the whole creation is an universal expression, yet it must be limited by the scope of the passage, the nature of the subject spoken of, and the harmony of divine truth, otherwise we shall make sad havoc of the scriptures in explaining a vast number of universal expressions. It appears that the wicked are not in- cluded in the expression the whole creation ; for though they are part of the creation, and are groaning under the miseries introduced by sin ; yet they are not groan- ing for deliverance from sin Itself, which is their de- light, nor are they earnestly expecting or wishfully waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, whom they hate : Nor shall they then be brought into the glorious liberty of the children of God, but go away into everlasting punishment ; therefore they are not the creature or whole creation here spoken of, and I i2 484 On the Universal of whom these things are said, ver. 19, 21. Nor does it appear that by the creature or ivhole creation the saints are intended ; for the apostle evidently distinguishes the one from the other in these words, '* And not only" the]/ (or it, i. e. the whole creation) " but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves (viz. the saints) groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of our body," ver. 23. Here we see that Paul and all the saints, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, are dis- tinguished from what he terms the whole creation, and are represented as joining with it in groaning and waiting for the day of redemption. It will now be asked, What then is meant by the creature or whole creation, if it include neither the wicked nor the righteous ? To this I answer ; that by the ivhole creation here I understand, the whole mate- rial frame or system of creation, particularly this lower world, which was fitted up as a convenient ha- bitation for man, and furnished with every thing neces- sary to his comfort and happiness, who was constituted lord over it, and designed to glorify God by it. But man by his apostacy from God drew oiF the whole creation with him, and perverted every thing from its original end. Some of the creatures of God he abused as objects of worship, others of them he applied to the gratification of his corrupt lusts and passions, and all of them he turned into means and in- struments of rebellion against his Maker. Thus the whole creation, as it stood connected with man, was perverted and polluted by his sin, to the dishonour of God. Therefore, not only man himself fell under the curse and was subject to death. Gen. iii. 19. but the very ground was cursed for his sake, ver. 17. ch. v. 2,9 Restoration Scheme. 485 The delights of Paradise were withdrawn, and the face and constitution of nature was changed from its pris- tine beauty and fertility. Thus the apostle says, " The creature was made subject to vanity, not wil- lingly," (or of its own choice) " but by reason of him who hath subjected the same," ver. 20. It was for the sin of man that the curse came upon the creature, and that God subjected it to vanity. And this vanity imports also its changeable state, and even its disso- lution. So the first world, " being overflowed with water perished," 2 Pet. iii. 6. and " the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men" — " Then the heavens" (i. e. the asrial heavens) " shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burnt up," ver. 7, 10. Thus it was by the sin of man that the creature, nay, the whole frame of the visible creation was subjected to vanity and dis- solution. But then it was subject to this vanity " in hope, that the creation itself also" (as well as the saints) " shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God," ver. 21. This hope is the hope of the saints respecting the restoration and renovation of the creature, and is formed on the promise of God, as Peter observes, " Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness," 2 Pet. iii. 13. As the bodies of the saints shall die \)ecause of sin, (Rom. viii. 10.) and be raised again glorious and immortal ; so the present heavens and earth which are subjected to vanity for the sin of man, and shall be dis- 486 On (he Univ^rsai solved, shall also be restored and renovated into a state analogous to the risen bodies of the saints, and as a fit habitation for them. This new creation shall no more be polluted with, or made subservient to the sins of men, or made subject to change or dissolution, but will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God who dwell therein, and are all righteous. This is that state for v,hich the creature is said to be earnestly ex- pecting and waiting. 4. It will perhaps be asked. How can the inanimate creation be said to expect, wait, groan, and travail in pain together? I answer, by a figure of speech very common in Script' re, v/hich we call a. prosopopeia or personification, whereby inanimate things are spoken of as if they were persons, and were endowed with human reason, passions, and feelings. Thus the earth is said to mourn — the little hills to rejoice on every side, and the pastures and the vallies to shout for joy and sing, Psal. Ixv. I'i, 13. Thus also heaven and earth, and seas, and fields, and woods are called upon to rejoice before the Lord, Fsal. xcvi. 11 — 13. The apostle therefore, by a noble and sublime figure of speech, represents the whole creation as if, conscious of its present degraded state and expecting a better, it were groaning and travailing in pain, like a woman in labour, to obtain deliverance. The saints are also represented as joining the whole creation in their present burthens and sufferings, and as waiting for a better state, ver. 23. What the whol^ creation do figuratively, they do literally. They have the first fruits of the Spirit, which is the earnest of their inheritance, being the pledge, evidence, and foretaste of it, Eph. i. 14. ch. iv. 30. for it is the Restoration Scheme. 487 Spirit of their adoption as heirs of God : Yet notwith- standing their spiritual enjoyments and present attain- ments, they groan within themselves for deliverance from the natural and moral imperfections of this present state, and from the troubles and mortality to which they are subject, 2 Cor. v. 6. They wait for the adoption, viz. the redemption of their body from the grave. They look for the Saviour, from heaven, to change the body of their humiliation, and fashion it like unto his glorious body, when mortality shall be swallowed up of life, and they shall be ever with the Lord. Thus I have given you, what appears to me, the sense of this passage ; and though in some particulars I should not exactly have hit the meaning, yet I am conlident that no part of it has any respect to the re- storation of the wicked after a temporary punishment ; for the time here referred to is when the saints shall be raised from the dead and glorified, at which period the punishment of the wicked commences, and the^e is no after period mentioned, either here or any wh6re else in scripture, when they shall be restored to happiness. We cannot consistently believe the scriptures, that eternal happiness awaits the righteous, unless we also believe the same scriptures that eternal misery awaits the wicked ; and all arguing against this is vain and foolish ; and it would be far more consistent to give up with the scriptures altogether, than to wrest them where they clash with our favourite notions. I am, &c. ON THE EXTENT OF ADAM'S FIRST TRANSGRESSION. [To Mr. R. MoDcreiff.] MY DEAR BROTHER, I RECEIVED your favour of the 10th inst. wherein you desire my thoughts on the extent of Adam's sin as to those who shall be eternally damned. I am not sure that the Scripture makes any distinction betwixt the damned and the saved as to the extent of Adam's sin. Wherever the Scripture speaks expressly of the extent and effects of Adam's sin, it is particularly with respect to the saved, see Rom. v. and 1 Cor. xv. And wherever it speaks of eternal damnation, it assigns another reason for it than Adam's one offence. I admit the principle, that a personal sin against the eternal law of love to God, infers the desert of eternal punish- ment in the very nature of things ; but this inference cannot so clearly be drawn from imputed sin. Impu- tation, in the sense commonly taken, is purely an act of the sovereign will of the supreme lawgiver, and to which he is no way obliged from any necessity of na- ture, or eternal indispensable justice ; and therefore he may either not impute the sin of another at all, or to what degree or extent he pleases. Before therefore we can affirm that any are eternally damned purely for Adam's one offence, we must have express scripture for it; because it will not arise from the nature of Adam's First Transgression. 480 things, however heinous we may suppose that one offence to be. I am not very fond of diflfering from commonly received opinions without great necessity; I shall, however, at your desire, lay before you a few hints upon the subject with modesty and diffidence, rather with a view of being instructed by your correc- tions, than of proselyting you to my particular views. The apostle expressly says that A.dam was the type of him that was to come, Rom. v. 14. Now as every type must fall infinitely short of its antitype, so does Adam fall short of Christ in all the respects wherein he typified him ; and there are some respects wherein he could not typify him at all ; for the type is never fully commensurate to its antitype, so as to answer to it in all points. It is sufficient that it bear some striking resemblance to some of the leading outlines of it^s an- titype, though it should not exhibit the very image of it. Farther, the diflference betwixt type and antitype does not lie simply in degree, but also in kind or na- ture, such as is betwixt earth and heaven, flesh and spirit, &c. and such is the difference in the present case ; " The first man Adam was made a living soul ; the last Adam a quickening spirit — the first natural, or animal ; the last spiritual — the first man was of the earth, earthy : the second the Lord from heaven." 1 Cor. XV. 45 — 47. If such was the dffierence betwixt Adam (even in his original state) and Christ, there must be as wide a disproportion betwixt them in their representative capacities. The popular scheme exalts Adam almost to an equality with Christ in this respect. It makes the earthly state in which he was created almost equal to the heavenly state, and his obedience of equal consequence to his posterity as the obedience of Christ ; and in consequence of this, his sin, and the 4S0 On the Extent of death thereby entailed upon his seed, are made tlm full and adequate opposites of Christ's obedience, and the justification and life resulting from it. According to this scheme, I am at a loss to perceive the disparity betwixt them stated by the apostle, Rom. v. 15 — 17. In entering upon this passage I would observe, that the apostle is not stating a comparison betwixt the blessings we have lost by Adam, and those procured by Christ; but he is stating a contrast betwixt the judgment, condemnation and death which come upon us by Adam's one offence, and the justification and life which come unto us by the one obedience of Christ. These he shows are perfectly similar in their manner of conveyance to us, the one being for an offence we never committed, and the other for an obedience we never performed : But as to their nature or degree he makes a very wide difference, and shows that the former is not at all commensurate or the adequate op- posite of the latter. If the death which comes by Adam's one offence were eternal damnation, then I ask, 1. How could the apostle say, that such a death reigned from Adam to Moses, ver. 14. not only over infants, but also over Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ; nay actually passed (ejj) unto all men ? ver. 12. It is evident he is there speaking of the death which came by Adam in the same sense in which he speaks of it through the rest of that chapter. It is also plain he is not speaking of death in a mystical or figu- rative sense, such as a spiritual or moral death in sin; for he distinguishes here betwixt death and sin as the effect is distinguished from its cause, or the crime from its punishment. He distinguishes betwixt the sin which was in the world until the law, and the death which Adam's First Transgression, 4S^1? Keigned from Adam to Moses, ver. 13, 14. which there- fore cannot be the same. So that death here does not mean sin either in heart or life. Neither is he speaking simply of men falling under the sentence of death, and becoming liable to it, but of the actual exe- cution of the sentence ; for he says death reigned over and passed unto all men. Are all men actually and eternally damned by Adam's sin ? God forbid ! 2. He shows that many have died (aTredavov) the death which came by Adam, who notwithstanding shall reign in life by Jesus Christ, ver. 15, 17. He does not say merely that they deserved death, or were under its sen- tence, but that they have died, death passed unto them, and reigned over them. Now if this were eternal death, how could he affirm that the very same persons shall reign in life by Jesus Christ ? The sentence indeed might be reversed, and the punishment remitted ; but if once inflicted, as is affirmed of this death, there could be no deliverance from it, if it were eternal. 3. According to this doctrine, how could the apostle say, " Not as the offence, so also is the free gift" — i. e. the effect of the offence, which is death, is not adequate to the free gift of justification and eternal life. That this is the sense is clear from the words immediately following — " for if through the offence of one many have died; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many," ver. 15. Certainly eternal death is the adequate opposite to eternal life. Upon this plan the offence would be fully commensurate in its effects to the free gift, and there would be no room for saying that the gift by grace was (yroyo^a fiuT^ev) much more abundant. This superabundance does not lie in the number of the saved ; for more were condemned in 402 On the Extent of Adam than shall be saved by Christ. It must therefore lie in the nature and degree of the grace and gift con- ferred upon the saved, and plainly intimates that the condemnation by Adam's one offence is not so great as the salvation by Christ, which it would surely be if it were eternal death. 4. Lastly, upon this plan how could the apostle say, *' And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift ; for the judgment was by one (viz. offence) to condem- nation ; but the free gift is of many offences unto jus- tification," ver. 16 Here is a distinction made be- twixt Adam's one offence and the many offences of his posterity. Had Adam's offence been adequate to Christ's obedience, then that obedience could only have justified from the one offence, and there would be nothing to answer for, or oppose to the many offences which the elect themselves have personally committed. But the apostle is here setting forth the infinite merit and efficacy of Christ's obedience to save, above that of Adam's one ofience to condemn, by this, that it frees not only from the efl'ects of that single offence, but from the effects of the many offences. Now, if the judgment by the one offence was everlasting condemnation, what additional condemnation does the many offences bring ? There may indeed be higher degrees of torment in a future state ; but is this the only circumstance the apostle has in his eye in mentioning the many offences? Does he enhance the obedience of Christ above the offence of Adam merely from this consideration, that it saves from some greater degree of hell's torment than we have incurred by Adam ? Surely the oppo- sition intended must be much wider than this. The superabundance of the merits of Christ's obedience, and the free gift of justification and life thereby, ap- Adam's First Transgression. 49;3 pears from the apostle's reasoning to stand thus. — It justifies not only from Adam's one offence, but also from our own ma7iy personal offences. — It recovers not onJy from the death pronounced upon the one otfence, and wJiich hath passed unto all men, but re- deems from the wrath to come or second death, which is the penalty of the many offences. It restores us not only to the happy life in Paradise which Adam forfeited ; but raises us far above the terrestrial state in its highest perfection, to reign in eternal life, glory and happiness with Christ in heaven. To illustrate this a little farther, I Vv^ould observe 1. That natural death is never ascribed to the many offences as it is to the one offence. The destruction of the old world by the deluge, of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire from heaven, and the death inflicted upon Israel for their disobedience to the law, was not indeed simply the natural death which all men are appointed to die, lleb. ix. 27. but also a violent death, as a just recompense of reward for their own sins; yet lh« death which came by Adam's sin was also included in it ; for this they were previously liable to, and behoved to suffer at any rate. 2, The second death is never, that I can recollect, connected immediately with Adam's one offence. The original curse pronounced upon Adam's sin, was the toils, troubles and miseries of this life, and his re- turning to the dust from whence he was taken. Gen. iii. 17 — 19. The New Testament does not seem to state it in any other light. I have already considered Rom. v. the only other place is 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22. " For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The apostle is upon the resur- 494 On the Extent of lection of the body of the saints, and shews that thig resurrection is from the death which came by Adam. Now what kind of death is that from which there is a resurrection ? The apostle is not speaking of a spiri- tual death and resurrection, but of the death and re- surrection of the body, which was the point in question ; far less is he speaking of the second death, for that is posterior to the resurrection of the wicked : besides there is no resurrection from the second death, as the apostle affirms of this. 3. The second death or eternal misery is always threatened against the many offences which men com- mit themselves. See Matth. xxv. 41 — 44. Rom. ii. 5—12. Heb. X. 26—31. 2 Pet. ii. 9. It is those who have done evil that shall come forth unto the resurrec- tion of condemnation, and it is upon the deeds done in the body that the final judgment proceeds, 2 Cor. V. 10. Kev. XX. 21. It is certain that Adam by his sin lost for a while the sense of the divine favour, which constituted the true happiness of his life, in distinction from that of the brutes, and that he was filled with shame, fear and dread. It is also certain that all his posterity derive a corrupt nature from him, whereby they are alienated from the life of God. Yet I do not find the scripture calling either of these the death ivhich came by Adam. It appears to me that upon this subject the scripture speaks of death in the plainest and most obvious sense, even a privation of that breath of life whereby Adam became a living soul. Gen. ii. 7. But as some think he must have died in some other sense, the very day he sinned, otherwise the threatening would not be made good, " In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Gen. ii. 17. I answer, that the threatening. Adams First Transgression. 495 in my opinion, does not necessarily mean that he should actually die on that identical solar day whereon he sinned, but that he should become mortal the day he became a sinner ; that from that time he should be dead in law, or under sentence of death. As to the expression dvh in the day, we may see with what lati- tude it is used, Ezek. xxxiii. 12. *' The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him Dvn in the day of his transgression — neither shall the righteous be able to live DIO in the day that he sinneth ;" and yet we know that the Lord did not always execute speedy vengeance, but bore long with rebellious Israel, and was even then exercising long-suffering, and warning the wicked to turn from his evil way. But though the second death be not threatened upon Adam's one offence, nor immediately connected with it as its penalty ; yet it has a connection therewith through the medium of men's personal guilt ; for by that one offence sin not only entered into the world, but continues in it in the hearts and lives of his off- spring, bringing forth fruit unto everlasting death ; for the wages of personal sin is death in the highest sense, the opposite of which is the free gift of God, even eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. I cannot therefore see any material error in the popular way of stating this doctrine, seeing Adam hath brought all his posterity into a sinful and depraved state, which, with- out the salvation by Christ, would have issued in eter- nal death ; and this will infallibly be the case with all who do not partake of that salvation. I have avoided any difference from the common opinion, on this point, in my public teaching ; because I think there is more danger in raising curious speculations and distinctions among the brethren upon it, than in taking it wholly 496 Ont he Extent of Adam's Transgression. in the old way. Another reason is, because I am aware of some objections to this view which I cannot; satisfiictorily answer. In the mean time I submit the above hints to your consideration, and expect your faithful animadversions. Praying that you and I may know more and more of Jesus Christ and him crucified as the foundation of all our hope and glorying, that we may be more and more conformed to him, and out of love to his name, feed the flock committed to our charge with wholesome and sound doctrine, even (to xoyixov a^oMv yaha) the rational undeceitful milk, that they may grow thereby. I am. Dear Brother, Yours most cordially in the truth, A. M. Edinhurgh, August 25, 1779. ON SABEIjIiXANISM. DEAR SIR, I RECEIVED your letter giving- your view of the two points whereof I wrote you ; I also read your letter to the whole church, and send you the following lines both as ray own mind and theirs. With regard to the doctrine of reconciliation, your manner of expressing it is no new thing to me, it being my view of that matter ever since I knew any thing about it. It would be absurd to suppose, that the death of Christ, which is an effect of God's love, should be the procuring cause of it ; and it would be no less than blasphemy to imagine, that any thing similar to the wicked enmity of a sinner's heart ever took place in the mind of God. In this then we are agreed. I wish I could say so upon the other point I do not intend to enter into much argumentation upon the subject, both because I have little hope of its answering any good end, and also because I am sen- sible how^ ready I am to darken counsel with words without knowledge, upon so high and adorable a mystery ; for what am I, a poor blind worm of the dust, who am but of yesterday and know nothing, that I should pretend to search out the Almighty unto per- fection either in his essence, manner of existence, or ways, when I cannot so much as investigate thoroughly even the smallest part of his works which falls under the examination of my senses ? I know nothing of the doctrine of Father^ Word, and Spirit but by re- Kk I 498 On Sabellianism. velation. I believe what this revelation plainly de- j clares to be, though I do not understand the maimer of I its being. I hold therefore the doctrine of the Three divine Witnesses which are One, that adorable name into which we are baptized, to be a matter of pure faith, and not of investigation by human reason, it being far above our comprehension ; but as the general doctrine is clearly revealed, it is reasonable to believe it, because God hath said it. We do not understand how God shall raise the dead, after the body is entirely consumed, or perhaps converted into the bodies of other animals ; far less can we investigate how God created the world out of nothing ; for it appears a plain contradiction to suppose that something should be brought out of nothing. These things we must take simply upon God's word ; or fall immediately into infidelity. Revelation tells us that God is infinite and eternal ; but do we know what infinity and eternity are ? All v^e can say is, that the first is to be without bounds or limits, and the last without beginning or end of duration; but this is saying nothing to the point; it is only telling what they are not, but not what they are. The truth is, we can have no positive conceptions cither of the one or the other ; all our notions oi eternity take their rise from the succession of time, and of infinitude from magnitude or space, neither of which have any relation to these divine perfections. That adorable and incomprehensible Being then, who in- habiteth eternity and fills immensity, must exist in a manner of which we can harVe no conception ; yet we must firmly believe that he is both eternal and infinite ; though we can neither positively describe or even comprehend what these words mean, or what it is thus to exist. Revelation also declares that there is but ji On SaheUianism. 499 one God ; but it also sets forth this one God by all the ways of speaking by which we distinguish three persons among men. Reason at first sight pronounces this absurd and contradictory, and when we inquire into the bottom of this contradiction it will be found to land in this, that no such thing is to be found among the creatures, and that one human soul cannot subsist in three distinct persons ; but reason takes too much upon her when she argues from the creature to God, when she lays the line of finite to infinity, and pro- nounces that a contradiction in God which she cannot comprehend, or because be hath not thought fit to give an image of such an existence amongst his creatures. This is to say, that reason can comprehend every possible manner of existence even of the Author of existence himself. Having premised this I proceed to state what I understand to be your view of this point. You say, " That the three names Father, Son, (or Word) and Holy Ghost, are not expressive of three distinct subsistences in the same Godhead ; but of the one undivided Godhead dwelling bodily in the man Christ Jesus — and thus acts in all the characters, re- lations and offices implied in these and in every other appellation which he condescends to bear for our complete salvation and consolation. — Among men it is found allowable, yea amiable, for one man to sustain several and distinct characters, and fulfil the offices peculiar to each ; why should it appear unbecoming him to whom all perfections belong to do so, seeing in each character he bears he is the Almighty Jehovah, besides whom there is none else ?" I have quoted these clauses as most directly ex- pressive of your view, and I think it amounts to thi#y 500 On Sabellianism. '* That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not three divine subsistences, but only three characters or mani- || festations under which the One God fulfils all the ofiices necessary tor our salvation." Which seems to me to be much the same with what Sabellius main- tained about the year 256, and which, with very little variation, had been broached by Noetus a few years before. But as you adduce three classes of Scripture texts in support of this view, I shall first advert to each of them, to shew that according to the genuine sense of language these three names. Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, must imply more than you admit. 1. You quote a number of Scriptures to prove that there is but one livhig and true God, such as Mark xii. 29-3-J. 1 Cor. viii. 4—7. Gal. iii. 20. 1 Tim. ii. 5. Eph. iv. 6. — and speaking of the witness of the Three which bear record in heaven, you wish me to observe that it is the witness of God, not Gods. The unity of the Godhead or Divine Nature, is v^hat we have all along professed to believe ; and I charitably hope that you yourselves believed that fundamental article of all true religion, even before you gave up with the Trinity. In this then we are agreed. But I wish you would observe in your turn, that the most of these scriptures which you adduce for the unity of the God- head, shew also a plurality in that one Godhead ; for instance; Mark xii. 29. is taken from Deut. vi. 4. " Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." That Elohim is plural none can deny, and when it is applied to angels, rulers or idols, it is always trans- lated gods. And indeed unless Elohim were plural, this text would have no apparent sense ; for why should Israel be told that the Lord their God was one Lord, if there was nothing in the name that might b« On Sabellianism. 501 foiistrued into more? It would be only telling them that One is One; but as the Elohim of Israel was plural, it was necessary to shew them that their plural Elohim was but one Jehovah. Moses informs us that it was this plural Elohim that made the world, Gen. i. throughout, and the apostle gives us two of the distinc- tions in this creating Elohim in your second text, '* But to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him." 1 Cor. viii. 6. with which you may compare John i. I — 4. Heb. i. 2. and particularly Eph. iii. 9. — As fori Tim.ii. 5. it holds forth not only one God, but also one mediator between this God and men, which mediator I hope you will not deny is both God and man. 2. Concerning the Son or Word, you cite Gal. iv. 4. Luke i. 31-36. Rom. i. 3. Acts ii. 22, 30, 38. ch. iii. 13. ch. iv. 10, 26. ch. x. 36, 38. — Upon looking over these texts I find they contain an account of Christ's incarnation, mission, unction, death, resurrection and glorification ; and though it may be allowed they shew in what sense he is God's begotten Son ; yet they do not fully set forth in what view he is the Word ; for they do not speak of his existence as the Word before his incarnation, but only as the Word made flesh: and if this be all your view of him as the Word, it falls far short of what the scripture reveals of him under that distinguishing character. Under this head you should have quoted John i. 1—3. " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him," &c. and ch. xvii. 5^ " Father glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the ivorld was." The apostle shews, that the Him in whom it pleased the 502 On Sabellianism. Father that all fulness should dwell, '' was before all things, and by him all things consist," Col. i. 17, 19. And shewing the original glory and dignity of his person before he took upon him the form of a servant, or was made in the likeness of men, he says, " Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," Phil. ii. 6. Of that very person that should spring of the tribe of Judah, and be born in Bethlehem Ephratah, it is declared, that his goings forth have been of " old from the days of eternity," Micah V. 2. that he is " the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," Heb. xiii. 8. " the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending," Rev. i. 8. Thus we see he is the eternal Word, and distinguished from the Father before the world was ; but of this more after- wards. 3. Your next class of citations is to shew that He and the Father are one, for which you adduce John X. 30. ch. xiv. 8--r2. Col. ii. 9. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Heb. i. John i. 1—9. 1 John v. 20, 21. John, viii 16—30. These toxts do indeed shew that the Son or Word is one God with the Father, i. e. possesses the very same divine nature or essence with him ; for it is impossible there should be more than one Godhead ; but I am surprised you did not observe, that these same texts point him out as another than the Father in the One Godhead. Thus, John x. 30 " I and ray Father' — here is the distinction which we call personal among men — " are one" — here is the unity of nature, these two being the one God. — John. xiv. 9. " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," does not mean that he was the Father, but that the Father was manifested in him as his express image, Col. i. 15. Heb .i, 3. and also by his works and doctrine, see John i. 18. ch. xvii. 6, 26. On Sabellianism. 503 The same expression occurs, ch.xii. 45. " He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me" — here is such a distinction as is betwixt the sender and the sent ; yet in regard of manilestation the sender was seen in the sent. The same manner of speaking he uses with regard to himself and his disciples, Matth. x, 40. " He that re- ceiveth you receiveth me ; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me ; ' yet neither were his dis- ciples personally himself, nor he the Father that sent him. — Col. ii. 9. " For in him dwelleth ail the fulness of the Godhead bolily," i. e. fulness of divine perfec- tions, for he possesses the same divine nature with the Father ; and also fulness of grace and truth for his church, whereby they are " filled with all the fulness of God," Eph. iii. 19. Thus " it hath pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell ;" Col. i. 19. but here the Father whom it plea.sed, and the Him in whom it dwells, are again distinguished. — 1 Tim. iii. 16. " God was manifest in the flesh." This shews he is God equal with the Father, but distinguished from him as incarnate, which the Father never was ; for it was God the Word that was made flesh, and thus was sent forth from the Father as his Son; and this distinction appears clear from Heb. ii. where the He who took not on him the nature ot angels, but the seed of Abraham, speaks to his Father as one distinct from him, " I will declare thy name," &c. — " Behold /, and the children which God hath given me," ver. 12, 17. In like manner he says, " A body hast thou prepared me," ch. X. 5. where the me who assumed the human nature, distinguishes himself from the thou who prepared it. — Heb. i. sets lorth both the personal and official dignity of Christ above all God's former messengers, whether prophets or angels ; but through the whole he is also 504 On Sabellianism. distinguished from the Father — as a Son is from a Father — as an heir is from him that appointed him, ver. 2. — as the express image is from the person whose image he is, ver. 3. and as he that is spoken to is dis- tinguished from him that speaketh to him, see ver. 5, 8, 9, 13. — John i. 1— J), plainly affirms, that the Word was God, ver. 1. and that all things were made by him, ver. 3. but here also the Word is distinguished from God the Father, as being (^r^oj) with God, ver. 1. as being in the beginning (^^o?) with God, ver. 2. upon which permit me to make the following plain remarks. — 1. That the beginning here does not signify the be- ginning of the gospel (as the Socinians affirm) but before the creation of any thing ; for the creation of all things follows after in ver. 3. in which all things are included the angels. Col. i. 16. and as all things were created by the Word, he must have been with God before any creature existed, or as he himself says before the world was,' John xvii. 5. — 2. There is here a distinction in the Godhead plainly intimated ; in the Godhead, I say; for the Word was God, and he with whom the Word was is God ; and as there was no creature angelic or human as yet existing, this distinc- tion must be in the Deity. Yet this distinction cannot be a plurality of Gods, for there is but one God ; nor was this a distinction of manifestation (as you say) for how could there be any manifestation of God before there were any created to manifest himself to? It is essential to a manifestation to be seen, and when there is no discovery made, nor any to get a discovery, there can be r.o manifestation, — nor was it a distinc- tion of character ; for neither character nor manifesta- tion will make sense if you substitute them in place of the Word. But it is such a distinction as the Holy On Sabellianism. 505 ^host expresses to us in the language we use when we speak of two persons, and say the one was with the other ; and how would it sound to say the Deity was with himself, or a character was with him. — 3. God with whom the Word was, does not signify the Divine Nature, as such ; for if the Word was (irpog) with the Godliead, it would imply that he was not pos- sessed of it himself; but it is affirmed that the Word himself was God; therefore he with whom the word was, must be another subsistence in the one Godhead, and this other subsistence is declared by the incarnate Word himself (and doubtless he knew best) to be he who in the New Testament is called the Father : " Father glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the world was," John xvii. 5. — With respect to 1 John v. 20, 21. it proves that Jesus Christ is the true God in opposition to all idols, and the same God with the Father ; but then it also points out a distinction in that one Godhead, by the words him and his Son, " we are in Him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ ;" and if we look to ver. 7. we shall find that distinction set forth under the notion of three distinct Witnesses, emitting (not a successive, as you imagine, but) a. joint testimony, whilst it is also affirmed, that these Three are One, for it is the witness of the One God subsisting in the Three Witnesses, ver. 9. And when, at your desire, I compare this with John viii. 16 — 30. I see the same distinction kept up in the clearest personal terms imaginable, " I and the Father that sent me," ver. 16. " / am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness also," ver. 18. *' Ye neither know me nor my Father," ver. 10. &c. As to the Holy Ghost, his distinction from the Father 606 On iSabellianism. and Sou is also clearly spoken of, — he was one of the Elohim that created the world, Gen. i. 2. — he revealed the gospel before hand to the prophets, 2 Pet. i. 21. — descended on Jesus at his baptism, Matth. iii. 16. and furnished him for his work, Luke iv. 18. John iii. 34, Acts X. 38. — he was sent forth by the Son from the Father upon the apostles, John xv. 26. — his office was not to speak of himself, but what he should hear, and g^uide the disciples into all truth, John xvi. 13, 14.— and he is mentioned as a distinct witness from the Father and Word, in 1 John v. 7. Thus I have just touched on the different texts you have quoted on this subject, and have confined myself to the simple and obvious meaning of the very words. If I am wrong, it must be in understanding them too literally ; but if I depart from their literal sense, I am afraid that it would lead me into the deserts of scep- ticism and uncertainty, not only with respect to this point, but the whole of revelation. In the whole of these texts there is a distinction pointed out as well as an unity, and this distinction is held forth by all the modes of speech by which we distinguish persons among men. Each of them speaks of himself in the •first person, /, me, my, mine, us, we, &c. — They speak to one another reciprocally, thou, thee, thy, thine, &c. They speak of one another, he, his, him, &c. — and they are all spoken of in distinct form, and in relation to one another, as being with one another, sending and sent, and doing distinct things peculiar to each. I take the revelation of this high mystery then just as it is simply expressed. It is possible that you may start an objection to the following effect, " God in using this personal manner of speaking is only accommodating himself to human On Sahellianism. 507 conceptions, even as when he ascribes bodily parts to himself, and so must not be understood literally." To this I answer, that 1 am a human creature ; so can have nothing but human conceptions, and if the Lord has accommodated his revelation to my conceptions, I ought to receive it thankfully, and conform my ideas to his revelation, as a little child, assured that it is the only revelation he intends me in this world, the most proper for me in my present state, the most worthy of him to bestow, and that he can have no intention to deceive or mislead me. If he speaks to me in a lan- guage suited to men, shall I strain after being wise as God ? Gen. iii. 5, 6'. Shall I reject the idea which he thought most proper for human creatures to entertain of him, and seek to be wise above what is written by intruding into things which I have not seen ? — As to hand, eyes, ears, &c. being ascribed unto God, I shall only notice, that as we are fully ascertained from the whole Bible, that God is an invisible, pure spiritual Being, these expressions cannot signify bodily parts in him, nor does the scripture any where say so ; but shall we affirm, that because they do not signify any thing corporeal in him as they do in us, that therefore they signify nothing in him at all ? do they not point out some acts or perfections of the divine nature whereunto the use of these members in us bears some faint and imperfect analogy ? Even so, the scripture reveals three subsistences in the divine nature by all the modes of speech in which we speak of three per- sons among men, and though we must not measure these three by any created subsistences, angelic or human, (more than the divine omniscience by bodily eyes and ears) yet, if words can have any meaning, we must believe the reality of them. 50S On SabeUianism. Still, however, you may possibly inquire " What is it that constitutes distinct subsistences in the God- head ? or what lies at the bottom of such a distinction?" I reply, God forbid that I should ever attempt to re- solve such a question ! I do not know what consti- tutes distinct persons among men. All I know is how they appear to be distinct. I am as conscious that I am my very individual self, and not another, as I am of my existence ; but what constitutes this self, I can- not tell. I do not so much as know what constitutes the difference of colours, yet I am not the less certain that there is a diflference, because 1 see it with my eyes. Shall I then attempt to describe what constitutes the distinction of the adorable and incomprehensible Di- vine Three? Far be it ! It is enough for me that they are declared to be Three, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, and that these Three are One Jehovah. Let me therefore believe and adore. I am, yours, &c. A.M. ON THE LOSS OF RELATIVES. [To Mrs. Stevenson, of Hull] DEAR MADAM, Edinburgh, Dec. 15, 1799. By a line from Mr. S. I am informed that you have met with an afflicting dispensation of Providence, in the loss of your youngest child, by the small-pox. You will, no doubt, feel this_the more sensibly, from its being, I suppose, the first affliction of the kind you have experienced, and from the natural tenderness of a mother's affections and feelings. Insensibility, under the hand of God, would be criminal, and, in such a case as this, unnatural. He hath implanted in us natural affections, and when he deprives us of the ob- On the Loss of Relatives. 50y jects of them, he wills that we should feel. True, in- deed, these objects are his gifts, every thing amiable in them is from him, and he has an undoubted right to recall them at pleasure ; yet " The God of love will sure indulge The flowing tear, the heaving sigh, When tender friends and kindred die." But as, on the one hand, we are not to despise the chastening of the Lord through a stoical or callous in- sensibility ; so neither ought we, on the other hand, to faint, when rebuked of him, so as to be overset and sink under the trial. As both these extremes are sinful, as well as hurtful to ourselves, so we may be sure that neither of them corresponds with the designs of a gra- cious and merciful God in afflicting us. 1 might suggest to you, upon this occasion, that all our worldly comforts and enjoyments are from God, and lent us but for a season — that we are unworthy of the least of his favours — that he has a sovereign right to recall them, when he sees meet — that affliction is the common lot of mankind — that death will un- doubtedly, sooner or later, close this transitory scene, with recpect to us all — and that impatience, or ex- cessive grief, is sinful, unreasonable, unavailing, and only increases our distress. But though such reflec- tions are just and proper, they are not sufficient, of themselves, to give relief to the mind smarting under affliction. Religion, the Christian religion alone, is calculated to assuage our grief in every trial, and to make us not only submissive and resigned, but even cheerfully to acquiesce in the divine disposals. It assures us that none of our afflictions come by chance, but by the special appointment of our heavenly Father — that they are under his direction and special management, as to their nature, degree, continuance and effects — that he is possessed of infinite wisdom. ^W On the Loss of Relatives. and knows what is best for us ; and also of infinite goodness, whereby he makes all things, even the sharpest afflictions, to work together for good, to them that love him. His chastisements are the effects of his love to his people, and he therein acts the part of a tender-hearted Father ; " For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he re- ceiveth." And though " no afHiction for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous, yet afterwards it yieldeth the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them that are exercised thereby." Had God intended no other happiness for his people, no other portion but the transitory enjoyments of this life, we could not indeed perceive his love in depriving us of these ; but when we consider that God proposes himself as the object of our happiness, who is a satis- fying and everlasting portion, and whose favour is better than life ; when we think of this world only as a passage to an eternal state of happiness, in the pre- sence and enjoyment of God, where there is fulness of joy and pleasures for evermore ; and when we think of the Son of God coming into the world, bleeding and dying, and rising again from the dead, to procure for us the remission of sins, and eternal life with himself beyond death and the grave : this will lead us to con- sider afflictions as but light and momentary, when compared with the glory that shall be revealed, and the faith and hope of this will support us under every trial. It is only in this view that we can perceive chastisements to be effects of divine love, and sub- servient to our true and everlasting interest. They serve, when sanctified, to humble our minds — teach us submission to, and acquiescence in, the will of God — remind us, that we owe all our comforts to, and hold them immediately of, God — discover to us the On the Loss of Relatives. 511 transitory nature of all earthly enjoyments, and the folly of setting our supreme aflfections upon them, or of placing our happiness in them — convince us, that our true and permanent happiness lies onhj in the en- joyment of God — make us relish the comforts of the gospel, which are suited to a state of affliction in this world — and tend to lead our views and desires forward to that state, where sin and sorrow shall never enter. These, and such like effects, are what God intends by afflicting us, as he has declared in his word. Are they not all conducive to our chief good ? and ought it not to be our main care, that these gracious designs of God may be gained upon us by all his chastisements? In proportion as these effects are produced, a sweet and placid serenity overspreads the soul ; it recurs to God himself as its chief happiness, and finds rest in him as its portion and satisfying good. How blessed in such a case is the man whom the Lord chasteneth ! When our minds are overcome with an affecting loss, w^e are apt to forget our remaining mercies. But are there not always great grounds for thankfulness amidst all our sorrow? Has God taken from us one dear child, and has he not left us another ? Nay, has he not left us a husband or wife, the affectionate partners of our joys and griefs ? And though he had bereft us of all at once, does not he himself stand in- stead of all relations ? and is he not infinitely better than sons or daughters? — We ought therefore to reflect upon the grounds of gratitude and thankfulness he affords us, amidst all our afflictions. You have reason, dear Madam, to believe that your child is happy. The scripture gives us a favourable view of the state of all infants dying in infancy. Our Lord says, " Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of 512 On the Loss of Relatives. God." A great part of mankind die in infancy before they have done any good or evil ; and our Lord de- clares, that of such little children the kingdom of God is made up ; and, as a token of this, he took the little children that were brought him up in his arms, and blessed them, Mark x. They die, by virtue of their connection with Adam in his first transgression ; but having done neither good nor evil, in their own persons, they will not be judged according to the deeds done in the body, nor fall under the sentence of the second death, which is pronounced only upon personal wicked deeds ; but being redeemed by the blood of Christ, and written in the Lamb's book of life, they shall be raised up from the first death, which came by Adam, to the enjoyment of eternal life in the heavenly king- dom. This consideration should dry up your tears. Your child is now with God, infinitely more happy than you could have made her on earth ; infinitely more happy than you can conceive ; and, if you are a follower of them, who, by faith and patience inherit the promises, and of Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of faith, you shall one day meet with her amidst the redeemed company, where you shall never more part; and, where "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain : for the former things are passed away," Rev. xxi. 4. That this may be the happy issue of all our present afflictions, is the sincere prayer of. Dear Madam, Your sincere and sympathizing Friend, A.M. FINIS. Prinwd by W. MYERS, Bedford Place, Coniiuercial Road. 1