^ 
 
 CO 
 Ql 
 
 
 J^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 fO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IE 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 0) 
 
 -a 
 
 
 .tm^ 
 
 
 ;£ 
 
 - ( 
 
 sz 
 
 H^' 
 
 Ql 
 
 -'1 
 
 ^'^ 
 
 
 
 
 '•Sj 
 
 !^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 tj 
 
 ^ 
 
 $ 
 
 
 ^^i* 
 
 o 
 
 (U 
 
 " 
 
 
 c 
 
 tifl 
 
 rs 
 
 tSi 
 
 Eh 
 
 <. 
 
 ^ 
 
 l^ 
 
 
 13 
 
 I^ 
 
 
 ;zi 
 
 £ 
 
 .^ 
 
 <i> 
 
 M 
 
 CJ 
 
 ■vi 
 
 jS^ 
 
 Ph 
 
 CO 
 
 ■g. 
 
 
 P4 
 
 s 
 
 "! 
 
 <3k 
 
 
 J3 
 
 ^ 
 
 t 
 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 g 
 
 p 
 
 0) 
 
 
 V^ 
 
 CL 
 
 s 
 ^ 
 
 ' 
 
 
DISSERTATION 
 
 ON 
 
 BAPTISM, 
 
 Is"*:. 
 
A 
 
 DISSERTATION 
 
 ON 
 
 BAPTISM, 
 
 AND 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SINAI COVE N ANT; 
 
 TOGETHER WITH AN 
 
 I N Q^U I R Y 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 L A WFULNE SS 
 
 OF 
 
 EATING BLOOD. 
 By Mr ALEXANDER'PIRIE, 
 
 MINISTER. OF THE GOSPEL, NEWBURGH, FIFE. 
 
 Therefore every scribe who is instructed into the king- 
 dom of heaven, is like unto a man that is an householder, 
 who bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old. 
 
 Matih. xiii. 52. 
 
 C!;titnliurtj5: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. PILLANS & SONS, LAWNMARK.ET, 
 
 FOR OGLE & AIKMAN, PARLIAMENT- SQUARE J M.OGLE, 
 
 GLASGOW j AND R. OGLE, LONDON. 
 
 iSOG. 
 
\'r 
 
 t ■ —•'r' 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 ■*> f>>fv-\«~.'J iss 
 
 Fag, 
 A DISSERTATION ON BAPTISM. 
 
 Treface to the First Edition, ; . . , 3 
 
 SECT. 1. 
 On Baptism in general, 7 
 
 SECT. II. 
 The Manner of their ^application, . I J 
 
 SECT. in. 
 Tb( Word Baptism^ 1 6 
 
 SECT. lY. 
 Tbe yewish Baptisms, .....iS 
 
vj CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 The Baptism of yohn, lo 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 The Christian Baptism y ...........23 
 
 SECT. VII. 
 The Mode of this Baptism, 3S 
 
 SECT. VIII. 
 The Subjects of Baptism, • • >^ * * > SS 
 
 SECT. IX. 
 
 Containing Ansvoers to the Objections of the 
 Baptists, 85 
 
 UETTERS ON THE SINAI COVENANT, AD- 
 DRESSED TO MR M*LEAN. 
 
 Preface to the First Edition, , . . . pp 
 
 Letter I. ic^ 
 
 II 114 
 
 III 124 
 
 IV 134 
 
 V i4t 
 
 VI MS 
 
CONTENTS. Vll 
 
 Pag. 
 
 Litter VII 162 
 
 VIII 172 
 
 IX 182 
 
 X. 193 
 
 XI , . . . 203 
 
 XII 219 
 
 Conclusion^ 232 
 
 AN INQUIRY INTO THE LAWFULNESS 
 OF EATING BLOOD- 24I 
 

 A 
 
 DISSERTATION 
 
 ON 
 
 B A P T I S M. 
 
 Vol.. V. 
 
fr.5 
 
■^ *. ?. ''i; 
 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 To 
 
 THE FIRST EDITION, 
 
 I\Tant of my religious acquaintances, when con«^ 
 verfing with me on the fubje6l of baptifm, have 
 exprefled a doubt of the divine authority for admi- 
 niftering that inftitution to infants ; fo that If they 
 continue the practice, It is only becaufe, in a du- 
 bious manner, they reckon it beft to err on the, 
 fafe fide. My own mind, too, had long confix 
 dered this fubjedl as a matter of doubtful difpu- 
 tation. Siifpence, always accompanied with an- 
 xiety, Is a disagreeable Hate of mind in every cafe; 
 but it is particularly fo, when Its obje6l is of a re- 
 ligious kind. Faith in the divine appointment of 
 an inftitution, can alone render the obiervation of 
 it a part of religious fervice ; fince " whatfoever 
 is not of faith is fin." Sufpence in a matter of 
 this kind, then, mull not only fill the mind with- 
 anxiety, but mar that fatisfa6lion of heart, which 
 rcfults from a conrcioufncfs of obeying Jefus, by 
 obfciving the tilings which he commands. This 
 confideraticn induced me to examine the fcriptures 
 relating to this point with attention, relying on 
 A 2 the 
 
iv Preface to the First Ed'itlofU 
 
 the promife— '< If any man incline to do his wiilj^ 
 ^he fhall know the do£trine, whether it be of God." 
 Mae refult of thefe inquiries is now offered to the 
 view of the Public ; and if it fliall tend to illuftrate 
 the truth, or eftablifh the mind of the Cbriftian in 
 a matter of io great importance, the pubUcation 
 will not be in vain. 
 
 Of late years, the Baptlfls have publifhed again 
 and again in fupport of their argument, and now 
 feem to boaft as if their caufe had obtained a de- 
 cided vi£bory, while the filence of their opponents 
 feems to admit the claim. Comparing their argu- 
 ments, however, with fcripture, I began to fuf- 
 pedl them more pKiufible than folld. This deter- 
 mined me to publifli my views of that fabje<Sl : 
 yet not chufing to enter the field as a difputant, I 
 liave arranged my ideas in the form of a diflerta- 
 tion ; in a dodtrinal rather than a controverfial 
 manner,— -only making fome animadveifions on 
 the opinions of the Quakers and Baptifts as they 
 occurred, and feemed to crofs my fentiments. 
 
 This work, then, is not intended as a direct an- 
 fwer to any particular writer, I, indeed, have ta- 
 ken a variety of quotations from Mr M'Lean's wri- 
 tings J but it is only becaufe I confider his works 
 as containing all that has been faid on his fide of the 
 queftion, and that with perfpicuity and elegance. 
 The pamphlet I refer to is entitled, " A Defence 
 of Believer. Baptifm," publiftied in anfwer to an 
 anonymous author at GJafgow : and my reader is 
 defired to obferve, that to avoid too frequent re- 
 ferences to the particular pages of that work, the 
 whole that I have quoted from it on the mode of 
 Baptifm is to be found between p. 55. and 6j. of 
 the forefaid performance. 
 
 The more I attend to this Gentleman's writings, 
 the more I am perfuaded that his mifconceptions 
 
 on 
 
Trt-lface to the First Edition, « 
 
 the head of Bnptlfm originate in falfe ideas of fome 
 very leading points of revealed truth. He feems 
 to be much miilaken in his notions concerning the 
 difFerence between the churches of the Old and 
 New Teftameiirs, tlie two covenants, and the two 
 feeds of Abraham ; as alfo concerning both cir- 
 cumcifion and baptifm. To detecEl his miHake in 
 articles of fo great importance, I have committed 
 to wricing a confidcrable number of thoughts, 
 which I intend foon to publifh, provided the follow- 
 ing DitTertatiou fliall meet the approbatiua of the 
 public. 
 
 The plan of this diiTertation at leaft is miu : and 
 as the force of evidence rcfuking from an argu- 
 ment depends much on a proper arrangement of its 
 parts, I have endeavoured to colleil the rays of 
 evidence into one common point, fo as to produce 
 the mod forcible imprefilon on the mind. How- 
 far I have fiicceeded, muit be left to the public de- 
 iermination. 
 
 A-2 
 
'.T. >S^ ^ 
 
 =^ 
 
 A 
 
 iJissertati6n 
 
 ON 
 
 SECT. r. 
 
 0?i Baptism in general. 
 
 THE application of water to the body for the 
 purpofe of health and cleanlinefs, is a prac- 
 tice founded in nature, and has been in ufe among 
 men from the beginning. We find alfo Infinite 
 Wifdom, from the earlieft period, has chofen wa- 
 ter, and Its application to the body, as fymbols of 
 the Divine Spirit, and the application of his in- 
 fluences to the mind, for the purpofes of fpiritual 
 health and purity. No fymboi has a more obvious 
 foundation in nature. 
 
 This religious ufe of water is the thing that is 
 principally called Baptifm. That water was the 
 fymboi of the Spirit is evident from fcripture. To 
 pour water on men, and to pour the Spirit on 
 
 them| 
 
8 Al^issertation on Baptism, 
 
 them, are every where fynonimous exprefllonsv 
 When Jefus fpoke of the Spirit, he called hini 
 *« Jiving water." So early as the days of Jacob, 
 water was applied to the body as a figure of thatf 
 purity of mind which is neceflary in the fervice 
 of God. Thus, when Jacob was about to go up 
 to Bethel to ere£l an altar to Jehovah, he " faid 
 to his houfehold. Be dean^ and change your gar- 
 ments ; and let us arife, and go up to Bethel," 
 Gen. XXXV. i, — 3. This was nothing new: it 
 was but a fpeclmen of the pra6lice of the churrh 
 from the entrance of fin. The fame myftical ufe 
 of water has been continued in all the difpenfations 
 of religion. Not only the Jews, but the heathens, 
 in all their various forir.s of religion, carefully ob- 
 ferved their luftrations and purifications, when ap- 
 proaching their god. The laver ftood near the 
 altar in the houfs of Jehovah, and at the enttance 
 to the holy place : and even in Britain, our Druids, 
 the heathen priefts of antiquity, fo exa£lly retained 
 the ancient inflitution, that we no where find one 
 of their altars for facrifice, but we find at the 
 fame time a fountain or rivulet of water in its 
 neighbourhood. So early and fo univcrfal was 
 this religious ufe of water ; and fo exactly can an 
 external ceremony of religion be maintained, 
 while the fpiritual intention of it is almolt entirelv 
 loft. 
 
 To the water, religion had added the applica-* 
 tlon of oil and blood. The oil, which was ufed 
 in this religious application to the body, was 
 called holy oil. The blood was always that of a 
 facrifice, all of which were dedicated to God,' 
 and thus were confidered holy. Thefe Wv^re 
 applied to the bodies of all who were initiated 
 into the fervice of God. Kings and prophets were 
 gnoiated with the holy oil; No prieft coirid dravjr 
 
 nigh- 
 
A Dissertatio?! on Baptism. p 
 
 nigh to minifter in the tabernacle of Jehovah^ 
 until he was firft wafhen in water, anointed with 
 oil, and had blood put upon him, even the blood 
 of confecration. Lev. viii. 6. 12. 23. 24. In the 
 fame chapter we are told, that Mofes fprinkled the 
 ahar, and all its veflels, both with blood and oil, 
 in confecrating them to the divine fervice. The 
 tabernacle was fan£tified in the fame manner, ver. 
 10. In fhort, '' almoft all things are by the lavi^ 
 purged with blood ;" nor was the application of 
 oil lefo extenfive ; «< Mofes took the anointing oil, 
 and anointed the tabernacle and all therein, and 
 fan<Stiried them." 
 
 Thefe three materials, ufed in baptifms, or re- 
 ligious initiations into the fervice of Jehovah, were 
 all fymbolical of the feveral influences of the Holy 
 Spirit. The water expreiTed that purity of heart 
 the Spirit confers ; the oil, by its foftening and 
 lenient efFciSts, was calculated to reprefent love, 
 mercy, peace, and joy— all the fruits of the Spirit. 
 Blood was the fymbol of pardon and forgivenefs, 
 as it was always flied for the remifTion of fin. 
 
 John fays, " There are three that bear witnefs 
 on earth, the fpirit, the water, and the blood,'* 
 I John, v. 8. The fpirit is the fame as the oil, with, 
 which, he fays, all Chriftians are anointed, chap. 
 ii. 20. 27. " Ye have an anointing from the Holy 
 One ; the anointing which ye have received of 
 him abides in you." This fame anointing, he adds, 
 is a true witnefs, " is truth, and is no lie." Con- 
 fequently the oil, in thefe verfes, is the fame as 
 the fpirit in the 8th verfe of the 5th chapter ; and 
 thus John's three witnelfes will be found to have 
 been always on earth, connected with a profeflion 
 of faith in the divine record, and attefting this 
 great truth, « That God has given to us eternal 
 lile, and this life is in the Son," whofe atoning and 
 
 vital 
 
2d ^Dissertation on Baptism* 
 
 Tital Influences have been always vifibly exprefTerf 
 by thefe witnefTcs. 
 
 We have feen how they did bear witnefs during 
 the patriarchal and Mofaic difpenfations. As ac- 
 cefs to God, pardon, purity, and life, could only 
 be obtained by thefe three, thefe folennnly attefted 
 this truth, that all the blefiings mentioned could 
 be only obtained through the Son, whofe types they 
 were. So clearly did they attell the truth of the 
 record of God, that he has given us eternal life ia 
 his Son. The fame three bore witnefs to the 
 Son, when he tabernacled among us in perfon. 
 Before he entered upon his public miniftry, he was 
 baptized with water in Jordan ; immediately after 
 which, he was anointed with the Holy Spirit above 
 meafure. With the holy oil, the Father anointed 
 him to be King over Zion. After all, he had ftill 
 another baptifm to be baptized with, even that with 
 his own blood, before he could enter into the holy 
 place, there to appear in the prefence of God for 
 tjs. Thus water, oil, and blood, gave teftimony 
 concerning the Son of God while on earth, After 
 he afcended, the fame three continued to bear 
 teflimony to the truth of the gofpel. The water 
 in baptifm, the anointing abiding in the Chriftian, 
 and the cup of the blood of the New Tellament, 
 continue lull in the church of Chrifl Jefus. Two 
 of thefe, the wnter .ind the blood, are vifible to 
 the eye of the body \ the other, the anointing, or 
 holy oil, is vifible too in its eflcfls on the l:fe of 
 the Chriilian. The very word Christian fignifies 
 the anointed. In the diys of the apoltles, oil was 
 iiteraliy applied for religious purpoles. Not only 
 the apoRles themfelves " anointed with oil many 
 that were nek, and healed them," Mark, iv. 13. ; 
 but James fays, " Is any fick among you ? let him 
 call for the elders of the church, and let iheni 
 
 pray 
 
^ Dissertation on Baptism, l<k 
 
 pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name 
 of the Lord ;" not that he may die, as the Papifts 
 conceive, but that the (jck may be raifed up, 
 and his fins may be forgiven him, James, v. 15. 
 16. 
 
 Thus baptifm in general confided in a religious 
 application of a fluid to the body, in a folemn ini- 
 tiation into the fervice of pod. We have feen 
 what fluids were employed in this ceremony; let 
 jis now attend to, 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 The Manner of their application. 
 
 Water, oil, and blood, though all applied te 
 the body for religious purpofes, yet have been ap- 
 plied in very various modes. Perfons and tilings 
 are faid fometimes to have been wafhen with wa- 
 ter, which includes both immenion, or dipping and 
 rinsing, fince one may be wallien in either of thefe 
 ways. Sometimes they bathed their flefli in water, 
 which might be done two ways, either by apply- 
 ing water to the body, as in fomentation, or by 
 putting the body among the water. At other 
 times we read of sprinkling with water. 
 
 In the law of Mofcs, we no where read of the 
 rites of initiation being performed by immerfiyn. 
 When Moles brought Aaron and his fons ro the 
 door of the tabernacle, to fan6kify them, that they 
 might miniiler to the Lord in the prieft's office, 
 he waflied them with water ; but it is not faid 
 whether by immerfion or rinfing. It is mofl pro- 
 bable, that the laft mode was ufed on this occadon, 
 as the bodies of Aaron and his ions could not be 
 
 kept 
 
S 2 A Dissertation on Baptism. 
 
 kept fo long under water, as was neceflary to wafk 
 or cleanfe them. Simple dipping is not wafhing 
 at all. A thing may be wafhen without dipping 
 it, but dipping without rinfing can wafti no- 
 thing. 
 
 With refpe<3: to the oil and blood, they alfo 
 were varioufly applied. We have fpecimens of 
 all thefe different modes of application in the 8th 
 chapter of Leviticus. The altar was anointed by 
 sprinkling, but Aaron and his fons by pouring out 
 the oil on their heads, ver. ii. 1 2. The blood was 
 applied by sprinkling, as in ver. 19. or by putting 
 it with the finger upon the part to be fandlified, 
 as in ver. 15. 23. 24. In this laft manner, the oil 
 "Was alfo fometimes applied, as in cleanfing the 
 leper. Lev. xiv. 28. 
 
 It may be obferved, that thefe religious applica- 
 tions of a fiuid under the law, were intended, 
 either as a fign of initiation into the fellowfliip of 
 the church with her God, or in fome facred office 
 in her ; or, laftly, of a reftoration, or re-admiffion 
 into her fellowlhip. The cleanfing of the leper is 
 an inftance of the lafl of thefe, as in Lev. xiii. and 
 xiv. The leper had been a member of the 
 church formerly, but was caft out becaufe of this 
 uncleanncfs ; and before he can be re-admitted to 
 her fellowfhip, he muft be fandlified, or cleanfed 
 by water, oil, and blood, applied in all the different 
 modes ufcd in the confecration or initiation of the 
 priells. 
 
 All thefe modes of applying liquids to the body, 
 are called by Paul, baptijtns, Heb. ix. 10. It is 
 well known, that the word rendered washings in 
 that verfe, is in the Greek, bapttsmsy the fame as 
 purifications. He is here giving a fummary of 
 the ritual fervices, in which the application of 
 fluids to the body is one of the moll confiderable. 
 
 And 
 
 I 
 
A Dissertation on Sapthfn. 1 J 
 
 And that all. the various purifications prefcribed 
 by the law are included in this, mufl: be evident 
 to every man of difcernment. If it means only 
 immeifion, then the apoftle leaves out of his ac- 
 count by f^r the greater number of modes of puri- 
 fication prefcribed by the law ; which is very un- 
 like his ufual accuracy. But the context deter- 
 mines the point beyond a rational doubt, as he 
 proceeds immediately to give inftances of thefe 
 baptifms : " If the blood of bulls and goats, and 
 the afhes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, 
 fan6lifieth to the purifying of the fieih," Mofes, 
 with water, fcarlet-wool, and hyflbp, sprinkled botli 
 the book, and all the people. 
 
 How properly are thefe called " divers baptifms !" 
 Different materials or liquids were employed in 
 them, as we have already feen ; diverfe inilru- 
 ments were ufed, as the hand, wool, hyflbp ; and 
 all were applied in very various manners, as is 
 a'fo fhewn. 
 
 That fprinkling is to be clafTcd among thefe di- 
 verfe baptifms, is certain. The prieft of the law 
 could not enter the holy place, till the facrifice was 
 flain, and its blood fprinkled upon himfelf and his 
 garments, to fan6tify himfelf, and his garments 
 ■with him. Lev. viii. 30. This was fulfilled in 
 Jefus Chriit, as Paul affures us, who could not 
 enter heaven, till he entered in his own blood. 
 He is our Prieft and facrifice. Sprinkled with his 
 own blood, he had a right to enter heaven, and to 
 fandlify the people, or to apply to them the blood 
 of fprinkling, that they might be made priells to 
 God, as Aaron's fons were faniSiifitd at the fame 
 time with himfelf, by the fame blood ot fprinkling. 
 Speaking of this a<^, as performed in himfelf, he 
 cxprefsly calls it baptinuy Luke, xii. 50. " I have a 
 baptifm to be baptii'cd with, and how am I ftraiten- 
 
 VoL. V. B ed 
 
14 ^ "Dissertation en Baptism. 
 
 ed till it be accompliflied !" To underftand this 
 clearly, wc muft obferve, that as Aaron was firft 
 baptifed with water, then with oil, and finally 
 with blood, after which he was fully confecrated ; 
 fo Jefus was firft baptifed with water, then with 
 the Spirit, the holy oil; and now, fays he, lam 
 anxious to have my laft baptifm performed, which, 
 muft be by my own blood. He was made perfect 
 by fufFerlngs. This finiflied his confecration. 
 
 To tell us, that this is only a figure to reprefent 
 the greatnefs of his fufFerings, even as they are fet 
 forth in Old-Teftament metaphors, by his finking 
 in deep mire, and coming into deep waters, where 
 the floods overflow him, — is to interpret fcripture 
 inconfiftently. 
 
 Every body knows, that finking in deep waters, 
 and coming into overflowing floods, mean great 
 jiffliftions •, but where fhall we find baptifm ufed 
 in any fuch fenfe ? Even where it is ufed meta- 
 phorically, it always fignifies initiation, as this is 
 its obvious defign, but never fufFering of any kind, 
 tmuch lefs the greatnefs of fufix:ring *. Our Lord's 
 
 baptifm 
 
 "* 1 know it will be objefted, that fuffcrings are called 
 iBaptisjn, when our Lord lays to the fons of Zebedee — 
 ♦* Ye ilinll drink of my cup, and be baptifed with the 
 baptifm that I am baptifed with," Matth. xx. 13. To 
 underhand thcfe words, we muit ubfcrve, that they are ati 
 anfwcr to a petition piefented by thefe two difciples, dc- 
 firing admiffion to the dignified office of chief minifters 
 in their matter's kingdom. To this requefl. our Lord re- 
 plies, by pointing out the initiatory fevvic«s which muft 
 
 be fubmitted to by candidates for fo high an ofhce. 
 
 Ere you can enter to fo high offices in my kingdom, you 
 muft drink of my cup, and be baptifed with my baptifm, 
 or pafs through the introdudlory fuflcrings. Baptifm, then, 
 in this paflage, (till denotes initiation to a focicty or office. 
 It is connedted with luflVrings indeed, hut the fufFerings 
 are called Baptifm, not with refptft to their natme, but 
 
 with 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism. 1 5 
 
 baptifm with 1)lood was indeed connecied witli 
 futlering j in the fame manner as the baptifm of 
 the Ingh-prieft was conne£1ed with the fufFerings 
 of the facrifical ram. But the fufFcrings of the 
 ram of confecration were not baptifm •, but tiie 
 fprinkling of his blood on the pried was fo. Fn 
 like manner, the fprinkUng of the blood of Jefus, 
 the confequence of his fufferings, and the finilhing 
 part of his confecration, was his baptifm, which 
 he was pained to have accompUihed, knowing what 
 he mufl fuiFer in his way to it. 
 
 It may be added, that Paul expreiTes the bap- 
 tifm of Chriftians by sprinkling and tvashingy Ileb. 
 X. 22. " Having your hearts fprinkled from an- 
 evil confcience," by the inward baptifm of his Holy 
 Spirit, " and your bodies waflied with pure water," 
 in the external inftitution of baptifm. Moreover, 
 as the oil was poured upon the heads of the ini- 
 tiated under the law, fo the Holy Ghoft is faid to 
 be poured out on the Chriftians : And what is 
 called pouring out in A<Sls, x. 45. is exprefsly called' 
 baptising in A£^s, xi. 16. So evident is it that 
 fprinkling, wafhing, pouring upoiij anointing, are 
 all fcripture-baptifms. 
 
 B 2 SECT. 
 
 with regard to their desi-n. " Ought not Chrift to have 
 iuffLred thefe things, and enter into his glory ?" The 
 idea of baptifm and the idea of faffenns: are totally dil- 
 tind. ^ 
 
 It may be added, that in this paflage there is no re- 
 ference to plunging at all, but to the mode of initiating a 
 prophet, prielt, or king, into his office, according to tht; 
 law ; which was nevtr performed by immersion, but by 
 anointing. It paiticularly reters to the lalt bapti{ra of 
 the pricft, when he was sprinkled with the blood of tht: 
 ram of confecration, which perfeftcd his initiatory ftr- 
 vice. At any rate, then, this pafiage avails the Ea'ptias . 
 nothing. 
 
C i6 ) 
 
 SECT. III. 
 - Tf:ie Word Baptism, 
 
 That Itwmrsion is the primary idea of int Greek 
 word Baptirna, or Bapiii-mos, ieems to be a miftake. 
 This word is originaijy derived from hapto, the 
 leading idea of -A-liich in all Greek writers is dyeings 
 giving a new tincture or colour to any thing. In 
 its derivatives, it denotes dyers, the art of dyeing, 
 dyc-houfes. Now, as the art of dyeing is generally 
 pra^lifed by immerfion or dipping, hence the 
 word came to (ignify alfo dipping or plunging. 
 
 Keeping this in viev/, we may eaiily get at the 
 reafon why the fcripture-infiitutions for initiation 
 into the church or her ofHces were called baptifm ; 
 and particularly why the initiating ordinance of 
 Chrillianity is fo called. By initiation into a fo- 
 ciety or office we take on a new tin£ture or dye, 
 or a new characfer, and even a new name. It 
 was fo in the Old Teftament : it is particularly fo 
 in the New. Now, as this is the defign and mean- 
 ing of Chriilian baptifm, as it is intended to ex- 
 prefs our putting on the Lord Jefus Chrift, the 
 new man, a new character indeed, no word could 
 be found more proper for exprelTing this idea. 
 Lefides, as baptifm in Greek fignifies alfo immer- 
 fion or dipping, which is the moil full and per- 
 fect application of water or any liquid to the body 
 or thing dipptd, when an ordinance confills in an 
 application of a fluid to tlie body, it v/as cbvioufly 
 proper to call it by a name which denotes the 
 molt perft£l a6t of the kind. Yet to infer from 
 this, that no mode of applying a liquid to the bo- 
 dy, fave dipping alone, can be called baptilm, 
 is not fair, fince we have the cleared evidence to 
 
 the 
 
A Dissertation on Bapthm. 17 
 
 llie contrary. The motion of a fliip or boat on 
 the water is called in our language sailing, whlcli 
 in its mofl proper fenfe denotes motion by means 
 of a fail. Yet it is well known that a boat can be 
 moved on the water by oars, or even by the cur- 
 rent, without a fail at all. How abfurd, then, 
 would it be to argue, that none of thefe laft-men- 
 tioned modes of pafling by water are included in 
 the idea of failing, becaufe failing in a llri£l fenfe 
 fignifics pafling by water by means of a fail ? Yet 
 this is no more abfurd than the argument of the 
 Baptilts, That men can no more be baptifed by 
 sprinkling or p-juring, than they can eat the Lord's 
 fupper by seeing, ox smelling _; . becaufe, forfooth, 
 b^ptifm principally means dipping.; 
 
 This idea may be illUltrated a little further. A 
 phyfician directs his patient to take a fail on the 
 water daily. A man of plain fenfe, on reading 
 this direction, would inilantly conclude, that if the 
 patient v as conveyed by water, whether by the 
 current, wind, oar or fail, the dottor's intention 
 was fulfilled. No, fays a critic ; the word sailing^ 
 in the Englifh language, in its moil obvious figui- 
 fication, denotes motion by a fail. A man can no 
 more be faid to fail with an oar, than to ily with 
 a ilafF. Had the do6tor intended motion on water 
 by an oar, he would have uied the word roxving ,• 
 the proper Engliflv for ex pre fling that idea.— Thus 
 the plained direction in the world, , by the dint of 
 criticifm, couW be rendered fo intricate, that no 
 man of plain underflanding could poffibly unravel 
 it. The patient may die ere the difpute be de- - 
 termined. 
 
 The truthis, baptifm isnotfocalled fromits mode 
 
 of application, but from its defign or intention, 
 
 to point out our being waflien from fin, and pu<-! 
 
 ting on a new tinaure or charudter. It fays, in 
 
 ^ 3 other 
 
J 8 A Diisertatlsn en Bapi'ism, 
 
 other words, Be clean, and change your garments \ 
 and rife and go up to Bethel, the houfe of God. It 
 may be further obferved, that, 
 
 h% baptifm is a fign of admiiTion into a church, 
 it is ufed in fcripture to denote initiation in general, 
 jn whatever manner the fluid be applied, yea, 
 when there is no application of a fluid at all. 
 Thus Ifrael are faid to have been baptifed, i. e. 
 initiated into the fyftem of Mofes, in the cloud 
 and in the fca. The cloud and water were both 
 employed in this fcrvice •, yet neither of them 
 were in immediate contact with the bodies of the 
 Ifraelites. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 The Jewish Baptisms. 
 
 We have already feen, that all who are admitted 
 into facred offices in the Mofaic tabernacle/ were 
 initiated to thefe offices by a threefold baptifm, by 
 water, blood, and oil ; and that thefe liquids were 
 appl?&d in various manners. It remains now to be 
 obferved, that all Krael were admitted into the 
 church of God by divers baptifms. So Paul tells us, 
 "they were all baptifed into Mofes in the cloud and 
 in the fea." 1 he cloud is called a pillar of fire ; 
 confequently fire and water, the one above, the 
 other on every fide, were both employed in this 
 fervice. Still, howbeit, there was fomething want- 
 ing to perfedl the initiatory fervice. Before they 
 C3uld enter the tabernacle, or perform any part of 
 ics worfliip, they mud be fprinkled with the blood 
 of a facrifice. Accordingly we are told, that oa 
 the day in which God avouched them to be liis 
 
 people. 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism. 19 
 
 people, and they avouched him to be their God, 
 «« Mofes took the blood, and fprinkled it on the 
 people, and faid, Behold the blood of the covenant 
 which God hath made with you concerning all 
 thefe v/ords," Exod. xxiv. 8. Thus were they all 
 baptifed or initiated into the covenant of God by 
 cloud and by fire, the fymbols of the Holy Spirit j 
 by the blood of an atoning facrifice, and by a 
 water, which reprefented the fufferings of him 
 from " whofe pierced fide came forth blood and 
 water." 
 
 With refpe6l to the children of the Ifraelites, 
 they were all admitted into the church, much in 
 the fame manner, in the after-periods of their (late. 
 In the i6ch chapter of Ezckie!, God exprelTes his 
 treatment of Ifrael, in the day of his entering into 
 covenant with them, in terms borrowed from the 
 ufages commonly pra6tifed on a new-born infant : 
 »< 1 waflied thee with water, and I anointed thee 
 with oil," ver. 9. This certainly refers to the 
 common modes of wafliing and anointing their 
 children immediately after the birth. The blood 
 of the circumcifion, too, was holy blood, being the 
 figure of the blood of that holy feed, who was then 
 in, and was in due time about to iffue by defcent 
 from Abraham. In this blood every male child 
 was fprinkled on the eighth day after his birth. It 
 may be added, that as the paflbver was the firft 
 feall appointed by the law, it would appear from 
 the inftance of our Saviour, (Luke, iii.), that this 
 was the firil feflival to which the Jewifli children 
 were admitted. In this cafe they were introduced 
 to the temple worOilp by the fpnnkling of blood, 
 as this was an effential part of the fervice of the 
 paffbvcr. Let us now proceed to confider, 
 
 SEC T. 
 
C 20 ) 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 The Baptism ^John. 
 
 John preached in the wildernefs, that the king- 
 dom of heaven was at hand, or that the Meffiah 
 was juft about to appear, and that, in teftimony of 
 faith in this do6lrine, every man fliould fubmit to 
 be baptifed. He tells us at the fame time what 
 his baptifm is — " I baptife you with water." 
 He ufed no other fluid in this fervice but water 
 only. 
 
 With refpeft to the manner in which he applied" 
 the water, nothing is certain. It is evident, in- 
 deed, that he baptifed in Jordan and Enon, andr 
 that Jcfus, when baptifed of John, had been in- 
 the water j as we are told, that when he was bap- 
 tifed, « he went ftraightway out of the water,'*^ 
 Matth. iii. 6. But whether he was dipped into, 
 or wafhed in the water, or had it poured on his^ 
 head, is no where faid. To aver any thing on this^ 
 head, is to add to the fcriptures. We only fay, that 
 as Jefus was now about to enter on his public fer- 
 vice as a prophet and prieft, it is moft probable 
 that he was not dipped, but waflied or rinfed in 
 the fame manner as the prieft oi the law was- 
 wafhed by Mofes at the door of the tabernacle, 
 juft before he began to perform the bufinefs of his 
 £acrcd function. As the prophet and prieft, alfo, 
 were anointed with the holy oil on the fame occa- 
 Con -, fo Jefus, foon as he had been waflied with 
 water, was anointed with the Holy Spirit. Matth. 
 iii. 1 6. " He faw the heavens open unto him, 
 and the Spirit of God defcciiding in a dove-like 
 manner, and lighting upon him," 
 
 The baptifm of John liad one end in common 
 
 with 
 
A Bissenaikn on Baptism, it 
 
 with all others ; it was a fign of repentance, or of 
 putting on a new chara6ler, tindture, or dye. It 
 was particularly intended to exprefs faith in his 
 doctrine, That the kingdom of heaven was at 
 hand. 
 
 It differed from the Mofaic baptifms, in that it 
 was by water only ; in which refpecl it was alfo 
 dillcrent from the baptifm of Chriit. So he fays 
 himfelf, Matth. iii. ii. " I indeed baptife you 
 with water : but he that cometh after me fliall 
 baptife you with the Holy Ghoft, and with fire." 
 Repentance produces water or tears : here a bap- 
 tifm with water only was the moft proper fign of 
 repentance, or the moft proper fluid to be em- 
 ployed by one who bapcifcd unto repentance. 
 The fire, which enlivens, warms, and comforts the 
 heart, was moft properly referved for him whofe 
 dodlrine is calculated to fill us with all joy and 
 peace in believing. 
 
 Moreover, John's baptifm was only a fign of 
 faith in the Meftiah as about to come in a fhort 
 time : whereas the baptifm of Chrift was intended 
 as an exprefhon of faith in his being already come, 
 or that the kingdom of heaven was already begun. 
 Nor does it appear that John baptifed in the name 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, as was prac- 
 tlfed in the Chriltian baptifm. 
 
 While John was employed in baptifmg, we are 
 told that Jefus alfo baptifed, at leaft by the mi- 
 niftration of his difciples. Here a queftion may 
 aril'e — Whether was this the fame baptifm with 
 that which he afterwards eftablifhed, before he 
 afcended ? To this I anfwer. That it appears evi- 
 dent that it was not the fame, but a baptifm of 
 the fame kind with that of John — a baptifm with 
 water only, in token of the faith of the baptifed in 
 the near approach of the kingdom of heaven. For 
 
 it 
 
i2 A Dissertation on Baptism. 
 
 it is clear, that he did not baptife with the Holy 
 Ghoil and with fire, till he had afccnded to hea- 
 ven. 
 
 We (hall only add, that the baptifni of John 
 was of divine auihoritjr. It was enjoined him 
 from heaven, John, i. 3 ^. " He that fent me to 
 baptife with water, the fame faid unto me," &c. 
 Keeping this in view, we may eafily get at the true 
 meaning of vrhat our Lord faid to John, when 
 he refufcd to baptife him, Matth. iii. 15. " vSud^i:^ 
 it to be fo now ; for thus it becomes us to fulfil 
 all righteoufnefg." Here, It is very natural to in- 
 quire, What is the righteoufnefs intended in this 
 paiTagc ? The rightcoufnefs which it behoved 
 Chrill to fulfil was, according to our commenta- 
 tors, the righteoufnefs of the law ; but as the 
 baptifm of John was not an inftitution of the law 
 cf Mofes, the queflion is, How could fubmiiTion 
 to John's baptifm be any part of the righteoufnefs 
 of that law ? How could an a£l fulfil a law, 
 which was not enjoined in that law ? This diffi- 
 culty can only be folved by obferving, that al- 
 though this baptifm was not appointed in the law 
 cf Mofes, yet it was now a divine appointment. 
 God fent John to baptife all who profelled faith 
 in his do6trine. Confequently our Lord could not 
 have obeyed every divine law then in force, if he 
 liad not fubmitted to the baptifm of John. It 
 behoved our Saviour to obey every law of God, 
 whether it was delivered by Mofes, or afterwards. 
 Therefore fays he to John, " Suffer it now," for 
 thus I muft fulfil, not only the law of Mofes, or 
 any previous law, but this alfo which Heaven has 
 now appointed. 
 
 In this fenfe, John might underftand our Lord's 
 words 5 but he feems to have had fomething be- 
 fides in his eye, which would not fo readily occur 
 
 to 
 
ji Dissertation on Baptism. 2^ 
 
 to John. It is evident, that the priefl of the law- 
 could not enter on the execution of his ofiice, un- 
 til he was waflied at the door of the tabernacle o^ 
 the congregation. Jefus, the high-priefl of our 
 profeflion, was now about to enter on the dif- 
 charge of his facrcd fundtion ; and it certainly be- 
 came him to enter upon his office according to 
 the law. Though he was not of the order of Aa- 
 ron, yet tlie law prophefied of his priefthood, and 
 that he would magnify. the law and make it ho- 
 nourable. It was proper, then, that he fliould be 
 wafhed with water, in a religious manner, before 
 he entered on the bufinefs of the priefthood, that 
 this type in the law might be fulfilled in him. 
 Thus, his fubmiffion to baptifm was an evidence 
 of his intention to fulfil every part of righteoufnefs. 
 We now proceed to confider. 
 
 s E c T. vr. 
 
 T/:e Ch{\Istian BaptisjM. 
 
 This baptifm was infiituted by Jefus, whea 
 all power had been given him in heaven and in 
 earth. Jufl before he afcended, he laid to his 
 difciples, " Go, teach all natioiK, baptifing them 
 in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, 
 teaching them to obferve all things, whatfoever I 
 h-ave commanded you." This inlHtution was in- 
 tended to continue in the church of Jefus, and 
 was not to ceafe with the life of the apoiUes ; for 
 he adds, " Lo, I am with you all the days until 
 the end, finifliing, or conclufion of the age," /', e. 
 the gofpel-difpenfation, or what the Jews called 
 the ag<^ oj the Messiah. Nor is there the lead hint 
 
 ill 
 
1^4 -^ Dissert at io7i on Baptism. 
 
 in all the apoftolic writings, of an intention to re» 
 linquiih the pracflice of this facred rite. We pro- 
 pofe to offer our thoughts on this fubjedl in the 
 following order : i . We Giall view the materials 
 ufed in the Chriftian baptifm ; 2. The mode of 
 their application ; and, 3. The fubjedls of this 
 inftitution. As to 
 
 The Materials used in this Baptism f 
 
 We are told, that to the water of John, Jefus 
 ^dded the Holy Ghoft and fire. This was foretold 
 by John Baptift, JVlatth. iii. 11. <* I baptife you 
 with water unto repentance ; but he that cometh 
 after me fliall baptife you with the Holy Ghoft 
 and with fire." This was fulfilled, when the 
 Spirit defcended in the fymbol of fire, firft on the 
 Jewifh believers, on the day of Pentecoft, A6I5, ii. 
 I. — 4. and then on the Gentile converts, A6ls, x. 
 44. 48. That this was the accomplifliment of the 
 Baptift's prediction, is clear from the ufe made of 
 it by Peter, A6ls, xi, 11;. 16. " As I began to 
 fpeak, the Holy V-hoft fell on them, as on us at the 
 beginning. Then remembered I the word of the 
 Lord, how that he faid, John indeed baptifed with 
 water, but ye fliall be baptifed with the Holy 
 Ghoft." Our Lord himfelf promifed this kind of 
 baptifm jult before he afcended, A.£ts, i. 5. 
 
 As this baptifm of the Holy Spirit, or fire, was 
 the only baptifm promifed by Chrift to his dif- 
 ciples, the Quakers have inferred, that water- 
 baptiim is not any part of the baptifm of Chrift. 
 In this, however, they are obvioufly millaken. 
 The apoUles of Chnil undoubtedly underftood the 
 meaning of their Mafter's command, when he faid, 
 *' Go and baptife ■" and that they always baptifed 
 
 with 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism. 25 
 
 with water, Is as evident a5 any fa6l recorded in 
 fcripture. To fpend time in proving thiy point, 
 w^ould argue confummate folly. 
 
 But ftill it may be alked, Why then does John, 
 and even our Lord himfelf, only mention tiie 
 baptifm of the Holy Ghoft and fire as the Chri- 
 llian baptifm, if vi^ater be alfo a part of it ? Fhe 
 anfwer is, Nothing elfe diftinguifhed the baptifm 
 of Chrift from all others Water, blood, and oil, 
 had been employed ia the baptifms of the law. 
 John had ufed water for the fame purpofe. None 
 of thefe, then, would have dillinguiihed the 
 baptifm of Chrifl: from others. Hence it was 
 called the baptifm of the Holy Choft and fire, be- 
 caufe this was its diftinguifhed charadleriltic ; 
 but this did not fay that nothing elfe was to be 
 ufed in that fervice. In like manner, the Lord's 
 fupper is called the breaking of bread, although 
 wine alfo is an eflential part of it. 
 
 Moreover, the pouring out of the Holy Ghoft 
 and fire is mod properly called the baptifm of 
 Chrilt, becaufe this is his peculiar prerogative. 
 Men may baptife with water, but Jefus alone can 
 baptife with the Holy Ghofl. The apoftlcs mull; 
 tarry at Jeruf^dem, until he fent upon them the 
 promife of the Father, enduing them with powei 
 from on high. Ihe apoftles baptifed with water 
 on the day of Pentecoft, A£ts, ii. but it was Jefus 
 that baptifed them with the Holy Ghoil. Cor- 
 nelius and his friends v/ere the firil converts to 
 Chrillianity from among the Gentiles. Thefc 
 Peter baptifed with water, Adls, xx. but it was 
 Jefus that poured on them the Holy Spirit. 
 
 1 may add, the Quakers would have argued 
 with more pLuHbility, had they averred, that the 
 baptitm of the bpiru was to ceale, rather than that 
 of water. The bantifm of the Spirit was firlt 
 
 Voi.. V. * C vifible. 
 
2^ A Dissertation on Baptuin,. 
 
 vifible. It was accompanied with fire, the \irible 
 flgn of the reality of this baptifm. This vifible 
 iire foon failed, at leafl we feldom read of it ; 
 whereas, we find water conflantly employed in 
 every inftance of Chriftian baptifm M'e have on 
 record. 
 
 Thus we have feen water arjd fire conne£led to- 
 gellier in the Chriftian baptifm. Let us firft at- 
 tend to the divine purpofe in continuing, in the 
 Chriftian church, the life of 
 
 Water-Bapihm. 
 
 There has been ?. religious application of writer 
 to the bodies of believers from the beginiiing, as 
 wc have already feen. Tliis was intended to point 
 out the purifying influences of the Spirit, or tlsc 
 wafliing of regeneration, the renewing of the Holy 
 Ghoft, purifying us from all iniquity. This is 
 ifill its defign under Chriftianity. Hence f.iys 
 Feter, Adfs, ii. 38. <' Be baptifed every one cf you, 
 in the name of Jefus Chrift, for the renuision cf 
 sins." To the fame purpofe fays Ananias to Saul, 
 A£l3, xxii. 16. " Arife, and be baptifed, and 
 ivash away thy sins." It feems alfo to have been 
 intended as a fign of contrition, repentance, or 
 forrow for Cm, fince John Baptift: fays, " I baptife 
 ■with water unto repentance," or as a fign of re- 
 pentance. Tlie defign of John's preaching was 
 to convince men of fin, and to point to the com.ing 
 Saviour. Conviction of fin begets tears, the wr.ter 
 of repentance. In this view, with what propriety- 
 was John confined to the ufe of water only in his 
 baptifm ! The Spirit, alfo, is now ccme to " con- 
 vince the world of fin," as well as to wafti it away; 
 and coufequently we may fee fome propriety in 
 continuing the water, as fymbolical of thefe in- 
 
 fluencef; 
 
jt4 D'issertatio7i en Baptism. 27 
 
 iluences, m the religious iiulltutlons of the go- 
 fpel. 
 
 But, fay the Quakers, vifible figns are carnal or- 
 dinances, ami fliadows of fpiritual things, the body 
 of which is Chrifl and his church. Chrill, the 
 body, is come ; for what end then ferves the li ^uje ? 
 The-gofpel-church is the fpiritual fpoufe of Chrifr, 
 of which the law-church was the figure. What 
 bufinefs, then, has a fpiritual church with carnal 
 ordinances, purifying the ilefli ? In this refpedl, 
 wherein does fhe differ from the law-church? 
 Particularly, Hnce water ufed religioully was a 
 figure of the Spirit, why fliould we continue the 
 figure, now the Spirit himfelf is come ? It is im- 
 poiiible to give any fatisfa6lory reply to rhefe ob- 
 jcdlioMs, without attending carefully to the nature 
 and conllitucion of 
 
 The Christum Church. 
 
 The word church fignifies an aflembly, congre- 
 gation, or fociety, met together in one place. 
 Thus, Ifrael are called a congregation, or church, 
 becaufe they met together in one place, even Je- 
 rufalem, to obferve the ordinances of worfliip. 
 For the fame reafon, the faints in Corinth are 
 called a church. They came together into one 
 pl.ice, to eat the Lord's fupper, with its attendant 
 iervices. The word church alfo means all real 
 believers in Chriit, whether in heaven or in earth, 
 in perfon, as they are but one congregation, offer- 
 ing up all their fervices of. worihip before the one 
 ix\^c altar in the lieavenly fancluary. 
 
 By the church of Chriil, th^n, two focietles are 
 
 meant, — one vifible on earth, the other unfeen, as 
 
 vet, by mortal eves, although about to be made vifible 
 
 ' . ' C 2 in 
 
2 8 A Dissertation on Baptisfu. 
 
 in due time. The one is made up of fuch as pro- 
 fefs the faith of Chrift, the other of real believers 
 only. The church on earih has a carnal, earthy, 
 as well as a fpintual part, every member having 
 an outward, as well as an inward man ; whereas, 
 that aflerp.bly inrolled in heaven is wholly fpiritual. 
 Even fuch of her members as are on earth, are only 
 io with rcfpedi^ to the hiddt-n man of the heart. 
 They are in heaven only in fpirit, by faith, love, 
 hope, and joy. The body cannot enter there till 
 it be made a fpiritual body. Hypocrites, too, are 
 ixi the vifible fotiety, Qr church of Chrift ; but 
 nothing that makes a lie can enter the heavenly 
 fai!(Stuary. 
 
 Of thefe churches, the one Is appointed by their 
 Lord as the figure of the other. The church af- 
 fembling in heaven is the one only true church of 
 God, whereof the church below is but a figure, or 
 reprefentation. h\\ the members of a vilible 
 church on earth profefs the faith of Chrift ; but 
 it is not true, that they all have believed in truth. 
 They all *' are of Ifracl, but they are not all Ifrael." 
 Such a church is indeed true in fome refpedts; 
 ihe is truly inftiituted by Jefus Chnft, fhe pro- 
 fefles the true faith, obltrves the true ordinances 
 of worfliip and difcipline, appointed by the true 
 Head ; and has in her a number of the true mem- 
 bers of that Head, 'i'hus ftie is the true church, 
 in oppofition to the falfe church, which is not in- 
 ilituted by the true Head, but is founded on the 
 authority of the kings of this world, holds the faich 
 as modelled and authorifed by civil and eccleiiaftic 
 authority, and walks after the traditions and com- 
 mandments of men. Such a cliurch is a f ilfe 
 church indeed, as fhf lies when fne calls heriClf a 
 church of Chrift. To fuch a church a vilible 
 church of Chrift is oppofed, as with refpecf to 
 
 fuch 
 
A Dissertation ok Baptism. 29 
 
 fuch a church flie Is true, but with refpeft to the 
 heavenly church, flie is a figure, la her church- 
 capacity all her members are not true, yet (he is 
 tritey i. e. a juil figure or reprefentatioa of tlie 
 tine church, as her pryfesii:in is the fame with that 
 of the church in heaven. 
 
 The church vifible is indituted for the fake of 
 the invifible. In the church below, we have a 
 lively reprefentation of the church above in all her 
 fervices. In her, alfo, the members of the invifible, 
 or true church, are trained up for the fervices of 
 heaven ; in her they are bora again, are nourilhed 
 up in the words of faith and good dodlrine, imbibe 
 the fentiments, and learn the manners of their 
 Father's houfe. A church on earth, then, is a 
 fchool of difcipline for the fons of God, where 
 they grow up to perfedtion in the unity of the 
 faith, and knowledge of the Son of God. Thus,, 
 the vifibie church not only prefigures, or is thi 
 image of the invifible, but ihe trams up her chil- 
 dren for her, giving them •« to luck at the brealts 
 of her confolations," while they " are delighted 
 ■with the abundance of her glory." For fo im- 
 portant purpofes is a church on earth iullitu- 
 ted ! 
 
 It is eafy now to obviate the objection of the' 
 Quakers agamit the ufe of figures and vifible ligns 
 in the New- Fetlament church. Their objeilioa 
 is founded on a mi Hake. They imagine that 
 Chrilt has no church now but the fpiritual or 
 heavenly one ; whereas it is evident, that he has 
 appointed vihble churches, which are figures of 
 the true, in the fame fcnlc which the Old- Tella- 
 ment church or congregation was. If the one 
 alTembles in one place to worilnp God accordin /• 
 to his inllitutions, fo did the other. If theone be 
 vifibie, fo was the other. The one had hypocrites 
 C3 ''in 
 
3© A Disscrtalmi OK Baptism. 
 
 in her, and fo has the other. While the prefent 
 fyftem ftands, there will be fomething that of- 
 fends and does iniquity in the kingdom of Chrifl:, 
 — tares hid among the wheat. Members of the 
 jnvifible church have been trained up in both. 
 Thus both have fubftrved the fame purpofes. 
 Since, then, a vifible church of Chrilt is Itili a 
 figure, where lies the abfurdity, or even impro- 
 priety, of appointing figurative ordinances in a 
 figurative church ? A vifible church mull have 
 vifible ordinances, or flie deferves not the name. 
 So wife, fo proper is the conduit of Jefus, in ap- 
 pointing fuch ordinances in the New-Teilament 
 church I As flie has got larger views of the wif- 
 dom and love of God, and tiie Spirit of jefus given 
 her, fhe is a nobler figure of the church in heaven 
 than the cliurch of old was ; fo that, with refpe£t 
 to her, fhe is called <* the kingdom of heaven." 
 Yet with refpe£t to the true, the church yet to be 
 revealed, ilie is earthy, and hence has vifible infti- 
 tutions in her ftill. Though arrived at a higher 
 degree of perfection, ftlll flie mud have fomething 
 earthy fuited to her ftate, and to be a figure of 
 good thiijgs yet to come. 
 
 Keeping this in view, we can eafily fee the pro- 
 priety of retaining water-baptifm in the Chriitian 
 church. Chrift has always come, or has been 
 exhibited in the church of God from the time of 
 the entrance of fin, by water, as well as by blood ; 
 and fince fymbols are Itiil neceflary in the houfe 
 of God, none can be imagined more proper 
 than water. Sinners are ftill called to repentance; 
 and " Jefus is exalted a Prince and Saviour, to 
 give repentance and remiilion ot fins," or to 
 cleanfe from all unrighteoufnefs. Surely, then, 
 nothing can more properly exprefs one's faith ia 
 this, than by fubmitting t© be baptifcd in the 
 
 name 
 
A Dissertation on Baptts?n. ^t 
 
 name of Jefus. Jefus ftill, then, baptifes with 
 water ; but to this he has added 
 
 The Baptis?n of the Holy Ghost and Fire, 
 
 The baptifm of the Holy Ghofl: and that of fire 
 arc the fame. Fire was the external fign or 
 fymbol of the prefence of the divine Spirit. So it 
 was of old. The pillar of cloud and fire was the 
 fymbol of the divine prefence among li'rael, the 
 cljurcii of old. Wind and fire are the fame to 
 the New-Teftament church. This baptifm, or 
 initiation, was *« the promife of the Father," of 
 which Chrift faid, he would fend it upon his 
 difciples. This is a baptifm peculiar to the New 
 'Jeftament difpenfation, by which the baptifm of 
 Chiift is diftinguiflied from all other baptifms : 
 " He fliall baptife with the Holy Ghoft and fire.'* 
 Wifdom muft appear in this part of the divine 
 plan, as in every other. Let us fearch for her 
 defign, that wc may fee the propriety of adding 
 fire to water in the Chriftian baptifm. 
 
 I. Truth in the inward parts conftitutes a Chri- 
 ftian. Faith working by love is all in Chrift 
 Jefus. Water is applied only to the outward parts 
 fot the purpofe of cleanfing ; whereas, lire pene- 
 trates to the inward parts of the fubje<::i to which 
 it is applied, purging away its drofs, and refining 
 it from impurities. In this view, how elegantly 
 was this made the chara6leriftic part of the bap- 
 tifm of Chrift ! intimating that Chrift is a re- 
 finer's fire, purifying the iieart by fallh ; and that 
 all the true members of the church of Chrift muft 
 be purified by the facred fire of heaven, the love 
 of God filed abroad in the he.trt. Had his religion 
 cor.fifted in externals only, water alone would have 
 
 been 
 
32 A Dissertation on Baptism. 
 
 been a proper fign, as water clean fes the external 
 parts. But an inward purliier can only be the 
 proper fign of initiation to an inward religion. 
 Both parts of CJ\ri(l's baptifm are prophefieil of 
 by Ifaiah, " when the Lord lliall have walhed 
 away the filth of the daughter of Zion," alluding 
 to water-baptifm, wafhing outwardly ; as the 
 baptifm of the Spirit is defcribed in the following 
 words, ** and fliall have purged the blood of Jeru- 
 falem from the midst of her, by the fpirit of ju.ige- 
 ment, and by the spirit of burning" Ifa. iv. 4. 
 The fpirit of fire can only purify the internal 
 part. 
 
 2. The law, in the Jewifli fenfe of it, or confider- 
 ed in its letter as dillin<£lfrom thegofpei, confilled 
 in carnal fervices, or what Paul calls dead works. 
 The letter kills, and all obedience paid to it was 
 but dead v.'orks, or an unanimated fervice, in- 
 fluenced by the cold, the chilling '< fpirit of fear" 
 John, too, preached the do6trine of repentance, 
 terrifying men into obedience. This dotlrine 
 chilled the heart with fear, and wet the cheek with 
 tears. Water alone, then, might ferye for an ini- 
 tiation into that faith. A cold baptifm fuited a 
 fpirit of fear But now, " God iiath not given us 
 the fpirit of bondage to fear, but the fpirit of love." 
 He requires no dead works, but living works mud 
 ferve the living God. Now, fire is the vital prin- 
 ciple of the univerfe, the fource of motion, the 
 fpring of life. How properly, then, did Jefus 
 baptife with fire ! Fie came to give us life ; his 
 Spirit quickens ; his words are fpirit, and they 
 are life. What could rcprefent this fo properly as 
 fire ? Water may ftill be a part of the gofpcl- 
 baptifm, as repentance is ftill a fruit of the gofpel ; 
 but its water muft be animated by fire, fince ics 
 repentiince is not a forrow to death^ but a " re- 
 " ' " pentauce 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism . 2^ 
 
 pentance unto life." The fymbol of life muft ex- 
 prefs repentance unto life. The very tears of the 
 gofpel mult be tears of love. The tears of INIofes 
 and John were the otTspring of fear ; but Jefus 
 loved, and wept. He loved Lazarus, and wept 
 for his death -, he loved Jerufalem, and wept over 
 her ruins. Love alone iLeds the warm, the ge- 
 nerous tear. We mud look on jefus, ere we can 
 mourn according to the gofpel. 
 
 3. It was proper that fire fhould be employed on 
 tins occafion, to fliew that the Chrifliau baptifm is 
 wholly in the hand of jefus Chrlil. The baptifm 
 of the Spirit can be conferred by no man. It be- 
 longs folely to Him who has the Spirit without 
 meafure in him. To apply water to the body is 
 in every man's power, jclui could baptife with 
 water ; but to purify the fpirit of man within him, 
 is the province of jefus Chrirt. To indicate this 
 truth, the fign of fire was highly proper. The 
 fire of heaven is not at the command of man j it 
 is God that anfwers by fire. Thus the fign and 
 the thing fignified correfponded. The facred fire 
 was always the fymbol of Jehovah's prefence ; it 
 was •' the glory of the only-begotten of the Fa- 
 ther." The bapcifm of the Spirit, then, whereof 
 it was the fign, miift be from heaven, and not of 
 man. — Here another queftion mud arife to the 
 inquiring mind, 
 
 Whether are the baptifms of water and of the 
 Holy Ghofl always conne£led under the Chriftian 
 difpenfation ? 
 
 I anfwer, Not always. How, then, it will be 
 faid, can the baptifm of water be called the Chri- 
 ftian baptifm, when not accompanied with the 
 Holy Spirit, fince the Spirit is the chara(fi:eriilical 
 part of the baptifm of t>hri(l ? To find a proper 
 ^nfiver to this queltion, we nutil look back to 
 
 what 
 
34 -^ Dissertation on Buptinn. 
 
 vi'hat has been faid concerning the two dates of 
 the Chriltian church, the one vifible, and the other 
 invifible. Now, in the firit, or vifible Itate of the 
 church, we are aflured there will be many hypo- 
 crites, or falfc profellbrs ; the tares will grow with 
 the wjieat, till Jefus come again to gather out of 
 his kingdom all things that ofFend, and all that do 
 iniquity. As a church of this kind has fomething 
 earthy in her, and all her members have not the 
 Spirit of Ch rift hi them in truth, but only in ap- 
 pearance, a baptlfmof water can only be abfolutely 
 nccefl^uy as a (ign of initiation into the fellowlliip 
 of that church. This baptifm, therefore, Chrift 
 lias put inco the power of the members of that 
 church, that they may adminifter it to as many 
 as profefs his faith, whether in truch or in hypo- 
 crify. Hence this biptifm, like every thing ell'e 
 fhanding in the outer court of the houfe of God, 
 has been, and muft be trodden under foot of the 
 Gentiles, or perverted and abufed by them, until 
 the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Nevercliciefs, 
 this is the baptilm of Chrill, as he has given it to 
 his vifible church, and appointed it to be continued 
 in her until he come to cleanfe the fan61uary, and 
 make his vifible and invllible church the fame. 
 He has ereilled the outer court as well as the 
 inner ; he has his real difciples in the one as v/eil 
 as the other ; and the ordinances he has appointed 
 correfpond to thefe refpecllve courts. He has 
 made the one court the entrauce to the other. 
 We muft not, then, defpife or neglect any of hi.i 
 appointments •, knowing, that if we bcaihamed of 
 him or of his words before men, of us he will be 
 alhamed before his Father. 
 
 Yet as his true kingdom is wit^iin men, his real 
 church is not vifible in her prefent fute. Hence, 
 he has retained thj true b.iptlim ia his own hind, 
 
 that 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism. 35 
 
 that be may adminifter it to all whom the Father 
 has given him. The invifihle baptilm is left in 
 the unfeen hand, and he will not fail to adminiflcr 
 it to all who have a title to it, although he has not 
 bound himfelf to confer it at the very moment of 
 the adminidration of water-baptifm. 
 
 Tims, both baptifms are Chriil's, although that 
 of the Holy Spirit be his in a peculiar fenfe. They 
 are but one baptifm, however, as they, both com- 
 bined, make but the one complete baptifm of 
 Chrift, and initiate one into both courts of his 
 };oufe. The one is vifible, and the other invifible, 
 luited to the difltrent ftates of liis church in the 
 prefent difpenfation of things. It will now be 
 aiked, hnce fire was the fymbol of the baptifm of 
 the Holy Spirit, 
 
 Why was the fign of fire difcontinued imme- 
 diately after the commencement of the Chriftian 
 difpenfition among Jews and Gentiles? 
 
 'I'o this we anfwer, To afcertain the prefence 
 of the Holy Spirit, it was neceffary that fire fliould 
 come down on t}\e apodlci; and difciples of Chrilt 
 at firfl. I'he world could not have been certain 
 that the Holy Ghoft had defcended on them, had 
 they not ieen the vifible lymbol of his prefence; 
 nor could the difciples have been fure, that their 
 Mailer had found acceptance with the Father, 
 and that he had fat dov/n on his throne, if he had 
 not fent the promifed token of his acceptance and 
 exultation. Wiien about to leave them, he faid, 
 ** Depart not Irom Jeiufalem, but wait for the 
 promife of the Father, which ye have heard of 
 me. For John truly baptifcd with water, but ye 
 Ihall be bapriled with the Holy Ghoit nut many 
 days hentt." " The faint Ihal! baptife you," faid 
 Johii, ♦' with the Huly Ghult and lire." Had not 
 this lire defcended on thtm, then, it is evident, 
 
 the 
 
3^5 A Dissertation on Baptism. 
 
 the promife would not have been accompllfiied, 
 and confequently they would have no foundation 
 for faith in the exaltation of Jefus to the throne. 
 But this fa£t being now afcertained by the mod 
 unequivocal evidence, there could be no necelhty 
 for the continuance of this appearance of fire in 
 the church of Chrill. When he promifed to fend, 
 the Spirit, he affured his difciples that he fhould. 
 abide with them, and fhould be in them, -and that 
 for ever ; and that his prefence fhould be known 
 by his fruits. Love is the true fire, of which the 
 vifible fire was but a fymbol. This is an abiding 
 fruit and evidence of the Spirit, prefent with all 
 that believe. " For by one Spirit are we all bap- 
 tifed into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen- 
 tiles." The baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, then, ftill 
 remains, ftill is in fire, even divuie love, which has 
 " the flames of God." Now abideth faith, hope, 
 and love. 
 
 But it may be faid, Might not the water alfo 
 have ceafed, after the Spirit came, of whom it was 
 but the fign, as well as fire ? This is the opinion 
 of the Quakers, but founded in a miftake. Water 
 was not only the fymbol of the Spirit's influences, 
 but it was intended as a fign of initiation into a 
 vifible fociety. Now, a viiible fociety mult have 
 vifible inllitutions, and conlequcntly fome vifible 
 fign of admiflTion into that fociety. Hence, the 
 propriety of the continuance of water-bapcilm in 
 the church of Jefus. But fire was intended to be 
 a fign of the a61:ual communication of the Holy 
 Spirit to the church, in his gifts of miracles, 
 tongues, 8cc. ; and thefe extraordinary influences 
 were not intendetl to abide, neither was there any 
 necefiity that tiieir fign ihoulcl continue. Again, 
 fo far as the fire was tiie fign ot love, it was a fign 
 of admiirion into the u.ilcen, or real church, and 
 
 an 
 
A Dlsurtaiiotl on Baptism, 37 
 
 an mvifible church needs no vifible fign of admif- 
 fion into her fellowfhip. 
 
 As all the extraordinary, miraculous gifts of the 
 Spirit have now ceafed, fire could only be the figu 
 of his abiding fruits, faith, hope, and love. In this 
 cafe, if fire Ihould defcend on all professed be- 
 lievers, it would be -a. false fign : and if it fell on- 
 ly on real believers, it would diftingulfla the wheat 
 from the tares even in this world, and make the 
 church vifible and invifible the fame, contrary to 
 the declared uitention of Providence. Such wif- 
 dom appears in the ceafing of the external fign of 
 fire, when the age of miracles ended. 
 
 It may be obfervcd here, that baptifm with wa- 
 ter is diiiinguilhed from that of the Holy Spirit : 
 — " John bciptifed with water, but ye fliall be 
 baptifed with the Holy Ghoft." There is a high 
 propriety in this diftintlion. Water-baptifm is no 
 infallible fign of the prefence of the divine Spirit, 
 nor was ever intended to be fo. Fire only has 
 this honour. External fire was the fign of the 
 prefence of the Holy Spirit in his extraordinary, 
 unabiding gifts j and the internal tire appearing ui 
 its native fruits is the fign of his prefence in his 
 faying, abiding gifts of faith, hope, and love. 
 Hence our Lord laid, "By ih'n fliall all men hiozu 
 that ye are my difciples, if ye love one another," 
 Water- baptifin is the external fign of introdudlioii 
 into my church, but baptifm with the Ipiiit of 
 love is the only infallible lign of" real dlfciplefaip. 
 
 The baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, then, is che 
 baptifm of the church of Chrlft as invifible, as bap- 
 tifm of water pertains to his church as vifible. 
 The latter is in the hand of men, to be adminifter- 
 ed to all who profefs the faith of Chrift : the for- 
 mer is folely in the hand of Chrlft, tnat he may 
 beftow it on fuch as are really his. Ihefe con- 
 
 VuL. V. D ftuute 
 
g8 A Dissertaiien en Baptism. 
 
 ftitute the one complete baptlfm of Chrift, an<l 
 his baptifm will have thefe two parts, while his 
 church is viewed in two afpe£>s, vifible and unfeen. 
 Water-baptifm is to be refpeded as his ordinance, 
 as well as the other; and as a fubjedion to his ap- 
 pointments is neceffarily connected with believing 
 in him, hence our Lord fays, " He that believeth., 
 and is baptifed, iliall be faved ;" q. d. he that belie- 
 veth, and confefTeth, the fame, by fubmitting to my 
 inllitutions, (liall be faved. — ^Let us nowjiroceed 
 to confider. 
 
 ;S E C T. VII. 
 
 Xhe Mode of this Baptism. 
 
 TjOOKING into the Old Tellament, we have found 
 '3 variety of modes pra£lifed by the church of the 
 Jiving God, in the apphcation of fluids to the body 
 for a religious purpofe : and that all thefe are call- 
 ed baptifm, is evident trom what Paul fays, Heb. 
 ix. ID. The law confilted of "divers baptifms." 
 We have feen them divers in the means ufed for 
 purification, viz water, blood, and oil ; as alfo in 
 the m,de of application, viz. by washing or rinsingy 
 ■c.miniing, or .pouring upofi, bathings putting upon^ 
 sprinkling. So p.opcrly are ,they called ♦' divers 
 baptifms." 
 
 Let us now fee whether-or not our Lord fpecl- 
 -fied any of ihcfe well-known modes, as effentially 
 neccflary to be obfervtd m the Chriltian baptifm. 
 For this end, let us read the words of inflitution 
 — " Go ye and teach all nations, baptifmg .them 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghoft 5 teaching them to obferve all 
 
 things 
 
A Disseriathti en BaptisiiJ. 35 
 
 things whatfoever I have commanded you." Now, 
 as our Lord knew very well that divers modes ot" 
 baptifm had been ufed by divine appointment in 
 the Old-Teltament church, if he had meant to make 
 any particular mode effentially neccflary to hia 
 baptifm, he would have certainly fpecified it on 
 this occafion, to prevent miftakes. Yet this he 
 nowhere does — a plain evidence that he did noi:' 
 fee it neceflary. The nature and import of bap- 
 tifm was perfedlly well known to the apoftles, a:i 
 well as all the modes of performing it. If dip- 
 ping them had been meant by hi.m as the only' 
 mode of his baptifm, how flrange is it that this 
 mode fhould be left unafcertained, and to fuffer hia 
 difciples to run the rilk of mifmaaagement in the 
 difcharge of their office ! What can be inferred 
 from this circumltance, then, but that Jefus did 
 not intend to make any particular mode of the ap- 
 plication of water ell'^ntial to his baptifm ? In thiiv 
 cafe, his apoftles needed no particular defcription of 
 baptifm, as it is fo clearly marked, in all its various 
 modes, in the Old Teftament : and as their Maftei' 
 fpccified no particular mode, they would naturally; 
 conclude that- they were left at full liberty in this 
 refpeft; 
 
 2. Let us- now f&e in what fcnfe- the apoftles 
 actually underftood our Saviour's words, when he 
 commanded them to baptife. This we mull learn 
 from their words and pra£tice : and if, on exami- 
 ning thefe, we find that they confidered dipping a3 
 fynonymous with baptifing, this mull determine 
 the point, as they certainly underftood their com- 
 miihon; 
 
 Here the Baptifts only fix upon one inftance, 
 
 which they reckon futBcient to determine the a- 
 
 poftolic mode of baptifing, viz. that recorded in 
 
 Afts, viii. 3S. There we are told, Philip and thsf 
 
 D z Eunuch 
 
4© A Dissertation on Bapii^m. 
 
 Eunuch *' went down both into the water," where 
 Philip baptifed the Eunuch j and when this was 
 performed, we have them coming " cut of the wa- 
 ter." A weak argument, indeed, in favour of dip- 
 ping ! The whole ftrefs of it Hes in the Greek 
 •word £<«, rendered into j and if this fignifies plung- 
 ing, then Philip and the Eunuch muti have been 
 both plunged on this occafjon, as it is equally ap- 
 plied to both—" They went down both into the 
 water." Plad- it been faid, that Philip put the 
 Eunuch i/2io the water, this would have concluded 
 in favours of dipping •, but as the words lland, they 
 conclude nothing, oi^ly that they both went down 
 at lei.(l to tliC brink of the water. For, it muft 
 be obfcrved, that the Gieek u? moft properly figni- 
 iks unto. This, then, does not fay that they enter- 
 ed into the water ; or even fuppofmg that they 
 went a fhort way into it, it does not necefTariljr 
 follow from thence, that either of them were 
 plunged : and as to their coming " out of the wa- 
 ter," if a man goes down to drink or to wafh his 
 feet in a water, when he returns, we can moil 
 properly fay he came up out of the water. 
 
 "With refpect to the argument taken from John's 
 baptifm, it is equally inconclufive. True, Jefus 
 v/as baptifed of John in Jordan, but whether by im- 
 jnerfion or anointinji is no where faid. The word 
 s<? will not warrant any determinate conclurion. 
 But fuppofmg that he ufed immerfion, can we aver 
 that he was reikicled to that mode ? or even al- 
 lowing that he wa?, can we merely from this cir- 
 cumftance conclude any thing pofitively concerning 
 the mode of Chriilian baptifm ? The quedion is 
 rot, how John baptifed ; but, whether Chrill 
 has appointed any particular mode of baptifm ? 
 
 We have many inilances of the apoftles baptihng 
 recorded in their hillory, but JCicrxi none of tiit^in 
 
 caa 
 
j4- Dissertation on Baptism, 4't 
 
 .can we afcertain the manner of their admlnlfl:ra<* 
 tion. It Is moft probable, however, that immerfion 
 was not ufed by them, at lead In many Inilances, 
 Three thoufand were baptifed on the day of the 
 Spirit's defcent ; but It Is not faid that they went- 
 out of the city to the brook Kidron to be plunged. 
 It is more probable that they were baptifed in the 
 temple, by anointing, wafliing, or fprlnkling with 
 water. Nor Is It probable that the jailor and his 
 houfehold were taken to a rivar to be baptifed at 
 the hour of midnight. This would have been 
 highly dangerous. It feems probable that this 
 ordinance was performed In the prifon, as we find 
 water there, wherewith the jailor wafhed the 
 ilripes of the prifoners. As In the fame verfe we 
 are told, he " wafhed their ftripes, and was bap- 
 tifed, he and his, ftraightway," it Is almofl: certalnj 
 that a part of the fame water was- employed in his 
 Ivaptifm, that he had ufed in wafhing the itripes of 
 Paul and Silas, A£ls, xvl, 25. — 33. ■ 
 
 3. The efTufion of the Holy Ghofl on the 
 difciples is exprefsly called the baptifm of Chrift, 
 and more properly fo-than that of water. Now, 
 in what manner were they baptifed with the 
 Holy Ghoft ? Of this we have a full inftance re- 
 corded In A6ls, X. 44. 45. " On the Gentiles alfo 
 was pouredoiit the gift ot the Holy Gholl." This 
 Peter exprefsly calls baptifm, In giving an account 
 of that great event, Atls, xi. 16. " Then remem- 
 bered I the word of the Lord, how that he faid, 
 John indeed baptifed with water, but- ye fliall be 
 baptifed with the Holy GholL" Now, if this 
 pouring upon was not one of the modes of baptifm, 
 how does Chrlil; and Ills apoftles uniformly call ic 
 hy that name ? Yea, as water-baptifm was but a 
 fign of this true baptifm of Chrift, we may cer- 
 tamly conclude, that there niufl be a Itrong 
 D 3 analogy; 
 
42 A 'Dissertation en Baptism, 
 
 analogy between the (ign and the thing fignified i 
 and that in the hiftory of the true baptism^ we 
 mufl find the trt^c mode of baptifm» 
 
 ]Mr INI'Lean feems to be galled with this argu- 
 ment, and hence he employs a grest deal of pains 
 to evade it, but with no fucccfs. Baptifm in the 
 Holy Ghoft is expreffed by pouring him out on 
 men, anointing, the washing of regeneratitn^ 
 sprinkling ; but he fays, " none of them fo much 
 as allude to baptifm." He owns, indeed, that 
 «* the extraordinary efFunon of the Spirit is called 
 baptifm, but not in flriifl propriety of fpeech, but 
 in alluiion to baptifm in water." A very odd 
 aflertion indeed ! John Baptift, and our Lord 
 Jefus Chrift, uniformly, and the apoflJes frequent- 
 ly, call this effufion baptifm ; but it feems they 
 did not know how to fpeak properly, but called an 
 a£lion baptifm, while there is not the moft diftant 
 limilitude between the one and the other; whereas 
 any perfon, unljiaiTed by party, mult fee, that this 
 is the moft plain and exprefllve term thatcould have 
 been chofen for this purpofe. Men, at leafl fince 
 the time of Mofes, had been always initiated into 
 the church of God and her offices, by anointing, 
 or pouring on them, wafliing, fprinkling, 6^c. all 
 of which were called baptifm, or initiation, as we 
 have feen already. How, then, could our Lord 
 have chofen a more proper word, or one more 
 intelligible, when he would exprefs the a£tion of 
 giving the Holy Spirit ? But a favourite tenet 
 inufl be fupported at any expence. The effufion 
 of the Spiiit is baptifm, fays Jefus •, no, fays Mr 
 McLean, there is not the lea It refemblance between 
 the one and the other. Inllead of allowing Jefus 
 to fpeak properly, he will not allow him to fpeak 
 even metaphorically, fince every metaphor is a 
 fimile, or founded on fxmilitude. 
 
 Oil 
 
A Dissertatkn on Bapthm. 4^.5 
 
 On this plan, we may as well argue, that water- 
 baptifm is not properly fo called, but merely iir 
 allulion to the baptifm of the Spirit. This aflertion 
 would have a more plaufible appearance, fince 
 water-baptifm was- intended to reprefent the 
 baptiim of the Spirit. 
 
 4. In the apoflolic allufions to baptifm, when 
 they refer to the action iticlf, we find them always 
 exprefllng it by wnshi/ig^ pouring upon^ anointings 
 or sprinkling. Thus, in Titus, iii. j. 6. the bap- 
 tifm of the Spirit is called " the wafhing of re- 
 generation, the renewing of the Holy Ghoft, 
 which he fned, or poured on us abundantly, 
 through Jefus Chrift our Saviour.'' Again, in 
 Heb. X. 22. the apoftle fpeaks of both the baptifms 
 of Chrift, and ufes sprinkling and xvashing indif- 
 ferently, in expreffing their application, the one 
 to the body, the other to the heart : " Let us 
 draw near with a true heart, in the full aflurance 
 of faith, having our hearts fprinkled from an evil 
 confcience, and our bodies wafhed with puie wa- 
 ter." All thefe i'everal modes of the religious ap- 
 plication of a fluid to a man are called " baptifms" 
 by Paul, fleb. ix. ic. ; confequently, all of them 
 may be properly called baptifm, and are fo called 
 accordingly, as is evident from the above inftances. 
 Dipping only, then, is not the mode of Chrifliaa 
 baptifm. 
 
 5. This view is farther confirmed from what 
 our Lord hlmfelf fays, John, xiii. 8. — 10. When 
 wafhing his difciples' feet, he takes occafion to 
 introduce a hint of a more important wafhing, 
 which he would perform on all his people : *' If 
 1 wafli thee not, thou hafl no part in me." The 
 wafhing here mentioned, is fuch a one as gives a 
 part with Chriif, or in Chrifl. Now, it is evi- 
 dentj that there aie tw^o walhings which give a 
 
44' "^ Dissertation on Baptism: 
 
 man a part with Chrift, the wafhing with watftfj'. 
 applied to the body in baptifm, and the wafhingt 
 of regeneration, by the renewing of the Holy- 
 Spirit. By the former, one obtains a part in the 
 vifible ftate of the church of Chrift ; and without 
 this wafliing, no man can be admitted to her fel- 
 lowfhip. By the latter, w-e are admitted to a 
 fpiritual communion with Chrift, or to be mem- 
 bers of his church invifible, vitally united to him.' 
 Baptifm, then, muft be the wafliing he here in- 
 tends, fince thereby we obtain a part in him, and 
 by no other wafliing at all. The complete baptifm 
 of Chrift fprinkles the heart from an evil con- 
 fcience, by faith in the refurre£lion of Chrilt 
 from the dead, and waflies the body with pure 
 water : " He that believes and Is baptifed fliall be 
 faved," or have a part in Chrift. — But muft the 
 whole body be plunged in water, when Chrift thus 
 walhes us ? So Peter imagined, " Lord, not my 
 feet only, but alfo my hands and my head." But 
 what fays his Mafter ? — " He that is waflied, 
 needeth not, fave to wafli his feet, but is cleaa 
 every whit." Here, I think it evident, he cannot 
 be fpeaking of any common wafliing of an unclean 
 body, fince, in this cafe, wafliing the feet could 
 not poliibly cleanfe the whole body from pollution. 
 It remains, then, to conclude, that he is fpeaking 
 of baptifm \ and, as if he had forefeen the mighty 
 ftrefs that would be laid upon dipping the whole 
 body in water in future periods of his church, he 
 gives them the ftrongeft caveat againft fuch a 
 notion, by telling them that wafliing a part makes 
 the whole clean. 
 
 In this view, the baptifm of water correfponds ■ 
 to the baptifm of the Spirit. The Chriftian is only 
 renewed in the fpirit of his mind. Whatever in- 
 fluence this new fpirit created in him may. have 
 
 uj[)oa 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism. 45 
 
 upon his body, yet his body is not made new. 
 The body is ftill dead becaufe of fin, and has 
 flcfhly lulls warring in its members. The inner 
 man, then, is clean, while the outward man has 
 fin dwelling in him. Yet the renovation of the 
 mind fecures the renovation of the body, when it 
 fliall be changed and faihioned hke ChriU's moti 
 glorious body. Then he will quicken our mortal 
 bodies, by the Spirit which he has given us. 
 Suppofing, then, a pare of the body only wailied in 
 baptifm, water-baptifm will the more exadtly an- 
 fwer to the baptifm of the Spirit, in which only a 
 part of the man is waflied. 
 
 1 his view will alfo teach us the propriety of 
 our Lord's faying, when a part is waflied, the 
 whole is clean. Ihe purification of the mind by 
 the fpirit of believing, fecures to us the purifica- 
 tion of the whole man in due time. Thus, the 
 whole may be faid to be clean. The God of 
 peace will fanitify us wholly, in foul, body, and 
 Ipirit. 
 
 6. We have feen that the Jewifli priefl was- 
 fprinkled with blood, when initiated to his ofTice, 
 which fprinkling is called baptifm by our Lord, 
 when, with reference to that atlion, he fays, " I 
 have a baptifm to be baptifed with, and how am 
 I llraitened till it be accompli Ihed !" Ere I can. 
 enter the mod holy place, Lmult be baptifed with 
 the blood of my facrifice. Sure this was not per- 
 formed by dipping. 
 
 The above arguments feem to me eonclufive. 
 "We have examined the words in which Chrift in- 
 flituted this baptifm, the practice of his apcflles 
 in performing that fervicr, and the words in which 
 they defcribe it. in fliortj we have taken a fur- 
 vey of all the baptifms mentioned in facied wrir,. 
 "SiixA yet cannot find plunging any where men- 
 tioned, 
 
4^ A Dhsertathn en Baptism. 
 
 t'loned as the alone baptifm of Chrift. Let us no«r 
 fee what Mr INI'Lean fays in fupport of his fa- 
 vourite dogma. 
 
 He avers, " that any other fign than immersion^ 
 be what it will, is not Chrift's ordinance, either irr 
 name or thing, and therefore can in no refpedt 
 be a proper reprefentation, but a hunnn invention, 
 whereby the law of Chrili is made void." A bold 
 aflertion indeed ! but how is it fupported ]' 
 Why, 
 
 I. By an elaborate criticifm on a Greek word. 
 ^ot-x'Ti^C'i fignifics to dlp^ immerse^ ox plunge. Pity ic 
 is, ye illiterate Chriflians, that ye are not adepts 'v\ 
 the Greek tongue ! Without this you cannot, it 
 feems, know the law of Chrift, who has mad»i' 
 the faith of his difciples hang upon a critical 
 knowledge of a Greek word. Now, fince fo much 
 ftrefs is laid on this criticifm, let us fee how far 
 it will go to fupport the caufe. 
 
 2. The Greek word (icfxrM is the root of^ 
 /ixTTTt^ii), and it fignifies dyeings stmningy coloitring ,- 
 and as this is generally performed by immerfion, 
 hence the fame word means xuy.shing, dippingy a? 
 is evident from the Lexicons. If we mull adhere, 
 then, to the ftri6l fenfe of the word, we mull dye^ 
 or add a nevj colour to the perfon baptifed. lit 
 this very fenfe it is literally applied to a certaiit 
 order of prielts, of whom we read in /Jrlstophaiie^-^ 
 who were called /2i«^rii., not from being immerfed,' 
 but from their ftaining their bodies v/ith a certairr 
 colour, as a badge of diiiinftion. Hence the 
 Latins called them fucati. We may as well 
 argue, then, that there is no man baptifed who is 
 not dyed, as that there is none baptifed that is not 
 rmmerfed. 
 
 The truth is, the initiating ordinance of Chri- 
 llianity ittim to be called, baptifm, becaufe w? 
 
 tlieiv 
 
A Dissertation en Baptism. 4^ 
 
 'then take on a new tin£lure or colour, /, c. a new 
 character. To be ** baptiled into Chrift," and to 
 
 "put on Chrift," are fynonymous expreflions ; 
 and to put on Chrift, is to put on his character. 
 How eafily, then, could an ingenious critic argue 
 in favour of dyeing the body, as a fign of the foiil 
 putting on a new character ! 
 
 3. It is admitted, that this w^ord means dipping, 
 ox immersion^ yet this will not conclude in favour of 
 Mr M'Lcan. Every ordinance muft have a name, 
 and as immerfion is the full and perfect applica- 
 tion of a fluid to the body, it was moft natural to 
 call this ordinance baptism^ fince it confifts in ap- 
 plying water to the body. But how abfurd is it 
 to argue from hence, that there is no baptifm but 
 by immerfion, contrary to the whole tenor of 
 fcripture. The queftion is not, wLether immerfion 
 be baptifm, but whether this be tiie only fenfe of 
 the word ? We mull permit the apollles to ex- 
 plain their own meaning ; and I truli it is evi- 
 detit from what has been faid, that their fenfe of 
 this word extends to every religious application 
 of water to the body, in whatever mode it be 
 applied. 
 
 4. The Chriftian ordinance of bread and wine 
 js called, by the apoftles, the Lorifs Supper. If, 
 then, in obferving this inftitution, we mult adhere 
 to the ftri6l: lireral fenfe of the terms, it can only 
 t)e obferved at the ordinary time of fupper. Ac- 
 cording to Mr M'Learj's phn of realoning, we 
 muft aver, that any other method of eating it, 
 whether in the morning or at noon, " is not 
 iChrift's ordinance, either in name or thing, bu: a 
 huMian inventio;i, whereby the law of Chrift is 
 made void.'' N.^ither breakiaft nor dinner is fup- 
 per ; but Chrift appointed a lupper ; ttierefore, ro 
 eat at any other tunc is not to eat the Lord's 
 
 fupper. 
 
48 A Dissertation on B apt ism, 
 
 fupper. So fome have argued, and their argu- 
 ment is precifely of the fame kind with this gentle- 
 man's. 
 
 I may add, that the word rendered dip, does not 
 neceflarily fignify a total immerfion. Thus, Lev. 
 iv. 6. " The pried fhall diphis finger in the blood, 
 and fprinkleof the blood." Now,'every body knows, 
 that dipping the finger does not neceflarily mean, 
 dipping the whole finger, but a part of it. One is 
 faid to dip his finger in a liquid, when the point 
 of it only is dipped. Thus, even where baps-ei 
 evidently means dipping, it does not include total 
 immerfion. Yet this is a principal text produced 
 by Mr M*Lean in fupport of this argument, from 
 which he fays very ftrong words againft fuch as 
 fprinkle, or pour, inflead of plunging. They are 
 " guilty," he fays, " of rebellion againfl; the Lord, 
 and may juftly expe£l immediate vengeance.'* 
 Strong words, but weak arguing ! Little did this 
 zealous man fee that his text is ftrongly in favour 
 of his opponents. Here is a real baptifm. The 
 prieft (baps-ei) dipped his finger in the blood, and 
 then fprinkled it, as God appointed. 'ihis is 
 the precife plan of our baptifm. We dip our 
 fingers in the water, and fprinkle it on the can- 
 didate for baptifm. Thus, no baptifm is performed 
 ftill, but dipping is the firil a6t of it. 
 
 How weak is the following obfervation I ** Had 
 the prieft prefumed to convert bapto here, into 
 sprinkling, or pouring, he would have perverted the 
 whole of this typical inflitution." A very idle 
 fuppofition indeed ! It fuppofes an impoflible 
 cafe. How could the prieft fprinkle the blood 
 with his finger before he dipped it in the blood } 
 1. The second argument Mr M'Ltan produces in 
 fupport of plunging is as follows: " Neither 
 sprinkling nor pouring will make fenfe, when fub- 
 
 ftituted 
 
A Dissertation ov Baptism. 49 
 
 ilituted in place of the word baptise" The very 
 reverfe is the truth. Some texts will not read, 
 when the word plunged is fubftituted for baptife. 
 Thus, for inftance, « plunged into Mofes," i Cor. 
 X. 2. " plunged into Chrift," Rom. vi. 3. This 
 fuppofes Mofes and Cl\rift to be liquids. Again, 
 *' Into what were ye plunged ?" A£ts, xix. 3. By 
 this reading, the queftion feems to be, — In what 
 water were ye plunged .'' whereas Paul meant to 
 aik, Into what fairh were ye baptifed ? Alfo, '* I 
 indeed plunge you in water, — he (hall plunge you 
 in the Holy Ghoft." Now, did Chrift really 
 plunge them in the Holy Ghoft ? Are we not ex- 
 prefsly told that the Spirit was poured on them ? 
 And I fliould be glad to know, by what rule of 
 interpretation we muft make baptise fignify pour- 
 ing upon in the one claufe of a vcrfe, and plunging 
 in the other ? To make it read confiftently, we 
 muft read it thus, " I poured water upon you, 
 but he fliall pour upon you the Holy Ghoft ;" or 
 rather, there is no reference here to the inode of 
 bdptifm at all, but to the materials of it, — I initia- 
 ted you into the faith by water, but he Ihall initiate 
 you by the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 Mr M'Lean is equally unhappy in his attempts 
 at wit in the application of the word poured, which, 
 he fays, " anfwers only to liquids, not perfons." 
 Every body knows, that the Englilh word pour has 
 fometirnes out, and fometimes upon affixed to it, 
 as the fenfe and conftru6i:ion require. When ap- 
 plied to perfons, it has upon affixed. Let this be 
 done in the paffiiges he quotes, and the impro- 
 priety difappears. Acid to this, that water is evi- 
 dently fuppofed in many pailages, where the verb 
 baptise occurs, whether you render it plu.^ge, poury 
 or sprinkle. Thus, " baptifed into Chrift," can- 
 not be rendered " plunged into Chrift," without 
 
 Vol. V. E implying 
 
50 A Dissertation on BaptisfJi. 
 
 h-nplying in water. Let this gentleman only al- 
 low the fame libf;rty to others, and all the paflages 
 lie quotes can be rendered either of the ways 
 mentioned, with equal propriety. Thus, " Teach 
 all nations, pouring ivcuer upon them into the 
 name," &c. " And had water poured upon them 
 by John in Jordan. He that believeth and has 
 water poured upon him." The fame may be faid 
 of the word sprinkkt: " Sprinkling them with wa- 
 ter into the name," &c. He mull be ignorant of 
 the language indeed, who knows not that many 
 phrafes in one language cannot bear a literal tran- 
 flation into another ; but mull be tranflated ia 
 different terms and phrafes, according to the fenfe 
 of the paffage, and the analogy of the language 
 into which it is tranflated. Had this been attend- 
 ed to, this long firing of quibbles on the word 
 baptise would ncvei have ken the light. 
 
 Equally abfurd is his criticifm on the Greek 
 SI' and £«?, at the bottom of p. 62. He avers, that 
 both muft be rendered the fame way when fpeak- 
 jng of baptifm ; and that becaufe, in this caie, £*« 
 cannot be rendered ivith^ neither can ev be fo 
 tranflated. Yet this fame writer renders them 
 difl^erenily, the one in^ and the other into; and 
 that m and ev have very difivrent fenfes, even when 
 baptifm is the fubje£l, is clear from the pafllages 
 he refers to. Is it poflTible to conceive, that sc pre- 
 lixed to v5«T« has the fame fenfe with m pre- 
 iixed to tcv Mfc'c-«», or ;tp<5e» ? The former alu'ays 
 lignifles ///, with, or oyy the latter, into or unto 
 the name, profellion, or faith of Mofes or Chrift. 
 Again, when « is prefixed to Trnvfixri uytv, it can- 
 not be rendered /?/, whatever way the word baptise 
 be tranflated, •<Khtihtr plunge ^ sprinkle^ or pour upon. 
 Thus, ♦' he {hA\ plunge y dip, sprinkle^ or pour upon 
 you in the Holy Glioll," would be confummate 
 nonfenfe. Yet " he ihail plunge in the Holy 
 
 Ghoil," 
 
A Dusertatioii on Bapiis?n. 5 I 
 
 Ghofl:," iG the verfion given us by this critic's 
 rule ! Miferable, abfurd, and defpicable criti- 
 cifm ! 
 
 As to his third and fourth arguments, taken 
 from the circumftances of our Lord's baptifm and 
 that cf the Eunuch, together with the places where 
 John baptiftd, we have already found them incon- 
 cluGve, and fliall therefore proceed to confider his 
 fifth, taken from the allufions which the apoftles 
 make to baptifm. 
 
 Paul alludes to, or rather plainly exprefles, the 
 a6lion of baptifm by various phrafes, as washings 
 sprinklings pouring Jipon^ &c. •, but this gentleman- 
 only finds one phiafe, in which he imagines any 
 fuch allufion appears, viz. " buried with him by 
 baptifm, wherein alfo ye are rifen with him." 
 Here he fuppofes, that there muft be a literal 
 burial in baptifm, to give a full f^nfe to this 
 phrafe \ or that we muft be literally buried under 
 water, as Chrlft was under the earth. But here 
 it muft be obferved, that Paul fays alfo, at the 
 very fame time, that we are " baptifed into Chriil's 
 death," or " are planted into the likenefs of his 
 death," Rom. vi. 3. 5. which likenefs of his death 
 he exprefsly calls crucifixion, ver. 6. " Knowing 
 this, that cur old man is crucified with him." 
 Hence he fays, " We are dead with Chrift, and 
 crucified with him," and that in baptifm. Now, 
 will it not follow hence, that, if to give propriety 
 to the phrafe, " buried with him in baptifm," 
 we rnuft be literally buried, when baptifed, to 
 give propriety to the phrafes, " dead with Chrift," 
 and " crucified with him," there muft be a literal 
 death and crucifixion in baptifm, otherwife it is 
 no proper fign of the thing fignified .'' Thus, by 
 equal force of argument, we muft conclude, that 
 Mr M'Lean's baptilra "is no mftitution of Chrift, 
 E 2 but 
 
52 -^ Dissertatien on Baptism, 
 
 but a mere human ordinance," fince In It there \s 
 no literal death, nor any fign of the crofs. The 
 truth is, Paul is not fpeaking of the mode, but of 
 the great end and defign of baptiTm. 
 
 Finally, The practice of the churches, foon after 
 the apoftolical period, has been adduced m fupport 
 ol dipping ; and it is readily admitted, that this- 
 mode was commonly praclifed in thefe churches, 
 iiut this argument will go for nothing, when it is 
 confidered, i. That Immerfion was one of the 
 modes of baptifm, and the moft perf^^l application 
 of water to the body ; which might give occafioa 
 to fuch critics as Mr M'Lean to argue that it is 
 the only proper mode. 2. Bathing was, and rtill 
 is, a common practice in thefe warm climes ; 
 U'hich circumflance would naturally induce them 
 to ufe this mode generally in baptifm j from whence 
 bigots might aver, that this is the only mode of 
 divine appointment. But that this was not the 
 general opinion of thefe churches, is certain. For, 
 3. Although they generally ufed immerfion in 
 baptifm, yet they confidered perfufion, or fprink- 
 ling, as lawful alio, as is clear from many of their 
 writings. I (hall only quote a pallage from 
 Cyprian's anfwer to one Magnus^ who wrote to 
 him, defiring his opinion on this point. He tells 
 him, " that, as far as he could conceive, he appre- 
 hended that the divine benefits could in no w ife 
 be mutilated, or weakened, nor that lefs thereof 
 could be btflowed, where the divine gifts are re- 
 ceived with a found and full faith, &.c. For, in 
 baptifm, the fpots of fin are walhed away other- 
 wife than the filth of the body in a fecular and 
 carnal bath is, in which there is need of a feat to 
 fit upon, of a vat to wafh in, of foap, and other 
 fuch ingredients, that fo the body may be waihed 
 and clcanfed ; but in another manner is the heart 
 
 of 
 
A Dissertati'jii on Bapiism. 53 
 
 of a believer waflied, otherwife is tbc mind of a 
 man purified, by the merits of Chrill. Nor let 
 any one think it ftrange, that the fick, when they 
 are baptifed, are only perfufcd, or fprinkled, fince 
 the fcripture fays by the prophet Ezekiel, chap. 
 xxxvi. ver. 25. 26. '* I will fprinkle clean water 
 upon you, and ye fliall be clean," &c. Alfo, it is 
 faid, Numb. xix. 19. 20. " That foul (hall be cut 
 off from Ifrael, becaufe the water of afperfion has 
 not been fprinkled on him." Again, the Lord 
 faid to Mofes, Numb. viii. 6. 7. " Take the Le- 
 vites, and cleanfe them,— fprinkle water of purify- 
 ing upon them." And again, the water of afper- 
 fion is purification ; from whence it appears, that 
 fprinkling is fufhcient inftead of immerfion, and 
 whenfoever it is done, if there be a found faith, it 
 is perfect and complete.'^ 
 
 To this we may add, that the church of "Rome 
 is the firll we read of that called in queftion the 
 validity of baptifm by petfunon. There the ordi- 
 nation of novation to be a prefoyter, was oppofed 
 by all the clergy, and by many of the laity, (as- 
 Cornelius in his epiRle to Fabius of Antioch tells 
 us), becaufe he had been baptifed by perfufion, or 
 fprinkling. So early did the feeds of fuperilitioii' 
 take root in the Roman Church !• 
 
 Upon the v.'hole, the divine wifdom fnines con* 
 fpicuous in the inftitution of baptifm. Chriit's 
 commands are not grievous ; his yoke is eafy, and 
 his burden is light. Chriilianity was intended to 
 be the religion of all climes and nations, and of 
 men of every ilate of body, healthful and fickly, 
 valid and infirm. But if our Lord had made im- 
 merfion effcntial to his baptifm, it is eafy to fee, 
 that his yoke would iiave been grievous, as there 
 are many clinics of the earth, and ftates of the 
 human body^ in whidi plunging woald be hi-hiy 
 E 3, dangtious.- 
 
J 4 -^ Dissertation en Baptisnu 
 
 dangerous. What wifdom and goodnefs, therr, 
 appears in an inftitution, which prefcribes nothing 
 hurtful to the body, while it would fave the foul \ 
 There were divers modes of baptifm of old. 
 Jefus has left it to his difciples to ufe either of 
 thefe modes as ihall be found moft convenient. 
 In this cafe, though Mr M'Lean bLimes our tran- 
 flators for leaving the Greek bnp:iso untranllated 
 in our Engliih verfion of the New Teflament, ia 
 this inllance they have a£led with judgement. 
 Washing, indeed, might perhaps have anfwered 
 the purpofe ; but no other Englifa word could 
 have conveyed the true fenfe of the original. 
 
 I fhall only add on this part of the fubject, that, 
 rotwithiianding the Baptills fdckle fo much con- 
 cerning the mode of baptifm, no fe<Si: whatever 
 deviates fo widely from fcripture and common 
 fcnfe in the performance of it. In common life,, 
 when one intends to wafh or bathe his body, or 
 snv thing elfe, by immerfiHg it in water, he puis 
 jio covering of any kind upon ic. The Jews, Ma- 
 hometans, and Bramins, in their religious im- 
 merfions, always perform the ceremony naked-. 
 When Mofes wafhed or baptifed the prielts at the 
 door of the tabernacle, Lev. viii. 7. 8. he put no 
 cloaths oiy them till the facred lite had been per- 
 formed. The Ruffians baptife by immerfion to 
 this day j but the baptifed are uncloathed. In- 
 deed, how can a body be wafhed otherwife .'' Im- 
 merfing one with his cloiths on iDay wafli the gar- 
 ment, but not the man. Will any perfon a6t fuch 
 a part in common life ? or is there a fcripture-cr- 
 am.ple for it ? In this refpedl, the common mode 
 has propriety in it. It applies water to the face or 
 head, an uncovered part of the body, not the gar- 
 ment. The Baptifts, properly fpeaking, walli or 
 baptife the garment, and not the man. 
 
 Finally, 
 
^4 Dissertation on Boptistn, ^^ 
 
 Finally, The Baptlfts boaft much of the pratlice 
 of the firll churches afrer the apoftles, as confirm- 
 ing the argument for immeriion. But they cer- 
 tainly know alfo, that thefe churches ufed the 
 frip/e immerfion, as the Ruflians do dill ; or they 
 plunged Jirst in the name of the Father ;. again^ 
 m the name of the Son ; and, thirdly, in the name 
 of the Holy Ghoft. Is this not as ftrong an ar- 
 gument for the triple immerfion, as for immerfion 
 itfelf ? Perhaps both may have an equal claim to 
 apoftolical authority. Why, then, do we retaia 
 the one, and abandon the other ? 
 
 We lliall nov/ proceed to confider, 
 
 SECT. vm. 
 
 The Subjects o/'Baptism. 
 
 The Baptifts confine this inftitution to believing 
 adults, and triumph over fuch as pradlife infant- 
 baptifm. For this pradice, they tell us, we have 
 neither precept nor example in the New Tefla- 
 mcnt, and consequently we are guilty of will-wor^ 
 ship in obferving a human inititution as a part of 
 religious worfhip. Thefe are very heavy charges 
 indeed. We fhall examine the juftnefs of them 
 afterwards. In the mean time, let us fee whether 
 they may not, with equal force, be retorted upon 
 the accufers themfelves. 
 
 Suppofing, for a moment, that we can neitker 
 Ihevv precept nor example in the New Teflament 
 for intant-baptifm, the Baptifts themfelves will be 
 as much at a iofs to produce a fingle iiiftancc of 
 their prefent practice of adult- baptifm from that 
 facred book. That the apoftles were commanded 
 to baptife adult Jev/s or heathens, on their pro- 
 
 feffing 
 
5(5 A hissertat'ion on Baptism, 
 
 fefTing the faith of Chrifl:, and that we have man*' 
 inltances of this pra£tice in the New Teftament, 
 is admitted ; but this is nothing to the purpofe. 
 The Baptifts not only baptife fuch adults as were 
 never baptifed before, but alfo the adult offspring 
 of believers, and fuch as were baptifed in their in- 
 fancy in the name of the Lord Jefus Chrift. For 
 this they have neither precept nor example. Al- 
 though the facred hiftory of the Chrillian churciv 
 reaches downwards to at leart thirty years after 
 her firft erection on the day of Pentecoft, during 
 which period raany infants of believing parents 
 muft have grown up to an adult age, yet we have 
 not one fingle inftance, in all that hiftory, of the 
 adminiftration of baptifm to any adults fprung of 
 believing parents. If, then, infant-baptifm was 
 not pra6lifed at that time, it muft appear ftrange, 
 that there is no inftance on record of any one bom 
 of believers applying for baptifm, when come to 
 adult age. Had we but one example of this kind, 
 it would be decifive on this point : and furely if 
 there had been any fuch a cafe, we might expert 
 at leaft to find one fuch on record. The filence 
 of the fcriptures, then, on this point, affords a 
 llrong prefumption that the children of bejievers 
 were baptifed in infancy, and confequently it fur- 
 nifhes us with a very powerful argument againft 
 the prefent pra£lice of the Baptifts, who in this 
 refpeO walk without any example in the footfteps 
 of the flock of Chrift. The fame may be faid of 
 their re- baptifing fuch as, in their infancy, have 
 been baptifed in the name of the Ix^rd Jefus. No 
 fuch praclice is exemplified in any part of facred 
 writ. 
 
 Thus, in thefe refpefts, the Baptifts have no 
 ground to glory over their opponents. Want of 
 
 fcripcurg- 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism. 57 
 
 fcrlpture-prccept or example for their praftice is 
 at ]eaft as ftrong againit the one as the other. 
 
 As to the charge of will-worlhip in obferving 
 a human inftitution as a rehgious ordinance, it is 
 xvithout foundation. That bapcifm is a divine in- 
 ftitution, is allowed on both fides. To apply this 
 to infants may be a mifapplication or abufe of the 
 ordinance of Chrift ; but this is the worlt that can 
 be faid of it. To mifapply an inftitution, is not 
 to change the nature of it, but to miilake its inten- 
 tion. Baptifm, then, is ftill a divine ordinance, 
 although men may abufe it, or through miftake 
 apply it to an improper fubjcct. I may add, that 
 if the mifapplication of an ordinance of Chriil can 
 transform it into a mere human inftitution, as the 
 Baptifts aver, then they themfelves cannot plead 
 innocence. Real believers only, according to their 
 fcheme, have a right to baptifm. Now, can any 
 baptifer among them, in this cafe, aver, that he has 
 never mifappiied baptifm in any inftance ? It is 
 indifputable, that they have plunged many who 
 were yet hi the gall of bitternefs and the bond of 
 iniquity ; and confequently, on their own prin- 
 ciples, have been guilty of the very crime lo vi- 
 rulently charged againft their opponents. If they 
 alledg*?, in their own vindication, that this is done 
 through miftake, and not from any diftioneft in- 
 tention, why do they not make the fame allowance 
 for others, wlio, I dare fay, are as honeft in apply- 
 ing baptifm to infants, as the Baptiifs are ni 
 applying that inftitution to unworthy adults? 
 Both parlies may miftake the proper lubjedfls of 
 baptifm in many inftances, but neither have any 
 intention of changing the ordinance of Chrift into 
 a human inftitution. 
 
 Thus tar we have feen both parties on a level. 
 Let us now examine the lcr;piures, that we may 
 
58 A Dissertation on B:iptism, 
 
 fee whether any light arifmg from them leads- to 
 the ufage of infant-baptifm. 
 
 In the lirft place, here it is neceffiry that we 
 fliould confider the commiifioii itfelf — " Go ye, and 
 difciple all nations, baptifing them in the name of 
 the Father," &.c. According to thefe words, the 
 nations are the fubj^rdls of boptifm, and no nation 
 is excluded. Accordingly, the apoftles began ta 
 execute this commiffion at Jerufalem, among the 
 Jews firii:, and afterwards among the Gentiles of 
 all nations. That they baptifed adults profeflmg 
 the faith of Chritl, is allowed on all hands -, the 
 queftion is, Whether this commiffion extends to the 
 infants ? 
 
 In anfrt'er to this queftion, we muft obferve, 
 that baptifm fiinds in the fame place in the new 
 itate of the church, that circumcifion filled in the 
 old. Both are religious inflitutions, both intend- 
 ed as folemn initiations into the church of the liv- 
 ing God. In this light the apoftles undcrflood 
 baptifm. So Paul calls it " the circumcifion of 
 Chrift j" as is clear from Colof. ii. 11. 12. " In 
 whom alfo ye are circumcifed — by the circum- 
 cifion of Chriil, buried with him in baptifm." The 
 Judaizers in the church of ColofTe flrenuoufly 
 maintained the neceffity of circumcifion in order 
 to obtain falvatlon. Very well, fays Paul ; in this 
 refpedl Chriftians are alfo complete in Chrift. 
 'J he circumcifion mentioned in the law is twofold ; 
 one made by hands in the fiefli, the other the 
 circumcifion of the heart, «« made without hands, 
 .n putting off the body of the fins of the flefh." 
 n the fame manner, in Chrift we have the cir- 
 cumcifion of the heart or fpirit, confilfing in put- 
 ting off the body of the fins of the flelh, or in gi- 
 ving up the old manto be crucified with him ; and 
 alfo an external fign of this in the baptifm of water 
 
 applied 
 
A Dissirtatton on Bapihm. 59 
 
 -vpplieJ to the body ; tlius in Chrift we have a full 
 circamcifion. Tutting ofF the old man with hiS 
 deeds is the thing fignilied by the circunicifion 
 of the flefli ; and the fame is fignified by baptifm. 
 Ihis Ihews us, by the bye, the abfurdity of the 
 Quakers argument from the text againll water- 
 b.iptifm. ^ay they, the circumcifion of Chrilt is 
 exprefsly faid not to be made with hands ; confe- 
 qucntly his baptifm is not of water, as it is applied 
 by the hand. — Now, if there be any force in this 
 argument, it will equally conclude againlt circum- 
 cihon in the llelh as againit the baptifm of the 
 flefli. They themfclvcs allow, that the carnal cir- 
 cumcifion was a divine appointment under the law. 
 Yet the prophets told tiie Jews, that this availed 
 nothing without the circumcifion of the heart, 
 DwUt. XXX. 6. Jer, i/. 4' Paul fays the fame 
 t3iing — '• Circumcifion is that of the heart, in the 
 Ijiirit, and not of the letter. Neither is that cir- 
 cumcifion, which is outward in the fleih." He 
 and Peter alfo fays the fame thing of the baptifm 
 of Chrift — It is '* not made with hands ; it is not 
 the putting away of the filth of the flelh, but the 
 anfwer of a good xonfcience." l:iow Itupid is it, 
 tlien, to conclude that circumcifion of the flelh 
 waft a divine ordinance, wlule baptifing the Ikih is 
 not fo ! Do not the fcriptures fpcak. of both in the 
 far.ie ityle \ 'ine fenfc is obvious to every man of 
 pi.un underllanding — the putting olF the old man 
 is the truth, or true fenie, of circumcifion and bap- 
 tifm i and coufcquently no man is tiuly baptilcd 
 or circunicilcd, while thefe inltitutions iiave only 
 reached his ilclh. 'The heart is the proper fubjcci 
 ot botli. Yet this does not fay, that thefe ex- 
 ternal lervices were not of divine appointment as 
 fjj^ures of the inward cffe(fls of the Spirit. Al- 
 lliLUgh it ever was true, that he is not a Je.v who 
 
 IS 
 
•^a A Dissertation on Baptism, 
 
 is only (o outwardly, yet it was alfo true, that he is 
 not a Jew who is not fo outwardly, or who is not 
 circumcifed in the flefh. — Sophillry and falfe rea- 
 foiiing have mified the Quakers as well as others. 
 
 2. That the apoflles underftood baptifm as a 
 fign of the fame nature and import with circumci- 
 fion, is evident from what has been faid. We 
 now add, that hence they found baptifm and cir- 
 cumcifion on the fame promife. " Be you cir- 
 cumcifed," faid God to Abraham, *♦ becaufe the 
 covenant or promife is to you and your feed after 
 you, in their generations, for an everlalling cove- 
 nant," Gen. xvii. 7. — 14. In the fame phrafeo- 
 logy fpeaks Peter on the day of Pentecoft, A<5ls, 
 ii. 38. 39. *' Be baptifed, for the promife is to 
 you and to your children." Hence Paul fays, that 
 Abraham " received the fign of circumcifion, a 
 feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith." It was an 
 external fign of his faith in the promife of that 
 feed in whom he and all the feed of Ifrael ftiould 
 be the righteoufnefs of God, Such is the promife, 
 in the faith ot which Abraham and his feed were 
 circumcifed ; and fuch is the promife in the faith 
 of which we are baptifed. Hence the blefllng or 
 promife which we receive in Chrilt is called " the 
 bleifing of Abraham," to (hew that circumcifion 
 and baptifm iland upon the fame promife. 
 
 3. The apoftles, and all that believed through 
 their word, knew very well, that the promife be- 
 ing to Abraham and his feed entitled his children 
 to circumcifion in infancy. In this cafe, it is eafy 
 to fee, that fince now they were commanded to 
 extend the prornife to all thut fliould believe in all 
 nations, they muft neceffarily conclude, that this 
 promife extciuled equally to their children, fo as 
 to give them a title to baptifm, the circumcifion 
 of Ciirift. Tiius they mull have concluiied, unlefs 
 there be found fomething in the commiihon pro'- 
 
jfi dissertation on Baptism. 6 1 
 
 hibiting fuch a conclufion. But it is evident that 
 the comtTiiifion does not condne baptifm to adults. 
 It charges them to initiate the nations into his 
 faith, by baptifing them, juft as Abraham was 
 circumcifed as a fign of his faith. Now, by faith 
 Abraham was not circumcifed himfelf only, butalfo 
 his infant feed, in confequence of his faith ; confe- 
 quently, fince there is nothing in the commiihon 
 limiting baptifm more than circumcifion, it is im- 
 polhble that the apoilles fhould not conclude, that 
 they were warranted to extend baptifm to the in- 
 fants of believers, as well as to believers them- 
 felves — To this we may add, 
 
 4. If the apoflles had not baptifed the infant- 
 feed of believers, the Jews would have certainly 
 murmured at their conduct. They fet an high 
 value on circumcifion. Even after they had be- 
 lieved in Chrift, they were weaned with much 
 difficulty from a rite to which they had been fo 
 long accuftomed. Many difputes this attachment 
 gave birth to in the churches of Chrift. To al- 
 lay thefe contentions, among other arguments ad- 
 duced by Paul, he tells them, that in Chrift we 
 have the true circumcifion, even that of the heart ; 
 and alfo an external fign in baptifm of our connec- 
 tion with Abraham, being the children of his 
 faith, and io heirs according to the promife. Now, 
 fuppofing baptifm to have been prohibited to their 
 infant-children, they would not have failed to 
 avail themfelves of this circumltance as invalidating 
 the apoftie's argument. People fo tenacious of 
 their ancient rights, and fo acute in findmg objec- 
 tions againft Paul's reafonings, would undoubtedly 
 have employed an objedion fo powerful, and at 
 the fame time fo obvious. The promife and its 
 feal v/as given to Abraham's infant- offspring as 
 well as to himfelf i but now you confine it to us, 
 
 Vol. V. F wnile 
 
€2 A Dissertation on Baptism, 
 
 v.hlle our infants are confidered as aliens and un- 
 clean, having no right to the promife, or to the 
 fign of that right. How, then, does baptifm fili 
 the place of circumcifion ? — Had the apollles pro- 
 Iiibited infant-baptifm, this obje6lion would have 
 certaiiily been produced by the Jews againft their 
 pra£lice \ and, in this cafe, we might furcly have 
 expected to find fuch an obje6lion and its anfwer 
 on record. But as we have no hint of any fuch 
 obje6tion flarted in any part of the New-Tefta- 
 ment writings, we have even reafon to conclude 
 that none fuch was ever made, and confequently 
 that there was no foundation for it in the apoftolie 
 praQice. 
 
 If it be faid, How came the apof^Ies to b^iptife 
 females, provided they viewed the law of circum- 
 cifion as afcertaining the fubje£ls of baptifm, fince 
 no female was circumcifed by the law of Mofes. 
 The anfwer is obvious. Soon as the Spirit taught 
 them, that " there is neither male nor female 
 in Chrifl: Jefus," or that Chriifianity has levelled 
 all fuch diilinQions among mankind, they muft 
 have known alfo, that every fex has an equal title 
 to baptifm and all the other ordinances of the go- 
 fpel. Had the female fex been denied baptifm, 
 there fliould flill have been male and female in 
 Chriil Jefus. This, however, is but an exten- 
 fion of a right, not an infringem.ent of it ; and 
 confequently could furnifti no obje6fion to fuch 
 as were tenacious of it, as the prohibition of in- 
 fant-baptifm v.ould have done. — Fcmale-baptifm, 
 ■too^ was pra£tiled under tlie law. 
 
 ■K,. Jefus had informed the apofiles, before his 
 .death, that little children fhould be confidered as 
 ■members of the kingdom of God ; und at the 
 f.rne time laid his hands on little children, and 
 .bkffed them. Now, laying on of hands was a di- 
 vine 
 
j4 Dissertation on B(iptis:n. ( 
 
 wine inftltution, a fign of conveying tLe Spirit, > 
 fome bleflrng, the fruit of the Spirit. When Jc- 
 fus, therefore, laid his hands on little children and 
 blefled them, he thereby lliewed his apoftles, that 
 children were capable of receiving t!ie Spirit, and 
 alfo of receiving a visible sign of their being mem- 
 bers of the kingdom of God. In this cafe, when 
 their Mafter commanded his apoflles to initiate 
 the nations into his kingdom by baptifm^ it is im- 
 poiFible that they could confider infants as'cxclu- 
 ded from that right, or incapable of receiving the' 
 vifible fign of adaiiiTiDn to a kingdom made up 
 of little children, when they had lieard their Maf- 
 ter declare, that "of fuch is the kingdom of God,"' 
 and had feen him adminiller an ordinance to them- 
 expreflive of this truth. They could not have in- 
 terpreted the commifiion otherwife, unlefs it had 
 exprefsiy hmited baptifin to adults, exciufive of 
 their children, which ic does not. If there be 
 little children in the kingdom of God, it will be 
 hard to fliew, why they may not receive the in- 
 flituted fign of admlflion to that kingdom. 
 
 6. Every law, given to a people in general, is 
 confidered as binding the fon as well as the father, 
 infants and adults, provided it contains no excep- 
 tionary claufa,- This is the cafe all che world over. 
 A king ilTues an editSt for levying a tax on every 
 fubjedl of his kingdom. In this cafe, fubjc£ls of 
 every defcriptlon mult be fuppofed to be included ; 
 and fo the tax-gatherers muil neceffarlly explain 
 the law. Had the king intended any particular 
 clafs to be exeemed, he would have fpecified the 
 clafs in this edl£l. The fame may be faid of an 
 TiQt granting a privilege to the fubjeO.. If none 
 be pofitively excluded, all are fuppofed to be in- 
 cluded. Thus we daily explain the a£ls of our 
 Britiili Parliament ; and are the edi(^5 of Infinite 
 F 2 Wifdom. 
 
64 -^ Dusertation en Baptism. 
 
 Wifdom d;£lated with lefs precifion ? To fup- 
 pofe this would be abfurd. But in the law en- 
 j-oining biaptiim, no defcriptlon of perfons are ex- 
 cepted on account of age ; and confequently all 
 mufl be fuppofed to be included. This will be 
 jftill more evident, if we obferve, 
 
 7. That, in every fyftem of law, children are 
 conudered as fo connedied with and included in 
 rhcir parents, tliat they have no feparate exiilence 
 ;<s cbjetts of law. Every where the fon, while a 
 cliild, enjoys every legal privilege in the right of 
 liis farher ; and if he tranfgrefs a law, the father 
 only is amenable to justice for it. The fon ha- 
 ving no legal cxiftence diftineSl fiom the father, 
 law makes the parent refponfible for the faults of 
 the fon, as well as for his own. Such are the laws 
 of men j and fuch was the law of God given to 
 Ifrael. The law given to the fathers included 
 their children in all refpe£ls. The blefTing atsd 
 the curfe extended to the fruit of their body, as 
 well as to their own perfons. So fays Mofes, 
 Deut. xxix. 10. — 1 2. "Ye ftand this day all of 
 you before the Lord — All the men of Ifrael, your 
 little ones, your wives — That thou fliouldft enter 
 into covenant with the Lord thy God," &c. Many 
 of thefe little ones knew nothing of the matter ; 
 yet in the right of their parents they had a title to 
 the promifed blellings, and to circumcifion, the 
 jnftituted fign of this title. Thus they became a 
 part of the holy nation, and had a right to be edu- 
 cated in the knowledge of the holy law. This is 
 the foundation of thefe lirong injun£Uons laid on 
 the fathers in Ifrael, to " teach the command- 
 ments of God diligently to thtir children," Deut. 
 xvi. 6. 7. By circumcifion they were bound to 
 keep the law, which could not be done without 
 
 the 
 
A Dissertation on Ba'ptUmt 65 
 
 the kiiowleJge of it. Hence the propriety of 
 teaching them this knowledge. 
 
 Thus matters flood under the law of Mofes, 
 ■with rcfpe^l to parents and children. Thus mat- 
 ters flood long before the law. Abraham and his 
 feed were confidered as one. The promife was to 
 both ; and both received the fign of clrcumcifion, 
 the feal of the righteoufnefs of faith in that pro- 
 mife. Let us now fee, whether there be any hint 
 in the New Tellament, whereupon we ran efta- 
 bliOi a dillin£lion between the believing parent and 
 his feed, fo as that the one is to be counted holy 
 and the other unclean. 
 
 When t'eter called the Jews to repentance to» 
 wards God, and faith towards our Lord Jefui 
 Chrilt, he exhorts them to be baptifed. The rea- 
 fon he affigns is, *' Becaufe the promife is to you 
 and to your children." This is the very language 
 of the Old Teftament — the language addrcilod to 
 Abraham, when he and his feed were about to be 
 circumcifed. In this fenfe the Jews mu(l un- 
 doubtedly have underftcod Peter, unlefs he had 
 explained his words fo as ,to exclude this lenie 5 
 which he no where does. Here it is vain to tell 
 us, that the word children does not always fignify 
 infants. This is inconteftibly evident. But the 
 quell ion is. Whether the word children can have 
 any other fenfe in this paffjge ? Peter fpeaks to 
 all who were capable of hearing him, and of under- 
 ftanding what he faid. Thefe he calls )•«/. No\r, . 
 whom can he poiTibly mean by f^hildren of thefe 
 hearers, but the in rant- offspring which t!iey either 
 had or might have ? So any meffenger woald b' 
 underftood, who came, in the king's name, to 
 proclaim that his mailer grants a certain privile.i'e 
 tj them that heard him, and to their children, is 
 it poflible that any could miiinterpret this con- 
 F 3- miinoa'? 
 
66 A Bissertaiion on Baptism, 
 
 miiTion ? — No more could we rriiftakc the fenfe of 
 Peter's embafly, were we unwarped by the preju- 
 dices of party. 
 
 Now, if the promife being to the hearers be a 
 reafon for thus fubmicting to be baptifed, ic mud 
 alfo be a reafon for baptifing the children, fince 
 the promife is faid to be equally to both ; and this 
 is made the foundation of baptifm. The Baptifls 
 would make Peter a weak reafoner indeed. Ac- 
 cording to them, he fays to his audience, " The 
 promiie is to you," therefore be ye baptifed : the 
 promife is alfo to " your little ones," therefore let 
 them not be baptifed ! — Spirit of party, what ha- 
 vock haft thou made of the fcriptures ! 
 
 To evade the force of the argument drawn from 
 this text, Mr M'Lean pretends, that the promife 
 here mentioned *' is the promife of the Holy 
 Ghoft fpoken of by the prophet Joel, and not the 
 promife given to Abraham and his feed." What 
 a weak commentary is this ! Tliis writer himfelf 
 •admits, that Joel, in that paflagc, fpeaks of the 
 fpir'it of prophecy, or the extraordinary and mi- 
 raculous gifts of the Holy Gholl. Now, thefe mi- 
 raculous gifts were not conferred on all believers, 
 even in the apoflolic age, neither were they in- 
 tended to be continued in the church in future 
 periods. In this cafe, how could Peter give tliis 
 promife as a ground and motive for fubmitting to 
 baptifm i If this be the promife which is to us 
 and our children, in the faith of which Chriftians 
 are baptifed, then baptifm mull either have been 
 peculiar to the apoftolic age, or all fince that time 
 have been baptifed in the faith of a lie, fince no 
 futh promife is accomplilhed to us now. I fup- 
 pofe the Baptifts themfelvcs will not pretend that 
 they have received any fuch gifts at their baptifm. 
 Hov/, then, can they aver that the faith of re- 
 ceiving 
 
' ' A Dissertation on Baptism. 6f 
 
 ceiving thefe gifts is the general foundation for 
 baptifni ? The truth is, that proniife in Joel had 
 already its accomplifliment, in the extraordinary 
 effufion of the Spirit upon the apoftles and dif- 
 ciples, A£l:s, ii. l"his Peter avers, and quotes the 
 promife on purpofe to prove his declaration : and 
 confequently this is not the promife which is here 
 faid to be to all believers in all ages. 
 
 But if we take the promife here to intend all 
 the faving influences of the Spirit, then it is the 
 very promife given to Abraham and his feed*, for 
 this promife of the Spirit received by faith is ex- 
 prefsly called '< the blefTing of Abraham, which is 
 ''::/Mne upon the Gentiles," by which they become 
 *' heirs according to the promife^" Gal. iii. 14. 
 29. It remains, then, that the promife to us and 
 our children is the very promife given to Abraham, 
 the promife of falvation by the feed in whom all 
 nations are bitfTed. This is the promife of which 
 Peter fpeaks, as Mr M'Lean himfelf may fee if 
 he will read onwards to the 25th verfe of the 3d 
 chapter of the A6ls: " Ye are the children of the 
 promife, and of the covenant which God made 
 with our fathers, faying to Abraham, And in thy 
 feed fliall all the kindreds of the earth be blefl- 
 ed." This is evidently the new-covenant tefta- 
 ment or promife, in which believers in all nations 
 are concerned ; and it is given to believers and 
 their children as a foundation for baptifm, juft as 
 it was given to Abraham and his infant-children 
 as a foundation for circumcifion. Is it pofBble, 
 then, that the Jews could underftand Peter as fay- 
 ing any thing eife, but that the promife of Abra- 
 ham was to them and their infants, and that both 
 were under obligations to be baptifed, juft as A- 
 braham and his children were under obligations 
 to fubniit to circumcifion, in teftimony of his faitJi 
 
 in 
 
€3 -A Dissertation on B.iptlsjn, 
 
 in the promife ? It is certainly impoHible the^ 
 eould have explained it otherwife, uiilefs Pctet^ 
 had expiefsly told them that infants were excluded 
 from baptifm. 
 
 8, In this idea of connexion between believing., 
 parents and their children, Paul agrees with Pe- 
 ter. According to the law of Moles, an Ifratlite 
 was not allowed to marry an heathen ; or if he 
 did fo, he was commanded to put away his wife, 
 and the iflue he had by her, as unclean, or aliens 
 from the commonwealth of Ifrael. Some mem- 
 bers of the church of Corinth w&re in doubt whe- 
 ther this law was flill binding on Jews profe fling 
 Chriftianity. To this Paul anfwers. No fuch law- 
 is now in force, for " the believing hufb^nd is 
 fan<Stified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife 
 is fan6tified to the hufband ; elfe were your chil- 
 dren unclean, but now they are holy," i Cor. vii. 
 14. Here the children of a believing parent are 
 exprefsly called holy \ and this holinvfs is faid to 
 be the refult of their conne£Vion with fuch a pa- 
 rent. All who believed the promife made to A- 
 braham were ftparated from the heathen, by that 
 faith, to the fervice of the true God, before 
 Chrifl: came. This feparation is called holinefs-j 
 and this holinefs extended to their feed no lefs 
 than to themlelves. Thus they were dillinguiflied 
 from ths heathens, all of whom, together with 
 their feed, were called unclean^ or common, that 
 is, lying in the common mafs of mankind, not 
 feparated to the fervice of God by faith in the pro- 
 mifed feed. This was the (late of all the heathen 
 then : this is their (late dill. Thcfe are the people 
 Peter calls " common and unclean," in A£ts, x. 
 Such is the fenfe of the word in the law of Mofes. 
 Now, this holinefs and uncleanneis of the chil- 
 dren is exprefsly fuid to be derived upon them 
 
 fronv 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism. 69. 
 
 from their parents. The Ifraelites, believing the 
 promife, and obeying God, begat a holy child : 
 the heathen in unbelief begat a child unclean. 
 Now Paul cxprefsly fays, that this is (fill the cafe 
 under the gofpel. Tiie believing parent has an 
 holy child. Nor is this impeded by his connec- 
 tion ill marriage with a heathen, for the marriage- 
 connediion, the fource of offspring, is now fantti- 
 fied. The connection is hoh]^ although the unbe- 
 liever be unclean ; the Mofaic law in qutllion be- 
 ing now abolilTied, and marrijge left on its origi- 
 nal foot. This fays nothing about internal holi- 
 nefs. It is the holintfs of which the law fpoke : 
 an external feparation for the fervice of God, re- 
 fulting from a profeiFion of faith in the promife, 
 or the gofpel preached to Abraham, whether this 
 profeffion was the off-spring of the heart or of the 
 mouth only. Whether real or apparent only, it 
 entitled the man and his infant-offspring to church- 
 memberfnip, or to be confidered as holy. 
 
 But it may be faid, Suppofing that children are 
 to be confidered as holy in the fenfe mentioned, 
 what argument can we draw from this in favour 
 of infant-bLiptifm ? I anfwer, Paul fays, <' Now 
 are they holy," i. e. now you treat them as holy. 
 Now, we know that Ifrael of old treated their 
 children as holy by circumcifing them. Had they 
 not done fo, they would have ufed them as un- 
 clean. In what fenfe, then, could Paul fay that 
 the believing Corinthians treated their children as 
 holy, if they did not baptife them, or adminifter 
 the hgn of feparation from the world to them, the 
 inflituted badge of church-mcmberfiiip ? If they 
 did not this, thty certainly ufed them as unclean, 
 or gave no evidence that they believed them to be 
 holy. 
 
 Galled with this troublefome text, Mr M'Leau 
 
 ufes 
 
70 A Diss£rtafio?i on Baptism* 
 
 ufes every effort to explain away its fcnfe. The 
 holinefs here meant, fays he, is legitimacy. — True, 
 Sir, "but not a legitimacy of the common kind. 
 The offspring of Gentile- marriages were legiti- 
 mate, yet ftiil unclean. The legitimacy of the 
 text, then, is the legitimacy of the marriage of an 
 Ifraelite; when his marriage was lawful, the otf- 
 fpring was not only legitimate, or lawfully begot- 
 ten, but they were holy, or entitled to be coiifi- 
 dered as fepjrated to the fervice of God in the 
 right of the parent. To tell a Jew, then, that 
 his child is holy, is not only telling him that his 
 fon is lawfully begotten, but that he is holy, or 
 entitled to circumcifion, the {\gn of church- mem- 
 berfhip. In the fame manner, to tell a Jew be- 
 lieving in Chrift that his children are holy, is tj3 
 tell him that they have a right to baptilm, the 
 fign which is now the circumcifion of Chriil. So 
 ftrong a conne(^ioa has this text with infant-bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 Again, he avers, that '* the holinefs of the chil- 
 dren iiere is of the fame kind with that of the un- 
 believing parents*," becaufe their holinefs is in- 
 ferred from the fan6tification of the unbelieving 
 parent. But how weak is this afl'ertion ! Paul 
 calls the children holy, whereas the unbeliever is 
 unclean, having no right to church memberlbip. 
 He does not fay that the unbeliever is holy •, he 
 only fays that the marriage-conne£lion is holy, or 
 that the unbelieving wife is fandlified in the re.atton 
 flie itands in to the believing hufband. His con- 
 nedtion with her is holy, not herfelf; whereas 
 the children are exprelsly (aid to be holy, in the 
 law-fenfc of the word, that is, not Itrangcrs to, 
 but connected with the holy covenant given to A. 
 
 braham^. 
 
 * Defence cf Eelievers' Bciptifm, p. 46.. 
 
A Disscrtatioi on BaJ:tism. 71" 
 
 Irraham, feparating him and his feed from the hea- 
 then. 
 
 This argument may be farther illuftrated by an 
 inflance taken from civil Hfe. A Briton marries 
 a Jewefs, vho cannot inherit by the laws of his 
 country. He doubts the legality of his marriage, 
 whether his iflue by her can inherit. He is told, 
 that although his wife cannot inherit either in her 
 own perfonal right, or by any right he can give 
 her, yet, as the Britifli law dees not prohibit his 
 marrying a Jewefs, the marriage is Bricilh, or (he 
 is Bntaintjied to him in that relation, fo that his 
 iflue by her is confidered not as Jews, but Britons, 
 and fo can inherit the pofll-fTion of their father, ac- 
 cording to law. The cafe is exa£lly in point j 
 and in this cafe, it is eafy to fee, that the legiti- 
 macy of the child and that of the mother is not of 
 the fame kind. The child is a Britifh fubjc6l ; 
 (he is not. 1 he child can inherit ; but flie cannot. 
 — It is preciftly lb in the cafe before us. The 
 child is holy, i. e. a member of the vifible church ; 
 the heathen mother is not. The child has a right 
 to the privileges of the vifible church, while his 
 mother has no title of that kind. 
 
 cj. Agreeable to the above view, Chriflian pa- 
 rents are exhorted to bring up their children in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord ; and chil- 
 dren to obey their parents in the Lord. Here, it is 
 evident, both parents and children are confidered 
 as in the Lord, or as Chriilians, and fo bound to 
 manitcll their fubjtdlion to him by fu'fiUing their 
 relative duties to one another, as the Lord hath 
 enjoined. 1 his is fo obvious, that Mr M'Lean 
 hirnfclf admits it. Here, fays he, " are exhorta- 
 tions to mutual duties betwixt parents and chil- 
 dren, even as betwixt hulbands and wives, maf- 
 ters and fervunts," &c. But to evade the argu- 
 ment 
 
7* A Dissertation on Baptism. 
 
 ment commonly drawn from this, he adds, " The 
 children here intended are not mere infants, but 
 believing children, vifible members of the churches, 
 and capable of receiving and obeying the word of 
 exhortation *." Let us fee where this interpreta- 
 tion will lead us According to it, the children 
 
 here addrefied are vifible members of the churches, 
 and fo of adult age, as none are vifible members 
 of the church but by baptifm, which, according 
 to this hypothefis, is only adminilfered to adults. 
 How ridiculous this idea ! It fuppofes, ij-/. That 
 children arc incapable of receiving either correc- 
 tion or inftru6tion of a religious kind till they 
 come to adult age, and be baptifed ; 2dlyy That pa- 
 rents are not bound by this injun(!i^ion to bring up 
 their children in the nurture and admonition of 
 the Lord, till they become adults ; "^dly. That after 
 we grow to men and women, our parents are ob- 
 liged to bring us up again, or to make us infants I 
 Thefe are the obvious confequences of this gentle- 
 man's interpretation. Yet, fo inconfiftent is error, 
 he admits, that " the gofpel obliges Chriftian pa- 
 rents to ftudy the good of their children's fouls as 
 well as of their bodies, to fet a godly example be- 
 fore them, and to inllru^l them in the doclrines 
 of the Chriftian faith." Very juft, indeed. But 
 are not the children at the fame tune obliged, by 
 the fame authority, to receive the inftrutlions ad- 
 miniftered to them by the parents ? If fo, thea 
 they are under thefe obligations from the firll mo- 
 ment in which they are capable ot receiving cor- 
 redlion or inftrutlion. Does Paul fay that parents 
 arc obliged to inftrutl, while children are not obliged 
 to receive their mftrudiions ?. Does he not exhort 
 both at the tame time ? or rather does he not be- 
 gin with the duty of children .'' 
 
 The 
 
 * Defence of £elievers' Baptifm, p. 75. 
 
A Dissertation on BuptistH, 73 
 
 The truth Is, Chriftian parents are hereby ob- 
 liged to teach their offspring the dodrines of the 
 Lord fo foon as they are capable of fuch inftruc- 
 tion : and as the Lord has commanded children to 
 obey their^parents, this mult be early taught them ; 
 as foon as they believe this, they will obey their 
 parents in the fear of the Lord. All this they may 
 be taught even at two or three years of age, and 
 in many inftances fooner. Confequently, even 
 then they are fuppofed to be in the Lord, as pa- 
 rents are commanded to deal with them as in the 
 Lord, and they to obey in the Lord. Nor does it 
 avail any thing to tell us, that " the apollles were 
 commanded to teach all nations the do£lrine of 
 the Lord, while the nations were confidered as 
 out of the Lord*." The fcripture nowhere fays 
 that the nations were in the Lord: whereas the 
 children in the above palTages are confidered as in 
 the Lord, as well as their parents f . 
 
 The chara6lers and offices in Ephef. vl. i. 2. &c. 
 will only apply to children under age. Adults 
 are commanded to be kind to their parents, but 
 no where to obey them ; nor can fuch be viewed 
 as the proper fubjecSls of corre6lion and inllruc- 
 tion by parents as such. Only children in non- 
 age can be trained or brought up by parents as 
 fuch ; they, too, are the proper fubje6ts of parental 
 chaftifement and inflrudlion. It is, then, evident 
 
 Vol. V. G as 
 
 * Defence, Sec. p. 74. 
 f A fenfible friend, on leading the above, very jadi- 
 ciouily alks, " Does it not merit regard, in handling the 
 argument from this text, that the exhortation Hands in 
 an epiftle addrelFed to a gofpel-chiuch as fuch ? Would 
 not this evidently fuppofe the children there exhorted 
 (who in defiance of ail quibble were children yet to be 
 brought up) to have been undeiftood as belonging to the 
 matter, the vifible matter of the church ?" I dare lay every 
 unbiaiTed mind will anfwer in the affirmative. 
 
74 ^ Dissertation on Baptisnit 
 
 as funfhine, that infants and children under age 
 are the objetls of Paul's exhortation. Thefc he 
 confiders as in the Lord, or holy. But holinefs 
 fprings from the promife, which alone feparates 
 any perfon or thing for God. Confequently, Paul 
 views children as connedled with the promife in 
 which their parents have believed, elfe they would 
 be unclean, and not holy. Thus he edabliflies the 
 doflrine of Peter, " The promife is to you and 
 your children." This is given as a reafon of, and 
 motive to baptifm. If fo to the parents, it muft. be 
 fo to the children. 
 
 But, before we finlfti our examination of the 
 apoftolic commiflion to baptife, the following ob- 
 fervations will add much weight to our interpreta- 
 tion of it as extending to infants. Baptifm was 
 no new inftitution. It was pradtifed under the 
 Old Teflament. We have already feen, that the 
 native Jews entered into the covenant or church of 
 God by water. Every infant, male and female, 
 was baptifed, or wafhed with water, in a religious 
 view, foon after the birth. But we now add, that 
 every profelyte from among the heathen to the 
 faith of Abraham was admitted into the church by 
 baptifm alfo. The Tahnudy the Ge?naray and 
 Moimonidesy all agree in refpe£l of the manner of 
 initiating both native Jews and profelytes. We Ihall 
 only quote Maimonides^ tit. Isiiriy hia. c. 13. By 
 three things the Israelites entered into the covenant, 
 by circumcision^ baptis?n, and sacrifice. Again, In 
 allagesy -whensoever any Gentile was ivilhng to enter 
 into the covenant y and to he gathered under the tvings 
 0/ the Shrchinahy and to undertake the yoke of the 
 law, he was bound to have circuincisiony and hap' 
 tisniy and a peace-offcringy (or, as the Gemara calls 
 it, the sprhikling of blood), and if it were a womaUy 
 baptism and sacrifice. He adds, The stranger that 
 
 is 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism. 75 
 
 is circumcised and not baptised^ or baptised and not 
 circumcised^ is not truly a proselyte till he be both. 
 
 From the above, and many other teftimonies 
 "which might be quoted, it is evident, that all 
 profelytes, male and female, were introduced to 
 the Jewifli church by baptifm ; and alfo, that the 
 baptifm of the native Jews was the pattern by 
 which the baptifm of profelytes was regulated. This 
 pra6tice was founded upon the law. Numb. xv. 
 J 5. 16. *' One ordinance (hall be both for you of 
 the congregation, and for the ftranger that fojourn- 
 eth with you ; an ordinance for ever in your ge- 
 nerations : as ye are, fo (hall the ftranger be before 
 the Lord. One law and one manner fliall be for 
 you, and for the ftranger that fojourneth with 
 you." By this law they confidered themfelv6« 
 bound to receive profelytes by circumcifion, bap- 
 tifm, and fprinkling of facrifical blood, as the Jews 
 were entered into covenant by thefe three ordinan- 
 ces. Circumcifion w^s inftituted in the days of 
 Abraham ; baptifm had been in ufe before his 
 time : and when Ifrael were about to enter the 
 covenant at Sinai, they were not only baptifed into 
 Mofes in the fea, but God, to prepare them for^ 
 receiving the law, commands Mofes — " Go unto 
 the people, and fandlify them to day and to-mor- 
 row, and let them wafti their cloaths." This 
 M.aimonides CiiW^ baptifm, Isuri bla^ C. 13. Bap- 
 tism was in the desart before the giving of the lawy 
 according as it is said. Thou shalt sanctify them. Sec. 
 Then, finally, they were fprinkled with the blood 
 of the covenant, Exod. xxiv. 8. 
 
 It muft be here obferved, that the infants of 
 profelytes were alfo baptifed, both male and fe- 
 male, in the fame manner as the infants of the na- 
 tive Jews were. So fays the Gemara^ babyl. tit. 
 thetuby i. e. They baptise the little^ ox young stranger 
 er proselyte : and the Glofie adds, that the rukrs of 
 G Z the 
 
yS A Dissertation en Baptism. 
 
 the consistory take care cf ity afid so are made to him 
 a father. So alfo Mahnonldesy in the forecited 
 place, They baptise the infanty or little stranger^ 
 upon the knowledge or profession of the house of 
 judgement . 
 
 From the above detail, the following obfcrvations 
 naturally occur, i. The apoftolic baptifm could not 
 appear a novelty to the Jews, nor even to the Gen- 
 tiles, as baptifm had been a religious ceremony 
 among all nations. Accordingly, we no where 
 read of any of them viewing it in that light. 2. 
 Nor could the Jews object to the admiflion of 
 profelytes to the covenant of Abraham by baptifm, 
 as this had been fo long pra6lifed by themfelves. 
 Nor do we find them finding fault with this prac- 
 tice. They only objedled to the admiffion of the 
 Gentiles without circumcifion, and a profefled obli- 
 gation to keep the law of Mofes. 3. In the com- 
 miflion to baptife, our Lord had no occafion to 
 fpecify the baptifm of females. As this had been 
 always pradiifed in the church of God, the apoftles 
 mud have underftood their commiffion as extend- 
 ing to women, unlefs he had exprefsly limited it to 
 men, as he did in enjoining circumcifion. Ac^ 
 cordingly, without any fpecific mention of women 
 in their commiffion, their hiftory informs that they 
 adminiftered baptifm to both fexes indifcriminately. 
 4. Hence alfo we have the moll certain foundation 
 for infant-baptifm in the Chridian church. As 
 the infants of believing parents had been always 
 admitted to baptifm in the church of God before 
 Chriffc came, profelytes to his religion muft necef- 
 farily have demanded baptifm for their children ; 
 nor could the apoftles have poffibly refufed their 
 requeft, unlefs their Lord had exprefsly prohibited 
 them — a prohibition no where to be found. In- 
 deed nothing can be more evident than this, that 
 
 Jefu§ 
 
A Dissertation on Baplishj. 77 
 
 Jefus never intended to change the fubjecSls or mode 
 of baptifm in ufe before he came in the flelli. Had 
 he intended any fuch alteration, he mull undoubt- 
 edly have exprefled his intention, and not have left 
 his apoftles in the dark in a matter of fuch impor- 
 tance ; particularly as they mud have baptifed the 
 infants of profelytes without an exprefs prohibition, 
 as this had been the univerfal pra6tice in the 
 church wherein they had been educated, and that 
 by divine appointment. 5. Hence alfo it is evident, 
 that baptifm has not only kept the fame place iii 
 the New-Teftament (late of the church which it 
 held in the Old, but that it has alfo fuperfeded cir- 
 cumcilion and the fprinkling of blood. We have 
 feen that religious initiation was performed of old 
 by a threefold ceremony, circumcifion, baptifm, 
 and facrifice. Our Lord has chofen baptifm to 
 continue in his church, and alfo to anfwer all the 
 parpofes of the other two. This is the fole ce- 
 remony which he has appointed in the initiation 
 of difciples into his church ; and hence we can 
 properly fay, that it has come in the room of cir- 
 cumcifion and the fprinkling of blood, or has fu- 
 perfeded them, and fupplies their place in the 
 church of God under the gofpel. That it is call- 
 ed " the circumcifion of Chfiit," is clear from the 
 paflage above quoted. It is alfo *•' called the fprink- 
 ling of the blood of Jefus Chrift." Apoftates from 
 the faith of Chrift are faid to '^ count the blood of 
 the covenant wherewith they vitxe fantlified an un- 
 holy thing *." San£liiication here mufl; mean b?.p- 
 G 3 -^tifm, 
 
 * Some interpreters think, that Chrift, ana not the a- 
 poftate from Chrillianity, is here faid to be sanctified by 
 the blood of the covenant, Heb. x. 29. as they cannot sU 
 i.ovv apoltates to have been i'anttified, or purifted from 
 fin. But this objfdion originites in a miftake of the 
 
 meanings 
 
^8 A Dissertation on Baptinn. 
 
 tifm, as in no other fenfe can apoftates be faid to 
 have been fandified. But this fandification is be 
 the blood of the covenant ; and confequently the 
 water in baptifm reprefents the blood of Jefus, 
 and the a£l itfelf the fprinkling of that blood. 
 Thus the true baptifm of Chrift not only " waflies 
 the body with pure water," which was the part of 
 the ancient baptifm, but it alfo " fprinkles the 
 heart from an evil confcience," as the blood of the 
 
 facrifical 
 
 meaning of the woid/andlljication'm this paffage; where- 
 in it can only mean an external dedication or setting apafi 
 of a perfon to the fervice of God. Even on their own 
 hypotheiis, this can only be its fenfe. Chrift had no fin, 
 and confequently could not be cleanfed from it. When. 
 the Father, then, is faid to fanflify him and ftnd him into 
 the world, the meaning muft be, he fet him apart for his 
 ofRce : and when he is laid to fanftify himCelf, it means 
 that he devoted himfelf to the fervice allotted him, by 
 fubmitting to be fprinkled with the blood of his facrifice, 
 ^according to the law of the priefthood. — Again, the He- 
 brews knew perfeftly the meaning of fanctification by 
 the blood of the covenant, as their fathers had been fo 
 fanctified in the time of Mofes, who took the blood and 
 fprinkled it on all the people, faying, " This is the blood 
 of the covenant," Sec. Now that Paul, in tlie verfe be- 
 fore us, refers to that tranfaftion, I think is indifputably 
 evident. This afcertains its fenfe. Mofes was fct apart 
 to be mediator in the covenant at Sinai, before he entered 
 on the office. Hence, he did not fprinkle the blood on 
 himfelf, but " on the people." Paul, then, cannot 
 mean, that Chrift, adling as Mediator of the better cove- 
 nant, fprinkled the blood on himfelf, but " that he might 
 fanilify the people with his own blood, he fuffered 
 without the gateJ' — Befides, baptifm was always called 
 fanitification by the Jews, as. alfo by the Chriftians for 
 feveral centuries, as a vifible dedication to the fervice of 
 God.— Fmally, 1 cannot fee how a perfon can be faid to 
 trample under, foot and to profane a blood which was 
 never fprinkled upon him, or with which he had no con- 
 nedtion. — Thefe reafons determine me to think that it is 
 the apoftate who is here faid to have been fanftified, 
 i. e. fprinkled with jlae blood of the covenant in baptifpca. 
 
yl'Disscftation o?i Baptism-, 79 
 
 facrifical animal " fprlnkled to the purifying of the 
 flefli." 
 
 Having examined the apoflles' commiflion to 
 baptife, and feen it extend to infants as well as a- 
 dults, let us now proceed, 
 
 II. To examine the apoftolic pra£tice with 
 refpedl to infant-baptifm. Here we (hall obferve, 
 
 Tst, That from the fhort hiftory we have of the 
 adminiftration of baptifm by the apoftles, there a- 
 rifes the higheft: degree of probability that they 
 baptifed infants as well as adults. We read of their 
 baptifing whole houfeholds : Lydia, for inltance, 
 and her houfehold ;. the jailor, and all that were 
 his ; and the houfehold of Stephanus. Now, is it 
 probable, or even credible, that in all the houfe- 
 holds baptifed there was not one child ? And fup- 
 pofing that there was an infant in any of thefe 
 families, and the infant excluded from baptifm, 
 we might certainly have expetl^-rd to find this on 
 record ; particularly as this would have been an 
 entire novelty in the church of the living God. 
 For many hundred years, even from the days of 
 Abraham, infants had a place in the vifible church, 
 by divine appointment. Had they been now ex- 
 cluded from this ftation, and call into the heathen 
 v.'orid, fo great a change would certainly have been 
 particularly marked in the fcriptures. Nothing 
 L'fs than a divine law could exclude infants from 
 this privilege ; and if any fuch law had been 
 made, it muft have been recorded in fome part of 
 the facred records. It mud be found either in 
 the words or praciice of the apoltles. The filence 
 of the New Tellament, then, on this head, renders- 
 it evident that no fuch law ever exifled. 2dly, The 
 uniform pradice of the primitive churches, xm-, 
 mediately fucceeding the apoflolic age, affords evi- 
 dence on tliis point, amounting, in my apprehen- 
 
 fion. 
 
8o A Dusertatwi on Uaptism, 
 
 fion, to a certainty. Such as lived in fo early a 
 period as the firil, fecond, and third centuries, un- 
 doubtedly have known what was the pradtlce of 
 the apoflles themfelves j and as the churches in 
 thefe periods remained, in a great meafure, uncor- 
 rupted by innovations and fuperftitions, no change 
 of that pra6tice could have taken place without 
 very confiderable oppoation. Or if fome churches 
 had deviated in this refpeifl, it is incredible that 
 the whole would have fo early apoftatifed from the 
 original inftitution. But the writers of thefe times 
 not only attefl that infant-baptifm was pratlifed in 
 their times, but fome of them exprefsly declare, that 
 it was the pra6tice of the apoflles themfelves. Did 
 their teftimony, indeed, contradict any thing faid 
 in the facred oracles, it is totally inadmifTible ; but 
 fince it correfponds fo exa£tly with every fug- 
 geftion of fcripture, we cannot rejedt it, unlefs we 
 chufe to fay, what would tend to invalidate the au- 
 thenticity of the fcriptures themfelves, that the 
 primitive churches were all liars. 
 
 We might produce a large cloud of witnefles In 
 proof of this point — even all the writers of the llrfl: 
 leven* centuries. But as thefe have been all pro- 
 duced in evidence by other writers on this fubjeCV, 
 I fhall only mention a very few. 
 
 Jutlin Martyr wrote his fecond apology about 
 the year 148, in which he fays, there were Chri- 
 ftians then living, fome fevecty years old, who had 
 been made difcipies to Chrifl from tlieir infancy, 
 and therefore muft have been baptifed in the firtt 
 age, while fome of the apollles were living. He 
 alfo calls baptifm the fpiritual^circumcifion, as fuc- 
 ceeding the circumcifion of the flefii. 
 
 Irenxus, Bilhop of Lyons, born about the year 
 97, a difciple of Polycarp, who was a difciple of 
 John, the Divine, and fo could not be miftakcn. a- 
 
 bout 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism. 8,1 
 
 Lout the praiflice of the churches down to his time, 
 exprefsly mentions the baptihti of infants. As 
 baptifm is the outward fign of regeneration, it 
 is called by him and many others regenerathfj^ 
 the thing figniiied put for the fign, by an ufual 
 figure in fccipture. " When Chrid," fays he, 
 ** gave his difciples the command of regenerating 
 unto God, he faid. Go and teach all nations, bap- 
 tiling them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of rhe Holy Ghod " To which he adds, 
 " Chrift cP4me to fave thote who by him are re- 
 generated unto God, (i. e. baptifed), both infants 
 and little ones, and young men and elderly per- 
 fens." 
 
 Origen was born about the year i8 5, within loo 
 years of the apofl;lcs. B.oth his father and grand- 
 father were Chriflians. He was one of the molt 
 learned men of that age, and had preached the 
 gofpel in Rome, Greece, Paleftine, and Syria, and. 
 fo could not but be acquainted with the ufages of 
 all the churches. This great author exprefsly de- 
 clares infant-baptifm to have been in conftant ufe 
 in the churches. " The baptifm of children," fays, 
 he, " is given for the remiflion of fins." This he 
 fays, whrle proving the dodlrine of original fin in 
 his eighth homily : And in his comment on the 
 Romans he exprefsly fays, that infant-baptifm was 
 derived from the apoftles themfelves. 
 
 TertuUian, contemporary with Origen, has been 
 often adduced by the Baptifts in proof of their- 
 fide of the queftion ; whereas he furnil]:ies us with, 
 'the flrongell evidence that infant-baptifm was the 
 uniform practice of the church in his day. 
 
 It is true, he fpeaks againft it in common cafes, 
 and advifes that it fhould be delayed till grown to- 
 years, yea, till after marriage. The reafon was, 
 becaufe he had a notion that fins committed after 
 baptifm were next to, if not utterly unpardonable : 
 
 hence 
 
82 A Dissertation on Baptism. 
 
 hence he advifed the delay of the baptifm of chil- 
 dren, unlefs in cafe of neceflity, till married, ima- 
 gining they would then be lefs liable to temptation. 
 This evidently proves that infant- baptifm was the 
 practice of the church If it was net fo, why 
 fhould he fpcak againft it ? Surely he fhould not 
 fight with his own fhadow, or oppofe a cuflom 
 that had not exiftence. Befides, he did not fay in- 
 fant-baptifm was unlawful, as he allowed it in cafe 
 of neceffity, ;'. e. when the child was in danger of 
 death, and only difapproved of it for the abfurd 
 reafon above mentioned. 
 
 The writings of Ambrofe, Auftinj and other fa- 
 thers, have been produced in this argument, wha 
 exprefsly tell us that infant baptifm had been ever 
 in ufe from the time of the apoftles. But I ihall 
 only produce farther the teftimoay of Pelagius, 
 who in the fifth century denied original fin. In 
 anfwer to him, Auftin infills on the fcnptifm of in- 
 fants, which was the known nnd {landing pradiice 
 of the churches, as an argument of their natural 
 defilement. " Infants," fays he, *' are by all Chri- 
 fiians acknowledged to ftand in need of baptifm, 
 which mufl be in them for original fin, fince they 
 have no other." Pelagius was much puzzled 
 with this argument, yet does not deny that infants 
 fliould be baptifed. So far from this, when fome 
 charged him with fuch denial as the neceflary con- 
 fequence of his doiflrine, he repels the charge 
 thus—" Men flander me, as if I denied baptifm 
 to infants ; whereas I never heard of .any, not the 
 worft of heretics, that would fay fuch a thing of 
 infants." 
 
 Upon this Mr Boftwick, in his fermon on in- 
 fant-baptifm, very juftly obferves, 'This confef- 
 fion is the flrongelb demonflration, that infant- 
 baptifm was univerfally pra<Sliffcd, time out of mind, 
 
 OS 
 
, A Dissertation on Baptism. 83 
 
 or elfe he, whofe interefl it was to deny it, to an- 
 fwer the arguments of his adverfary, would cer- 
 tainly have done it. But fo far is he from that, 
 though his caufe required it, he exprefsly declares, 
 he does not deny it, nor ever heard of any that 
 did. Now, Pelagius was a great fcholar and a 
 great traveller. He had been at Rome, Africa, 
 Egypt, and Jerufalem, where he fpent much time, 
 and therefore muft have been acquainted with the 
 lites of the fathers and cuftoms of the churches 
 in all thofe parts ; and yet he declares that he ne- 
 ver heard of any that denied baptifm to infants. 
 it is as plain, then, as hiilory can make it, that 
 there had been then no difpute about the point ; 
 and that there was not, neither had been any fe6t 
 profefTing Chriftianity, that denied it, from the a- 
 poftles' time to that day. Nor is there the leaft 
 evidence, that it was everoppofed by any man, or 
 fociety of men, for a long time after. The confe- 
 quence, then, is. If infant- baptifm be 3 nullity, and 
 not Chrill's inltitution, then the churches loft an 
 ordinance of Chritt during all this period. Nay, 
 they muft have loft it in the very firft ages and 
 pureft times, and there muft have been no regular 
 baptifm, no Chriftian minifters or ordinances for 
 fo many centuries. Many adults were indeed 
 baptifed during that period, fome of whom might 
 become miniltcrs of the word ; but they baptifed 
 infants, and confequently were not Chrillians, ac- 
 cording to the view ot the Baptifts. 
 
 Again, if infant-baptifm had, in any of thefc 
 periods, been introduced by men, and had not 
 been the cuftom of the church from the apoftles ; 
 how ftrange is it, that we have no account, no not 
 the leaft hint, in all antiquity, when or by whom 
 it was Introduced .'' Had it been human invention, 
 .would it have been fo univerfal in the firft ^^oo 
 
 years, 
 
B4 A Dissertation on Baptism. 
 
 years, and yet no record left when it was Intfo- 
 duced, nor of any difpute or controverfy about it ? 
 This is incredible. 
 
 It may be added, fince no man has authority to 
 baptife, who has not been baptifed himlelf, and a 
 regular fucceflion of adult baptifms cannot be pre- 
 tended, how, then, can any man, with a good 
 conscience, join the prefent Baptifts ? All the pre- 
 fent adult baptifms, if traced back, mull come 
 originally from thofe who were baptifed in in- 
 fancy •, and confequently, on their principles, can 
 have no validity in them. Since, then, no man 
 can be efteemed a Chrillian, who has not received 
 Chrift's baptifm, vifible Chriftianity muft perifli 
 for ever, unlefs Chrift Ihall fend us apoftles to 
 baptife us again. In fhort, on the Baptift plan, 
 there neither is nor can be a church of Chrill on 
 earth. 
 
 The above quotations from the fathers are not 
 produced to determine whether infant-baptifm be 
 an inftitution of Chrill or not ; but to afcertain a 
 matter of fadl, viz. that infants have been baptifed 
 in all the churches of Chrill from the days of the 
 apoftles to their times. Of this they muft be al- 
 lowed to be competent judges; and confequently 
 the fa(5l ftands indifputably evident. 
 
 The fum of the argument for infant-baptifm 
 ftands thus : From the days of Abraham, by di- 
 vine appointment, infants had been admitted into 
 the church of the living God, by a fign common 
 to infants and adults, in the New Teftament a 
 fign of the fame intention is appointed, while we 
 have not the oblcureft hint of the excluhon of in- 
 fants from this privilege, either in the appoint- 
 ment itfelf, or in the apoftles' reafonmg on that 
 fabje<Sl, or in their confequent practice. On the 
 contrary, the apoftles feem to explain their com- 
 
 miffion 
 
A Ditsertation on Baptism, 85 
 
 miflion to baptife, as extending to infants as well 
 as adults, confidering them as holy, and addrefling 
 them as in the Lord, when born of believing 
 parents. Nor is there any hint of the Jev/ifli be- 
 lievers objecting to the apoftles pradtice in this 
 matter, which they would certainly have done 
 had they paganized their children. Add to all 
 this, that the whole hiftory of the moit ancient 
 churches of Chrift tends to eftabli(h the fa£l, that 
 infant-baptifm was praflifed in the apoflolic 
 churches. All which taken together afford fuch a 
 high degree of evidence to the divinity of this in- 
 ftitution as amounts to a certainty. 
 
 Thus we have proved, that infants were admit- 
 ted into the church of God, and never have been 
 excluded, fo far as we can fee, by any divine ap- 
 pointment. It is the tafk, then, of the Baptifts to 
 prove that they have been fo excluded, otherwife 
 their argument is deftitute even of the fliadovv of 
 a probability. 
 
 S E C T. IX. 
 
 Containing Answers to the Objections of the 
 Baptists. 
 
 That we may judge with more precifion in 
 this matter, we mull hear counfel on the other 
 fide. 
 
 I. The baptifts derive their chief argument from 
 the commiffion itfelf : " Go, difciple all nations, 
 baptifing them j" telling them, " he that believeth 
 and is baptifed fhall be faved." The nations muft 
 firft be taught, and profefs their faith in the go- 
 fpel, ere they can be baptifed, according to this 
 
 VoL.V. H law; 
 
B^ A Dissertation on Baptistn, 
 
 law ; and hence it is concluded, that the law ex- 
 cludes infants from this facred rite. A mighty 
 flrefs has been laid on this argument ! Let us fee 
 how far it can hear it. When God fent Mofes 
 to deliver Ifrael from Egypt, he commanded him 
 to preach a gofpel, the good news of deliverance, 
 to them i telling them, that whoever kept the 
 paflbver and the fprinkling of blood, in faith of 
 ialvation from the deftroyer, fliould be delivered. 
 In confequence of this faith, they " were all bap- 
 tifed into Mofes in the cloud, and in the fea." 
 Hence, the Eaptifts, if they will keep by their ar- 
 gument, mull neceilarily conclude, that all the 
 infants of Ifrael were left in Egypt. They could 
 not underfland IMofcs, nor profefs the faith by 
 keeping the paflbver and the fprinkling of blood, 
 mor-e than our infants now can hear and believe 
 the apoftolic gofpel. Mofes, too, was only com- 
 manded to preach to them ,^hat were capable of 
 liearing and underftanding what he faid ; confe- 
 quently no infant could lawfully be baptifed into 
 Mofes ! Again, when IMofes gave this law at 
 Sinai, he faid, *' Hear, O Ifrael, thou ihalt love 
 the Lord thy God," &c. Thus, the law, or co- 
 venant, was addrefled to adults, fuch as could 
 hear and underfland him, and fay, " All that the 
 Lord has fpoken we will do, and will be obedient." 
 In teflimony of this faith, they had the blood of 
 the covenant fprinkled on them, or they were 
 baptifed : " Mofes took the blood of the covenant, 
 and fprinkled it on all the people," or on the twelve 
 pillars reprefenting all the tribes. Had the Bap- 
 tlfts lived then, they would certainly have argued, 
 that this covenant did not include infants, as there 
 is no v/ord of fprinkling any but fuch as proteflcd 
 faith in, and obedience to the law given in ccnle- 
 quence of their hearing it preached. Yet nothing 
 
 can 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism. v'J 
 
 can be more evident than this, that the covenant 
 was not made with them only who were taught 
 the law, but with their httle ones alfo. 
 
 The truth is, every law is addreiled immediately 
 to adults; yet every man living in fubjetlion to 
 that law, confiders his children as under the fame 
 law, and trains them up in that idea. Thus Ifrael' 
 were commanded to teach the law of God ddl- 
 gently to their children, viewing them as bound 
 by that law 5 thus alfo Chiiilian parents are 
 charged to train up their children in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord, that from their- 
 childhood they might know the fcriptures, — evi- 
 dently fuppofing that the children were bound to 
 obey (hem. 
 
 If it Itill be urged, that faith is always confi- 
 dered as a neceilary prerequilite to baptifm, we 
 anfwer, Faith was always a prerequifite to admiiho.T 
 into the covenant of God, and to the fign of fuch 
 admiihon. It was as neceflary under the law as 
 under the gofpel. Such as kept the paffbver by 
 faith in the divine promife of deliverance from 
 dedrutlion in Egypt, were baptifed into xVlofes, in 
 the cloud, and in the fea. Such as believed the 
 promife of Canaan, and promifed a correfponding 
 obedience, were fprinkled with the blood of the 
 covenant. The bleffings of that covenant were 
 promifed only to fuch as believed. Only the be- 
 liever entered into the promifed reft. Others 
 could not enter in becaufe of unbelief. Abraham, 
 too, believed God before he was circumcifed, or 
 received the feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith. 
 Yet is it not certain that the children of thefe be- 
 lievers, even infants incapabl-:! of believing, en- 
 joyed all thefe promifes, and received the figns or 
 feals of them, as well as their parents ? How 
 weak, then, is it to argue, that infants can have 
 H 2 no 
 
S8 j^ Dissertation on Baptism^ 
 
 no vifible intereft in, or title to the fign of a cove- 
 nant while incapable of believing. Faith is only 
 required of aduhs. This was as ftri£lly required 
 under the Old Teftament as under the New. li 
 the want of ir, then, exclude infants now from 
 she fign of the covenant, it mult have done fo- 
 formerly. 
 
 Yet every initiation of a child into the church 
 of God proceeded on the foot of a profcfiion of 
 taith in the divine promife, on which the church 
 was founded. Abraham profefTed this faith, and 
 hence, as a fign of it, circumcifed his infant Ifaac 
 as well as himfelf. If any Ifraelite forfook the 
 faith, his child had no title to circumcifion. The 
 cafe is fo Itill with refpe£l to baptifm. 
 
 But, fays Mr M'Lean, if infant-baptifm refts on 
 the faith of the parent, we muft be fure our pa- 
 rents were believers, ere we can be fure that we 
 have received Chriftian baptifm *. D'Anvers fays 
 the fame thing, and a weak faying it is. It equal- 
 ly militates againll adult-baptifm. How many 
 have the Baptiits dipped who never r^/v/Zy believed !" 
 Does this render their baptifm unchriftian ? If 
 II ot, no more can it render our baptifm of none 
 clTcdl, whether the faith of our parents was real^ 
 er profefled only. 
 
 2. The Baptifts demand of us either precept 
 or example for infant-baptifm ; neither of which, 
 fay they, can be found in fcripture. To this we 
 reply, We have clearly proved that infants were 
 Initiated into the church of God, by all the rites 
 of divine inftitution for that purpofe, from Abra- 
 ham to Chrift. Even the children of profelytes 
 v.ere circumcifed and baptifed. Now, as Chrift,, 
 wnen he commanded his apoftles to baptife, did 
 Xiot exclude infants, they muft undoubtedly be in- 
 cluded 
 * Defence, &:c. p. f i. 
 
A tiisiertatioii on Baptism, Z() 
 
 eluded in the commiffion. Had he intended to alter 
 the law and pracftice of baptifm lb univerfal in 
 the Jewifli church, he would have certainly fpeci- 
 iied the alteration in the commiirion itfelf j but as 
 no fuch thing can be found in the commillion, the 
 apoftles mult have proceeded to adminiller bap- 
 tifm, not only to- every profelyte, but to every in- 
 fant of a profelyte to the faith of their Mafler, as 
 this had been the pra6lice of the church of God 
 in all pall ages. Ihis being the cafe, we have no 
 occafion for exprefs examples of infaat-baptifm. 
 Every profelyte to the faith of Chriil would un- 
 avoidably alk this privilege for their infants ; nor 
 could the apollles refufe to grant it, as their Mafter 
 had no where prohibited them. Accordingly, they 
 fpeak of the infants of believers as in the Lord ^ and 
 holyy — titles never given to any but to fuch as had 
 received the iign ot initiation into the holy cove- 
 nant. This afcertains the apoftolic prattice ia 
 this matter. It belongs, then, to the liaptilts to 
 prove, that our Lord prohibited the baptifm of in- 
 fants, or that the apoltles refufed to baptife them. 
 Till they do this, which I can venture to fay they 
 never will, infant-baptifm Hands on the molt in- 
 controvertible evidence*. 
 
 3. They pretend that baptifm can be of no ufe 
 
 to infants, as they are incapable of undcrilanding 
 
 H 3 ^ its 
 
 * Since this DifieYtation went to prefs, I have read 
 Mr M'Lean's new performance, entitled. The Nutuic ami 
 Import of Baptism. In p. z. he lays, " As baptilm is aa 
 ialtitution peculiar to the new and better covenant, fo ic 
 is to be found in that book, called the New Teltdmenl, 
 or covenant, and there only." Then he proceeds to 
 charge all who would look for any thing relating to this 
 inltitution in the Old Tedamtnt, as having." £omethm(;- 
 ellc in theu- view than, the limple inllitutlon of Chnll.'^ 
 
 btrany? 
 
9© A Dissertation on Baptism^. 
 
 its import and defign. This objection is a replying 
 againlt God, who commanded infants to be ad- 
 mitted into his church by circumcifion. Infants 
 can underftand the import and defign of baptifm, 
 as well as the infants of old underftood the inten- 
 tion of circumciQon, baptifm, and the forinkling 
 
 of 
 
 Stran^^e sfTertions theft I I hope my reader will find the- 
 coiitiwry clearly proved in the above fheeTs. 1 now add, 
 Did not John baptife ? Was his baptifni peculiar to the 
 new covenant, or, in other words,, to the New-Teftament 
 church ? Again, the word church " is to be found in that 
 book called the New Teftament, and there only." Mull 
 we. not, then, on this gentleman's principles, conclude, 
 tiiat a church " is an inltitution peculiar to the new and 
 better covenant," and that there was no church under 
 the Old Teftament r If Co, will it not alfo follow, that 
 this gentleman, who finds a church in the Old Teftament,. 
 containing ail that is eilential to the conftitution of a 
 iociety of that kind, muft " fure have fomething elfe in 
 his view than the fjmple inflitution of Chnlt ?" So fairly 
 do his own words condemn him I Commentators too 
 trequently take the liberty to ditfer from P'aul in lenti- 
 tnents, but generally take care not to contradidl him in 
 express term!. This author, however, is i\o\. io delicate. 
 Paul exprelsly fays, the law liood " in divers bap- 
 tifms." No, fays Mr M'Lean, there is no fuch inftitution 
 as baptifm " to be found in the Old Teftament !" 
 
 In the preface to this new work, it is obi'erved, that 
 *■ the controverfy feems now to be pretty much exhaufl- 
 cd, there being little publiihed on that fubjedil of late 
 years but a repitition of former arguments." It muft be 
 owned, this author has taken care to verify this aftertion 
 in his prefent work, as there is not one fentiment, argu- 
 ntient, or the Ihadow of an argument, to be found in it,. 
 lelating to the I'ubjtft or mode of baptifm, which this 
 author himself has not publillied before, particularly in 
 his '■ Defence of Believer-Baptifm." New waters muft 
 have new readers, and a new arrangementof argument may 
 give additional weight to the argument ; but it is hard 
 to fee for what purpofe the same author re-publiflies the 
 same ideas, without fo much as attemping to engage, at- 
 tention aftefli, by at Ualt a diveifi&catiuii of ex.prcflion. 
 
' A Dissertation on Baptism. pj- 
 
 of blood, I add, laying on hands was a divine 
 oidinance, and is put on a level with baptifnip- 
 Heb. vi. 2. But Jefus laid his hands on infants 
 and blefled them, though they underftood not the 
 import of that aftion. How inconclufive, then, 
 is this argument of the Baptifts I It only difplays 
 their own ignorance. Baptifm entitles infants to 
 tlie care of the church, to be educated in the nur- 
 ture and admonition of the Lord. Thus, they arc 
 fecured, during nonage, againit ignorance^ error,, 
 and idolatry, — a privilege of the higheft import- 
 ance. 
 
 4. It is argued, that this pra£tice confounds 
 the church with the world, making the birtii of 
 the flc(h entitle one to a place in the kingdom of 
 God. A fenfelefs obje6lion this ! Did circum- 
 cifion and baptifm ot old confound the church 
 with the world ? Or rather, was it not the very 
 badge of diflin6lion between believers and hea- 
 thens ? It was fo, while in nonage ; but if, 
 when children arrived at riper years, they turned 
 afide from the true God to idols, they were cue 
 off from the congregatio;i of the Lord, as hea- 
 thens. In this cafe, they fhewed that they were 
 not Jews -, for he never was a Jew who was only 
 one outwardly. It is fo dill. Soon as any baptifed 
 in infancy (hakes of the profefTion of the faith of 
 Jefus, or denies it in practice, that foul is to 
 cut off from his people, as a heathen man and 
 publican. 
 
 Had this argument any weight, it is of equal 
 force againll adult-baptifm. In both ways, hypo- 
 crites are blended with true believers. Simon 
 Magus was of the world, yet he received adult- 
 . baptifm. Did this confound the church with 
 the world ? No ; foon as his hypocrify appear- 
 ed, he was caft out of the church. He would 
 
 have 
 
^% j4 Dissertation on B.iptism, 
 
 have fliared the fame fate had he been baptifed 
 in infancy. 
 
 Nor does infant-baptifm proceed on the fup- 
 pofition, that the birth of the fiefti entitles one to 
 a place in the kingdom of God. The flelhly birth 
 never conferred fuch a claim. It did not fo even 
 in the national kingdom of Ifrael. Abraham be- 
 lieved God, and then was circumcifed, with his 
 feed. In like manner, every Jew, profeffing the- 
 faith of Abraham, had a title to circumcifion for 
 his child. But foon as any Jew defpifed or dif- 
 believed the promife, he was no more confidercd 
 as a Jew himfelf, nor had his infant feed any title 
 to circumcifion. The children of the flefh never 
 were the children of God. Only the children of 
 the promife, or fuch as profefTed faith in the pro- 
 mife, were counted for the feed. Many of Ifrael 
 fell ihort of the kingdom of Canaan. Why? 
 were they not Abraham's fleflily feed ? Yes ; bu6 
 they were not the children of his faith ; they 
 could not enter in becaufe. of " unbelief." Soon 
 as Efau defpifed the birth-right, neither he nor his 
 feed had any title to circumcifion, or to a place ia 
 the kingdom of Canaan. While the parent con-i 
 tinued in the faith, his child was confidered as of 
 the fame faith, and fo had a title to circumcifion,- 
 the feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith, i he 
 cafe is precifely the fame now. Not a conne6lion 
 with a parent as of the flefh, but a conned. -.»» 
 ■with a parent as of the faith, can entitle a child 
 to a. place in the vifible kingdom of Jefus Chrift. 
 In fliort, no objection can be brought againft in- 
 fant-baptifm, but is equally llrong againll infant- 
 circumcifion, 
 
 5. The argument taken from circumcifion will 
 excite the fneer of the Baptilts. They tell us, cir- 
 cumcifion was a fign of the old covenant, the feal 
 
 of 
 
A Dissertation on Baptism, 9 J 
 
 of a right to an earthly inheritance, and temporal 
 privileges, intended to diftinguilli the fleflily feed 
 of Abraham, to which one had a claim by his 
 birth of the fleih ; whereas baptifm is a fign o£ 
 of tlie new covenant, a fign of fpiritual and hea- 
 venly blefiings, to which no man is born heir by 
 his natural birth ; and confequently we cannot in- 
 f^r the right of infants to baptifm from the right 
 they had to circumcifion. This is the leading er- 
 ror of the Baptilts, involving in it a vafl number 
 of miftakes of no fmall importance, and of confe- 
 quence it requires a very minuie difcuiliion ; but 
 as fuch an invefbigation would fill a too difpro* 
 tionate department in this DilTertation, 1 have re- 
 ferved it for a feparate publication, announced in 
 the preface to this fmall performance. In the 
 mean time, the argument taken from the admifTion 
 of profelytes with their infants, by baptifm under 
 the law, in fupport of the continuance of that 
 praQice under the gofpcl, {lands inviolably firm, 
 fecured againfl. the keened attacks of the enemy. 
 
 6. The argument derived from the practice of 
 infant-baptifm in the firft Chriftian churches after 
 the apoflolic age, has been ftrongly oppofed. 
 Baptilts have denied the fadl, although the truth, 
 of it be fupported by fuch incotueftible evidence, 
 thatvit muil feem amazing how any could ever 
 pif'fume to call it in queftion. To invalidate the 
 evidence, they have pretended to produce a variety 
 of inftances of children born of Chriftian parentSj 
 who were not baptifed when young ; but this is a 
 mere aflTertion, uniupported by even the Ihadow of 
 proof. Many eminent fathers in thefe churches 
 uere not baptifed till they arrived at manhood i,_ 
 but it cannot be proved that their parents pro- 
 felTed Chrillianity at the tim.e of their birth ; and, 
 even although this could be proved, it would con- 
 clude. 
 
,94 -^ Dissertation on Eaptisfh. 
 
 dude nothing with refpe(3: to the general practice 
 of the churches, as will be evident to all who at- 
 tend to the many falfe and wliimfical ideas which 
 got pollcfiion of the minds of many members of 
 thele churches in a pretty early period. It will 
 be worth while to trace thefe ideas, particularly, 
 as among, them we will eafily find 
 
 The Origin of the Baptists. 
 
 We have already feen, that the famous Tertul' 
 hail had adopted a fancy, that every fin committed 
 after baptifm was either unpardonable, or nearly 
 fo \ for which reafon, he earneflly recommended' 
 the delay of baptifm till at leali the heat of youth- 
 ful palTion fubiided. Now, as TertuUian was a' 
 man of fuch eminence in his time, we may be fure 
 that an advice from him, urged with vehemence,, 
 and fupported by fuch plaufible arguments, could, 
 not fail to influence many. This was alfo a lead- 
 ing opinion among the fe£l called Novatians ; in 
 confequence of which, infant- baptifm could not 
 be pra^lifed among that feet ; and I may add, nor 
 could adult-baptifm either, till the hour of* death, 
 as they denied the remlfTion of fms to CL..jiians- 
 finning after baptifm. 
 
 Others, again, imagined, that the very zt$: oi 
 baptifm waflied away all fin whatever, and hence 
 deferred baptifm, that every one might gratify his 
 lufts without redraint, knowing that, if he could 
 get himfelf baptifed before death, he was fure of 
 a full remilTion. Others would delay baptifm rill 
 they had attained the thirtieth year, becaufe Chrid 
 was baptifed at that period of his life. On a fimi- 
 lar pretence, Constantine the Great would not be 
 baptifed but iu the livsr Jordan j and hence, as he 
 
 nev£r. 
 
A hissn'tatlon on Baptism. 95 
 
 •never came to that place, he only fubmltted to 
 baptifm on his death-bed. Some, moreover, de- 
 ferred baptifm till they could have accefs to be 
 baptifed by fome eminent bifhop. All thefe opi- 
 nions, and refutations of each of them, are to be 
 found in the vi^ritings of Bazil, Gregory, Nu'z-inn' 
 K,eny Chrysostomy Augustine' s Confession, and Kusc- 
 bius* Life of Constantine. 
 
 From the above fliort detail, it is eafy to fee 
 what a powerful and extenfive influence thefe 
 ideas mull have exerted among mankind, — ideas 
 fuited to the tafle of the whimfical, the capricious, 
 the fond of novelty, the lovers of pleafure, fup- 
 ported, at the fame time, by men of talents, in 
 eminent flations, and renowned for piety and 
 learning. Seeds fo congenial to the foil of man, 
 and cheriflied with fo much care, muft have taken 
 fuch a firm hold of the human heart, that we need 
 not wonder if time itfelf has not been able to ex- 
 tirpate them. Had they not been thecked in their 
 progrefs, by the ftrenuous efforts of men of great 
 eminence in the churches, they would probably 
 haveover fpread the far greater part of the Chri- 
 flian world. The votaries of thefe opinions, how- 
 beit, flill maintained a footing in various places ; 
 and although, for a long time, they feem to have 
 inculcated the delay of baptifm for fuch reafons as 
 have been mentioned, yet, as the tranfition from 
 thefe to an abfolute denial of the divine authority 
 for infant baptifm was fo very eafy, in proccfs of 
 ages infants were excluded from baptifm altoge- 
 iher, and that, as is ufual, in the name of Jcfus 
 Chrift. When or where this hll idea had its 
 birth, I imagine cannot be afcertained. It feems 
 to have dwelt in obfcurity for a time, till at lall it 
 buift forth from Its folitude in the fixteenth cen- 
 tury, and made a confiderable pro^^refs in Ger- 
 many, 
 
^6 A Dissertation on Baptism, 
 
 many, extending its influence to Holland, Britain, 
 and other countries, in all which it ftill maintains 
 its ground. Thus it has aflumed various forms. 
 At firft, it deferred the baptlfm of infants on pru- 
 dential confiderations ; at laft, it divefted them of 
 their right, and made the facred oracles pronounce 
 againft them the fentence of exclufion. In all 
 flages, however, it feems unhappily to have laid a 
 difproportionate ftrefs on what the fchoolmen call 
 the opus operatumy the a£t itfelf, and the mode of 
 performing it. A finger undipped would rendet 
 baptifm of no effe61: ! would make it <* a mere 
 human ordinance I" Scripture, too, muft be called 
 in to fupport this fancy. What has not been 
 fpoken and done in the name of the Lord ! Falfe 
 ideas, in religion, it feems, muft ftill be 
 
 THE MAGGOTS OF CORRUPTED TEXTS. . 
 
 LETTERS 
 
LETTERS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SINAI COYENAINT, 
 
 ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AS AN 
 
 APPENDIX TO A DISSERTATION 
 ON BAPTISM. 
 
 Vol. V. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO 
 
 THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 The Author of the « DissERXATroN on Bap- 
 tism" is happy to find, that his performance has 
 met the approbation of the more fenfible and im- 
 partial part of his readers. None fcem to have 
 oppofed it fave the ignorant who cannot, and the 
 bigot who will not underftand it. In confequence 
 of this, according to promife, he has now pubHfli- 
 ed the following thoughts on the important fub- 
 jeifs mentioned in the Preface to the l^iflertation ; 
 and as the writings of the Baptids, and many 
 felf-incunfiftent Pedobaptifts, have long tended to 
 throw a veil over both 'PeRaments, darkening the 
 council of God with words without knowledge, 
 fetting the divine difpenfations at variance, and 
 robbing the feed of Abraham of the rights derived 
 from their father, — it is hoped an attempt to re- 
 move this unhallowed veil from the facrcd re- 
 cords, that the glory of the divine plan appear 
 I 2 unveiled,, 
 
ICO 'Preface to the First Edition,. 
 
 unveiled, will not be anaccegtable to the lovers of 
 uuth. 
 
 The DiiTertation, as might have been expecled, 
 filled the Baptifts with rage and indignation. Of 
 this the author had a ftriking proof. Soon after 
 its publication, a preacher of that way from Edin- 
 burgh made a vifjt to Newburgh, with a view to 
 obviate the impreffions fuppofed to be made by 
 that heretical performance. Preaching from A£ts, 
 xvi he declaimed againft the author and his per- 
 formance with all the virulence natural to the 
 worfled party. He did one thing, however, very 
 cltver. To fupport the favourite idea, a river 
 muft be had to plunge the jailor and his houfehold 
 in, a conveniency which both nature and art had 
 denied to Philippi. This difficulty, which would 
 have puzzled a weaker head, he removed at once. 
 Canal-digging is the faihion of the times. He cut 
 a canal in a minute between the prifcn and the 
 houle of the jailor, in which the converts were 
 decently dipped ; and that with no labour fave 
 i-h^t cf the: lunes, and at no expence fave that of 
 the truth. Pity it is he had il6t tried his ikill on 
 a late occafion in the prifon of Edinburgh, that a 
 believing prifoner might not have run the rifk qf 
 damnation by dying unbaptifed. 
 
 A fhort time ago, the fame gentleman paid us 
 another vifit, bringing to us the gofpel of his king- 
 dom, — " No infants ought to be baptifed, or ad- 
 mitted into the kingdom of God opened to the 
 apoftles :" A gofpel not to be found in all the 
 facred records. Jefus laid his hands on little 
 children, and blefled them, and thus adminiflered 
 to them an ordinance of the fame kind with bap- 
 tifm, (Heb. vi. 2 ), faying, " Forbid them not to 
 come to me, for of fuch is the kingdom of God." 
 Forbid them, fays the Baptif!:, for while they live, 
 
 they 
 
Preface to the First Edition. 10 1- 
 
 they are to be viewed as of the klnj;do:Ti of the 
 devil, ahhough, when they die, I gracioully allow 
 them the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 It is highly probable that the Baptifls ideas will 
 prevail. Dipping is a novelty in this country. 
 Mankind, too, are fond of a fliowy, ritual religion, - 
 chiefly if it points out an eafy way to heaven. 
 Such is that of the Baptifts. What more fliowy 
 f«id fpecioas than their rile of immerfion, in which 
 they feem to place almofl all that is important in 
 Chridianity ? and what, at the fame time, more 
 eafy? One can be buried and rife again with 
 Chrill in a moment, without being crucified with 
 him. Then heaven is opened, and all its glories 
 are difplayed. The weak, the fplenetic, the fan- 
 ciful, the fond of novelty, the lovers of pleafure, 
 niuu. naturally embrace fuch a religion. The So- 
 cinians or half-deifts alfo, are mollly Baptifts in 
 principle. Thefe two ideas combined, will pro- 
 bably, in a fliort time, form the reigning religion. 
 When the Son of man comes, fliall he tind faith 
 en the earth ? When men are taught to confider 
 the Son oi God as a mere child of old Adam, di- 
 vefted of diviMity, their faith in him for a refur- 
 reclionand life eternal, can neither be ftrong nor 
 lafting. Accoi'dingly, the Socinians tell us already, 
 that if- there be a refurreiSiion, it will be accom- 
 pliilied by the laws of nature, and not by the 
 power of Chrift. When, too, Chrlftiins are 
 taught to view their cliildren as fons of the devil, 
 having no connecSlion with the faith of their pa- 
 rents^ who will teach them the laws of Chrill .'' — ■ 
 laws with which they have notliing tc do. Add 
 to thefe, the practice of mofl: parents, who bjptife 
 their children, and think no more of the matter ; 
 aaj we fee every thing tending to bring in the 
 1 3 infidelity 
 
202 "Preface to the First Edition. 
 
 infidelity which will iflue in the dcftrudion of the 
 world. 
 
 I have not the vanity to think, that any thing 
 I can fay (hall reach coHvidlion to the Baptifls. 
 The allufions of fancy are not eafily diffipated by 
 reafoning and argument. The moment thefe 
 people are dipped in water, they too often fliut 
 their eyes againft che light of truth, to be opened 
 no more, while the ear can liften with attention to 
 nothing but the cry of the party — Plunge, and be 
 faved. When the young difciple has been taught 
 to exclaim againft infant-baptifm, which he calls 
 Roman fprinkling, and to cry, What can infants 
 do ? can an infant believe ? he has learned his 
 •whole leffon, and is dubbed an adept in Chriftian 
 knowledge. He muft not know that the Greek 
 plunging has juft as little goodnefs in it as the 
 Roman fprinkling j or that an adult can do no 
 more to obtain a place in the kingdom of God 
 than an infant of days. In vain you bid him liften 
 to the inftru6lions of Jefus, telling him, that "un- 
 lefs he receive the kingdom of God as a little 
 child, he can by no means enter therein." This 
 do£lrine believed, would ftain the pride of his 
 glory, and caft down the high thing in the heart 
 which exalts itfelf againft Jefus. So hard a faying 
 cannot be received by thofe " who truft to them. 
 felves, and defpife others." 
 
 As the Baptifts, however, are conftantly repeat- 
 ing their publications in fupport of fo dangerous 
 and fatal delufions, it cannot be deemed improper 
 to vindicate the honour of truth, from time to 
 time, in the fame public manner, by manifefting 
 her evidence to every man's confcience, as in the 
 fight of God. This, if it fails to open the eyes of 
 the Baptift, will at leaft render him lefs excufeable 
 in the day of the JLordj v/hile others may be 
 
 thereby 
 
Preface to the First Edition. laj 
 
 thereby warned to avoid the fnares of deception, 
 fo artfully laid " by the ileight of men, and cun- 
 ning crattinefs, whereby they lie in wait to de- 
 ceive." 
 
 Although the following thoughts are addrelTed 
 t(y Mr M'Lean only, yet as Mr Booth's late piece, 
 entitled " Pedobaptifm Examined," fell into my 
 hands of late, I have alfo animadverted on that 
 voluminous work. The novelty of fome ideas, 
 and their oppofition to the fentiments of many re- 
 putable writers in the Pedobaptiil line, may tend. 
 to render this work lefs popular. Convmced, 
 however, that he has truth on his ficle, the author 
 is not afraid to pubiiih his views, and to fubmit 
 his caufe to the decifion of the Public. 
 
A 
 
 SERIES OF LETTERS 
 
 ACBRESSfeP TO 
 
 MR M'JLEAN. 
 
 LETTER I.. 
 
 Sir, 
 7 HAVE perufed your Letters to Mr Glas, and 
 •* alfo youf Defence of Believer-Baptism ; in botii 
 of which pamphlets you have difplayed talents for 
 controverfial writing of no inconfiderable luftre. 
 An acute difcernment quahfies you for fpylng out 
 x\\t weaknefs of your adverfaries, while a clear and 
 accurate expreffion affiits you in expofing them to 
 public view in the llrongeil point of light. A 
 confcioufnefs, too, of fuperior abilities, fo apparent 
 in your performances, prompts you to treat your 
 antagonill with contempt, and to bring forward 
 your own conceptions with fuch an affurance, as 
 throws an air of confidence around all you fay, 
 making the veriell fhadow of argument pafs with 
 \}tiz unwary for folid leafoning, and mere aiTertion. 
 
 for 
 
ic6 Letters on the Sinai Covenajit. 
 
 for truth. When to thefe qualifications we add youif 
 profefTcd zeal for the purity of the divine inftitu- 
 tions, and your avowed indignation againfl; all who 
 corrupt thefe facred ordinances, exprefftd in the 
 moft animated diclion, it muft be allowed that 
 you poflefs an affemblage of talents, which qualify 
 you in an eminent degree as the leader of a party. 
 If we except MelT. John Wefley and Adam Gib, 
 the prefent age does not feem to furniflr another 
 champion equally qualified for the arduous taflc. 
 
 In the matter of infant-baptifm, appearances 
 would feem to indicate that you have gained a 
 complete vidlory over your opponents, as they 
 have retreated, and left you mafter of the field. 
 Many, indeed, feem to think that you have ftated 
 their arguments with fairnefs, and refuted them 
 with evidence. Perhaps, however, this victory 
 may be accounted the more eafy, in that your 
 antagonifts have unwarily furmthed you with 
 weapons againfl theniftlves. From the premlles 
 they advance, your conclufion feems unavoidable. 
 This circumlfance has doubtlefs contributed to the 
 fucccfs of your caufe ; and on the blunders of 
 ynnr adversaries you have endeavoured to found 
 your claim to the hor.oursof a triumph. 
 
 But YOU know who faid, " If a man flriveth 
 for mafleries, he is not cro.vned, unlefs he ftriveth 
 lawfully" Your vltlory would h^ve been ho- 
 nourable, nor fhould I have wiflied to tear a fingle 
 laurel from your brow, had the weapons of your 
 warfare been drawn from the armoury of truth. 
 The man who has his quiver filled with thefe may 
 fpeak unblufhing to his ioes in the gate. But as, 
 on the contrary, error and mhtaken views of the 
 fcripture feem to me to have furniflied you with 
 the keeneH; fliafts of argument, your vi6lory is un- 
 fairly porchafed, and juftice cannot award you the 
 
 crov/n. 
 
-Letters on the Sinai Covenant. loy 
 
 crown. This you may think a very heavy charge ; 
 but as it appears to me to be well founded, I hope 
 your love of truth will difpofe you to allow me 
 the fame freedom you ufe with others, in expofing 
 the falfity of the principles on which your reafon- 
 ings depend, — principles which feem to me void 
 of truth, and altogether repugnant to the dodlrines 
 of the apoftles and prophets of Jefus Chrift. 
 
 What I propofc in this introductory epiftle, is 
 only to examine your ideas with refpeCt to the 
 appearanco of Chrift's kingdom in this world. On 
 this head you fay, " We cannot fay how great a 
 multitude may be faved, that are not included in 
 the appearance of Chrift's kingdom in this world, 
 both infants and adults. It is probable the greater 
 number of his fubjcCts are not included in that 
 appearance *." 
 
 If by the kingdom of Chrift you mean the Baptift 
 churches, the above aflertions are undoubtedly 
 true j no man can fay how great a multitude will 
 be faved, who never adopted the Baptift principles. 
 But by the appearance of Chrift's kingdom in this 
 •world, is certainly meant all who profefs to be- 
 lieve and obey him f . In this view, I would alk 
 you. On what ground do you found this opinion ? 
 Surely on fome unwritten tradition, and not on 
 fcripture. We know where Jefus has faid, 
 *« Whofoever ftiall confefs me before men, him 
 •will I alfo confefs before my Father." But the 
 fame Lord has added, *< Whofoever (hall be 
 aftiamed of me and of my words before men, of 
 
 him 
 
 * -Defence, &c. p. 7 2. 73. 
 
 t Or, as you exprefs it," fuch as confefs the faith, and 
 gi\e evidence to their fellow -men that they know the 
 truth." 
 
lo8 Xetters oh the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 him will I alfo be afhamed," &c. Chrlft's flieep 
 are reprefented as following him, and fufFering for 
 his fake. So fays Jcfus; but what fay you ? By 
 far the greateft number of Chrift's difciples never 
 profefs his faith, nor obey him. Is this the man 
 who exprefles fuch zeal againft others for adling 
 without fcripture precept or example in baptifmg 
 infants, while he himfelf direflly contradicts the 
 moft exprefs teftimony of Jefus Chrift f He who 
 will be my difciple, fays Jefus, muft confefs me 
 before men. No, fays one of his minifters, you 
 will confefs many before the Father, many adults, 
 who never confefl'ed you or your words before 
 men. Many (hall reign with you who never fuf- 
 fered with you ! ! ! A dangerous tenet this ! It 
 tends to perfuade men that they need not expofe 
 themfelves to inconveniences and fufFerings in pro- 
 fefling the faith of Jefus. Though they deny him, 
 or be afliamed of his words before men, yet if they 
 have a fecret faith in him, they fhall be faved. 
 This is the damnable do£trine fo generally believed 
 in the world, and forry am I that one, profefling 
 feparation from the world, fhould attempt to fup- 
 port the moft dangerous article in its creed. 
 
 With refpect to infants, you profefs that you 
 are " much inclined to judge favourably of the 
 Hate of all infants dying in infancy." To this I 
 reply, •' Have you charity for them ? Have it 
 ftill ; but let it be the charity of the truth." But 
 on what pait of the truth is this charity founded .'' 
 Jefus fays, " He that believeth and is baptifcd fhall 
 be faved." But your chanty fays. He that neither 
 believes nor is baptifed fhall be faved. Your bro- 
 ther D'Anvers alfo lays, that infants are " inca- 
 pable of regeneration." Yet they may be faved ! 
 The birth of the flefh, then, it feems, is iufficient to 
 
 form 
 
Letters on thi Sinai Covenani. 109 
 
 form U3 for heaven ! What ftrange deeds fome 
 men have* ! 
 
 But you will fay, When our Lord fpeaks of bc»i 
 lieving and being baptifed as neceflary to falvation» 
 he means that thefe are neceflary in adults, not in 
 infants. Right ; this is certainly true. But little 
 do you fee where this will lead you. It robs you 
 of your favourite argument againft infant-baptifm. 
 If Jefus, in this text, fpeaks of this method of fa- 
 ying adults, while he does not exclude infants ; 
 by the fame rule of interpretation, when he fays, 
 ** Go teach and baptife the nations," he only 
 makes inftru6lion neceflary to the baptifm of 
 adults, while he does not exclude infants from that 
 inftitution. If the one text does not exclude in- 
 fants from falvation, I own I know not by what 
 rule the other can be explained as excluding infants 
 from baptifm. Thus the argument ilill holds good. 
 If the eflabliflied prerequifites to the falvation cf 
 adults will not hold with refpedl to the falvation 
 of infants j neither will the prerequifites required 
 to adult- baptifm hold with refpedt to the baptifm 
 of infants. This reafoning, I imagine, mult be ob- 
 vious to every impartial mind. 
 
 There is another thing ftrikes me in your rea- 
 fonings concerning infants. You admit that the 
 true invifible kingdom of God has infants in it. 
 
 Vol. V. K while 
 
 * The notions of the Baptifts with refpeft to their in- 
 fants put one in mind of the ideas of the ancient Romans, 
 Many of the Emperors, while alive, were confidered ;ts 
 devils, and that too jaftly ; but ss foon as they uied, they 
 were deified or ranked among the gods. This gave oc- 
 cafion to this famous faying of Vefpafian when dying,— 
 " If I am not miltaken, 1 am going to be a god." — In 
 like manner, the Baptifts view their infants while livintr 
 as children of the devil ; but the moment they die, they 
 are dubbed faints. Death, it fcems, is the principle of 
 ianilification 1 
 
110 helters un the Siiiai CGveinmi. 
 
 while you will not allow that there are any fuch in 
 the churches of the faints, which conltitute his vi- 
 ilble kingdom on earth. A ftrangc aflertion in- 
 deed ! You admit that the churches belong to the 
 appearance of Chrift's kingdom, or that they are 
 vifible reprefentations of his invifible kingdom. 
 Now, what kind of a pitlure mult it be, that wants 
 a principal feature of the original ! As nearly half 
 of mankind die in non age, all which, according 
 to your charity, are of the eledlion, far more than 
 the half of the true invifible kingdom of God is 
 made up of infants. It is impolFible, then, that 
 a Baptill church, having no infants iti it, can be 
 a figure of that kingdom of which infant- falvation 
 is the principal feature. 
 
 Your charity for infants is highly inconfident. 
 If they die, it ailigns them a place in heaven ; if 
 they live, it ranks them with the children of 
 wrath. It fliuts them out from the church below, 
 but allows them the kingdom above. It gives 
 the greater privilege, but with-holds the IciVcr. 
 In fliort, it will allow them any thing but water- 
 baptifm. So whimfieal a thing is your charity ! 
 It will be hard "to reconcile her with heifelf; — 
 .and, 
 
 1 may add, it i<, as difficult to reconcile her 
 with the truth. The fcripture fays, ** Few are 
 choftn ;" but your charity avers, that at Jeart the 
 half of the human race are chofcn to falvation. 
 This looks very like a lie, ut lea it. Again, the 
 fpeaks of elc6l inf.mts ^^<, among the unhnyivii t\c3i. 
 How are they unknown, when Ihe knows id\ that 
 die in non-age are elc6\cd. 
 
 \Vhen I read your argument In fupport of tiie 
 election of infaiits, I know not whether to be 
 nioll furprifed at its intrinfic weaknefs, or the air 
 of confidence with which it is produced, j.icob 
 
 Vf' a b 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenctnt. til 
 
 was elected before he was born, Rom. ix. ir. 
 yea, *• before the foundation of the world," Eph. 
 i. 4. fo that there mull be ele<Sl infants*. BuC 
 what was Jacob eletled to ? Why, to be the fa- 
 ther of the feed to whom the promifes were.made. 
 Could he be fo while an infant ? Surely not. A- 
 gain, if this argument means any thing, it will 
 prove that Efau was a reprobated infan^t, as it is 
 equally faid of him that he was hated before he 
 was born. Now, to what was he reprobated ? 
 Why, to lofe the birth right. Did he this while 
 an infant ? No ; he fold it when a man. More- 
 over, by ele£l infants, you mean " that part of 
 the elect who die in infancy." Did Jacob and 
 Efau die in infancy .'' If not, to what purpofe is 
 your argument .? Jacob's ele<Slion to obtain a pri- 
 vilege when become a man, can never prove the 
 cledlion of fuch as die in infancy. Again, if you 
 conclude from this text, that there are eleCl in- 
 fants, dying in infancy, you mull alfo conclude, 
 that there are reprobate infants, who die in in- 
 fancy, fince it is as exprefsly faid of Efau that he 
 was hated, as of Jacob that he was loved, before 
 he was born. In this cafe, you mull give up that 
 charity which inclines you " to judge favourably, 
 of the fhate of all infants dying in infancy." — I 
 may add, this argument will prove too much. 
 The ele£l were chofen before the foundation of 
 the world, i.e. when as yet they were not. Hence 
 you mud conclude, that fince we were all nothing 
 before we were infants, there mufl be elecSl no- 
 things. A very odd argument indeed ! 
 
 13ut you add, " There mult be ele£l infants, elfe 
 
 there would be no eletl at all, for all mankind 
 
 are infants before they becoirie adults." Fine 
 
 rcafoning ! It is as if you had laid. There mult be 
 
 K 2 manufacturing 
 
 Defence of Believeis' Bautlfin, p. yj. 
 
112 he tcrs on the Su)ai Ccvenant. 
 
 manufacturing infants, elfe there would be no 
 manufa(Clurers at all, for all manufaClurers are in- 
 fants before they become adults ! Whether is this 
 ranting or reafoning ? 
 
 The truth is, your argument has no foundation 
 in the text quoted. From God's eledfling us to 
 do or er.joy any thing when come to manhood, we 
 cannot infer that he has chofen us to do or enjoy 
 that thing in infancy. Befides, your interpreta- 
 tion oppofes every thing tlie fcripture fays con- 
 cerning elrclion. Paul tells us, Rom. vii. 2p. 3c. 
 ♦* V>"hcm he did foreknow, he alfodid predeltinate, 
 —whom he did prtdedinate, them he alfo called," 
 ike. Now, can infants be called ? Or does he 
 iay any are predefiinated who are not called? 
 -^gain, " God has chofen you to falvatlon, tlirough 
 fandlification of the Spirit and belief of the truth ;" 
 and can infants believe it .'* Such is the fcripture- 
 doctrine of eleCtion ; and, to ufe your own words, 
 *< I lay it down as an axiom, which I am confi- 
 dent none can overthrow," — That none are faid to 
 be eledled to falvation but through the faith which 
 faves. 
 
 The laft proof you adduce is, " Suffer little 
 children to come to me, for of fuch is the king- 
 dom of God." This is no proof at all, on your 
 interpretation of it. If infants, literally tahen^ 
 were here meant, this text would be much to 
 your purpofe, yea, it would amount to a full 
 proof J but in your view, «' our Lord by thefe 
 words does not fo much intend x\^q persons of little 
 children, as thofe who refcmble them in disposi- 
 tions" How, then, does this prove that the per- 
 fons of little children dying in infancy lliall be 
 faved ? 
 
 The truth Is, infant- falvation is an abfurdity in 
 your fyitem. You aver that the promife on 
 
 which 
 
LvtUrs Ji tht Sindi Coveftanl. 113 
 
 H'hicli baptifm (lands is not to children, but to be^ 
 litving aJultb. Now, ail ibc grace of Gud bring- 
 ing falvation is contained in tliat pronulc, Ad^s, 
 ii. 38. 39. iii. 25. it the promifc, then, docs not 
 extend to infants, how is it pollibk that infants 
 can be faved ? 
 
 Other denominations believe the doctrine of in- 
 fant falvation ; but they bold it confilteiitly with 
 other parts of their fylleni. While they admit in- 
 fants to a place in the kingdom above, they at the 
 fame time allow them a place in the kingdom of 
 God below ; whereas your practice belies your 
 principle. Why does not your charity extend to 
 living iniants as well as dead ones ? You cannot 
 fay of any infant when born, that it will not die; 
 in infancy. AVhy, then, have you uot charity for 
 it, till it arrive at riper years ? 
 
 i3y what 1 have written, I only mean to ex- 
 pofe your weaknefs in perverting Utc fcriprure to- 
 prove a doctrine totally incontiltent \^ ith youi fyf- 
 tem. I do not mean to fay that inhuits dying iu 
 infancy are not faved. Saved tiicy may be, for 
 ■who can fet bounds to the grace of God, who 
 faves whom he wills .'' As he commanded the in- 
 fants of believiilg parents to receive the fign of 
 the everlalling covenant, there can be nothing im- 
 probable in the fuppofition, that he propofes to 
 convey to them the grand bleiling of that cove- 
 nant, even life eternal: and as fhey. die through 
 the fin of Adam, it is probable they will be made 
 alive, through the righteoufnefs of Jefus Chrilt. 
 But that ail infants dying in inlancy lliall enjoy 
 this falvation, is a tenet i have net yet lound in 
 fcripture. To allert it, then, is to encroach on 
 the Ibvereignty of God, who " has mercy on 
 whom he will have mercy," and has^ power to 
 K 3 make 
 
1 14 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 make «' one velTel to honour and another to dif- 
 honour." — I am, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Yours, Sec. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 T NOW proceed to examine the foundation on 
 ■*- which all your reafonings againfl infant-bap- 
 tifm are built. Thefe all (taiid upon a very que- 
 ftionable hypotlitfis — That the Old and New 
 Tellament churches are totally diftindl the one 
 from the other. Thefe focieties, you imagine, are 
 different, \st. In their conflitution and design, — 
 the former being a type, of which the latter is the 
 antitype ; idly^ In the covenants on which they 
 were ellablilhed — the one upon the 0/,r/ covenant, 
 the other upon the AVu' ; 5i//)», With refpe6l to 
 the feeds, who were members of thefe churches, 
 and tx) whom thefe covenants were given, the Old- 
 Tedament church being made up of the carnal ox 
 jleshiy feed of Abraham, who were only typically 
 holy, as the New-Teftament church confifls of 
 the spiritual and truly holy feed of Abraham. 
 Tliefe differ with regard to \\\q. majiner of admiffion 
 to their communion, feeing the fleshly birth en- 
 titled men to the privileges of the former, where- 
 as the .fpii ituai birthy or faith in Chritl Jefus, can 
 only entitle any to a place in the church of the 
 Kew Tellament. Thefe are the leading ideas of 
 
 your 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. iiyj 
 
 your fyftem : let us fee if they be to be found in 
 die fcriptures of truth. 
 
 lif, You view the Old-Teftament church as 
 of an earthly, carnal difporitiou, having carnal or- 
 dinances, and fo only typical of the N^w-Tefta- 
 nient church, which is wholly fpiritual, the anti- 
 type of the other. One part of this alTertion is 
 true : The Mol'aic church had carnal ordinances, 
 and a worldly fan<Stuary. Her whole fyftem of 
 facrihcature, her laws and government, were flia- 
 dov/s of good things to coiriC. Thus flie was a 
 type ; but v/here liie is faid to be a type of a New- 
 Teltament church, flridtly fo called, 1 cannot find. 
 
 There is a church, indeed, mentioned in the 
 New Teftament, which is called " the general 
 aiiembly and church of the firft-born, which 
 are enrolled in heaven ; the whole family in hea- 
 ven and earth •, the one body, having the one fpi- 
 rit," whereof Chrift is the head. This fociety is 
 the true church or kingdom of Jefus Chrift, into 
 which no hypocrite nor unclean thing can enter ; 
 — a church unfeen as yet by mortal eyes, but will 
 be vifible when Chrilt comes the fccond time, to 
 gather all his faints into one place. Of this church 
 the Mofaic one was a figure j but this is not the 
 New-Teflament church or kingdom, as we find 
 Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob in it, who furely lived 
 under a former difpenfation. When we come to 
 this church, we come to the fpirits of juft men 
 made perfect, Heb. xii. 23. 44. and fit down with 
 Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of 
 God. This church, then, exifts under both Tef- 
 taments, and fo cannot be called either the Old 
 or New Teftament church. She is a kingdom 
 prepared before the foundation of the world, to 
 the piomife of which all true believers have been 
 coming from the beginning to this day ; — a king- 
 
 dom; 
 
Il6 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 dom, to which the prophets and apoflles bear w4t- 
 nefs, which fliall appear when tlie prefent ftate 
 of things is pall, i'his church is wholly fpiri- 
 tual ; her meinbers are the truly holy feed, lieirs 
 of everlafting and heavenly privileges. But the 
 New-Tertament church, llrictly fo called, means 
 thofc focieties vvhich the apoftles planted, called 
 churches of the faints, profefTmg the faith and 
 keeping the commandments of Jefus. Every fuch 
 fociety or church, you jultly call " a visible repre- 
 sentation of that one body which is invifible" in its 
 prefent (late. A church of this kind is not wholly 
 I'piritual, as you admit that " hypocrites and un- 
 believers may enter into" her. 
 
 Was the Old-Tellamcnt church, then, a type 
 of a church of this defcription ? It is abfurd to 
 fay fo. Since every New-'Feitament church is, by 
 your own account, a visible representation or a 
 tyfie^ how can fhe be the antit^e ? It feems the 
 Mofaic church was the type of a type, and the 
 New-Teftament churches both type and antitype ! 
 What nonfenfe will men fpeak when they do not 
 think ! 
 
 The truth is, both thefe churches are of the 
 fame kind — both are vifiOle — both types or vifible 
 reprefentations of the unfeen and heavenly king- 
 dom, — both are fchools in which the children of 
 God are born, nurfed, and trained up into a 
 meetnefs for the everlalUng inheritance. If the 
 one had carnal ordinances, the other Hill has fome 
 fuch. If hypocrites and unbelievers were found 
 in the ancient church, many of Ifrael who were 
 not Israel, fo it is in the New. Chrill will not 
 gather out of his kingdom all things that offend^ 
 and all that do iniquity, until he come again. — In 
 none of thefe refpetts, then, can thefe two focie- 
 ties be diftinguiilied from one another. Both are 
 
 included 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 1 1 7 
 
 included in the appearance of Chrifl's kingdom in 
 this world. In all the flates of this kingdom, he 
 is tlie King, the Judge, and Lawgiver, — the ruler 
 of the iear of God. " Noxv is my kingdom not 
 from hence ;" — this fuppofes that he had a king- 
 dom before noxu. 
 
 Where, then, lies the difference between theffe 
 two churches ? Paul tells us, •' Life and immor- 
 tality is brought to light by the gofpel " the go- 
 fpel has thrown a fupeiior luftre around the doc- 
 trines of life ^and immortality. " We are not 
 come to Sinai, but to Zion 5" not to hear the voice 
 of terrriblc words, but the milder found of love. 
 <' We have not received the fpirit of bondage 
 again to fear, but the fpirit of adoption, crying, 
 Abb.i, Father j" — the fpirit of love and of a calm 
 iiiind. The priefthood being changed, there 
 mud of necelfity be a change of the law. We 
 have got another high-prieft, who has other fons, 
 and confcquently all the laws executed by, and 
 connected with, the priellhood of Levi, the public 
 ordinances of worOiip, order, and difcipline, muft 
 be changed. W^e are come nearer the heavenly 
 Jerufalem, that of the living God, as the gofpel 
 affords us brighter profpe6ts of her glories, fa 
 that our faith fubilantiatcs things unfeen. Every 
 caufe of enmity between Jew and Greek is ilain 
 by the crofs, fo that Gentiles are no more called 
 flrangers and foreigners, but fellow -burgeffes with 
 the faints, and of the very houfehold of Gcd. — la 
 thefe and fuch like lefpecls, the New-Tellament 
 church differs from the Old. 
 
 But they do not differ as the vifible or typical^ 
 and true or fpiritual kingdom of Jefus Chrift. 
 'Ihis true invifible kingdom conOlts of real be- 
 lievers, U'orfliipping God in fpirit, has exilted in 
 botljj and has always been the true ftaminal part 
 
 of 
 
1 1 8 Letters en the Sinai C'^vennni. 
 
 of each. It has had, and ftill has, its feat in th'€ 
 heart, unftren of men : and with refpect to viiibi- 
 Hty, it is yet to come. Chrlft's kingdom will only 
 appear when he appears hinifclf •, he '• Ihall judge 
 the quick and dead," fays Paul, «« at his appear- 
 ing, and his kingdom," Tim. iv. i. This has 
 been the obj £1 ol: hope under both Teliaments : 
 ** The reftitution of all things God hath fpoken of 
 by the mouth of his holy prophets, fince the world, 
 began." If Peter fay?, " \Ve look for a new heaven 
 and a new earth, wherein dwellcth righteoufnefs," 
 Ifaiah fays the fame thing. The patriarchs looked 
 for an heavenly country, as well as liie apollles. 
 This heavenly kingdom is not yet come : Paul 
 only faid, " The Lord will bring me to his hea- 
 venly kingdom ;" snd Peter tells us, that "an abun- 
 dant entrance Ihall be minillered to us into the 
 everlalHng kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Je- 
 fus Chriii:." How, then, it has entered the braiiw 
 of mortals to fay that a New Tedament church 
 is the true, fpiritual, everlafting kingdom of ChrilV, 
 is furprifing. A church of this kind is only an 
 appearance, likenefs, or figure, of tlais kingdom, 
 in her vifible capacity; and is the fame with that 
 of Ifrael in a diticrent drefs, or under different 
 modifications. Initead of faying the Old Telta- 
 ment and New Teilament church, it is more pro- 
 per to fay the Old Tellament and New Tellament 
 ilate of the church. In both Hates Ihe is a vifible 
 fociety, having many hypocrites and unbelievers 
 mixed with the few chofen in her. Abraham is 
 the father of both. The promife given to him, 
 even the everl.dling covenant, is the "root and 
 fatnefs of this olive," as his feed lias been her 
 llaminal branches in both Itates. The Jews were 
 the firft called, both under the law and under the 
 gofpel. The apoillcs, as well as the prophets, were 
 
 Jews 
 
Letters on the Si^iai C'j-ven^int. up 
 
 Jews by birth. The Gentiles are only wild felons 
 ingr^iflVd Into this olive. To this church, how- 
 btif, they have always had accefs ; at fird in the 
 char..i(fler of " flrangers and foreigners," but now 
 as " fcllow-ciiizens, fellow-heirs, atid of the fame 
 body." In both dates (lie is a figure, a vifible re- 
 preft:ntation of the coming or everlafling ftate of 
 the kingdom of Chrlfl:, In both her office-bearers, 
 ordinances oi worflilp, and place of alTcnibly, are 
 earthy, typical, and temporary. In both her 
 candle:Hck is vifible, and can be removed out of 
 its place, Rev. ii. 5. Her table of fliew-bie.id, 
 and laver of wafliing, is the fame, — all are signs of 
 fpiritual and heavenly things, but are not the hea- 
 venly things themfelves. Only at the end of this 
 Hate of things is the New Jcrufalem to come 
 down from God out of heaven. The form r 
 itate of the church, then, is not fo properly call- 
 ed a type or figure of ihc prewnfy as of ctic unfeen 
 and coming kingdom or church of Jefus. 'ihe 
 Mofaic church had " an example and ihadow of 
 heavenly things, patterns of things in the hea- 
 vens ;" but thefe heavens, we are told by Paul, 
 are the place into which Chriil has entered, << now 
 to appear in the prefence of God for us," Thefe 
 heavens, then, arx; not on earth. 
 
 There are fome of thefe things prefigured by 
 the law already come. The incarnation, fuif'^r- 
 ings, death, burial, r<;furrecl;ion, afcenfion, and 
 glorification of Chriil, are pait : but the afH^mbly 
 er ctiurch of which the Oid ICtament one was a 
 figure, is not yet come. Thefe fadls did tiot take 
 place in a Ncw-'I eiLunent church, although a 
 prolclRun of faiih in them entitles us to a place 
 in a church of that dcfcription. Thefe glorious 
 fa£f:s are exprelTcd in the ordinances of th.it church, 
 and iccc'gnifed as already p.ift, in accompliih.nent 
 
 of 
 
120 X-etters on the Si/uii Covenant. 
 
 of the ancient promifes. Yet this makes no ma- 
 terial difPerence in the conflitutlon of the church 
 vifible. Formerly {he exhibited or reprefented 
 thefe facSls as about to come, in all her ordinances ; 
 now (he recognises them in all her inftitutions as 
 come j yet in both dates (he looks forward to a new 
 ftate of things, the new heavens and the new 
 earth, to appear at the time of the reftitution of 
 all things ; and in both (lie is a figure of the 
 church of the firft-born, to be gathered together 
 on that glorious occafion. 
 
 But did not Chrift fay, " The kingdom of hea- 
 ven is at hand ?** And does he not mean thereby 
 the gofpel-church ? I anfwer, as the gofpel-church 
 is nearer in point of time to the coming kingdom, 
 which (he has a more clear revelation, and a more 
 fure and vifible ground of hope laid in the refur- 
 re6lion of Chrid from the dead, — as alfo (he has 
 far lefs of an earthy and carnal nature in her laws 
 and ordinances, the fpiritual intention of which is 
 more ea(ily underflood, — as, finally, (he has no 
 earthly kingdom between her and the heavenly 
 one, to engage her attention to this world, or in- 
 tercept her views of future things, — (he may be 
 called the kingdom of heaven with refpeft to the 
 former ftate of the church. Yet flili the true 
 kingdom is the objedl of hope, and will only ap- 
 pear with her Lord. The church now is in the 
 wildernefs, where, like Ifrael, (he feeks a city to 
 come, and a kingJom that cannot be (liaken. 
 
 The true model, platform, or pattern of thefe 
 focieties, called Chrillian churches, is to be fought 
 for, not in the Mofaic conllitution of a church, 
 but in the fynagogues of the Jews, eredled after 
 the return from Babylon. Thefe aflbciations or 
 churches were many in number, fimilar with re- 
 fpe6^ to office-bearers, laws of difcipline, order, 
 
 and 
 
Letters on tJje Smai Covenants I 2 E 
 
 and worfliip, and each having an independent au- 
 thority, or a power in itfelf over its own members 
 in matters of government, fo that no member of 
 one fynagogue was amenable to the jurifdidlion of 
 any other fynagogue whatever. Moreover, all of 
 them confidered themfelves as members of the ge- 
 neral aflembly, meeting at the old Jerufalem, 
 towards which they always worlhippcd, even in 
 the moil diftant regions, and to whofe laws they 
 were all refponlible. This is the moft exadi mod;;} 
 of the Chriltian churches. Thefe borrowed from 
 the fynagogue, their offices, office-bearers, with 
 their names, general laws of order, and indepen- 
 dency in point of authority. In profeffion, they 
 are all members of *' the general aflembly, the 
 church of the iirll-born," meeting in heaven, to 
 which all their worfhip is directed, and to whofe 
 'laws every man is accountable. As the Meffiali 
 had propofed to eilablilh this model, or plan of 
 government and order in his Ncv/-TeitameiJC 
 kingdom, the erection of fynagogues fo long be- 
 fore, was a meafure pregnant with wildorn. 
 Thus the prejudices of none were (liocked^with 
 novelty ; but the mind of all were prepared to 
 fubmit to a fyllem, which made no material 
 alteration in the plan already eftabhihed among 
 them. 
 
 The tabernacle of Mofes, indeed, was a figure, 
 not of any viiiule church in the prefent llaie of 
 MefTuh's kingdom, but of that kingdom at large, 
 including heaven and earth. The molt holy was 
 the ligure of the heavens, into which Chriit has 
 now entered, to purify the heavenly things wuii 
 his own blood. Belides this, there was tne holy 
 place, and the court of the tabernacle, in the 
 -former flood the altar of inccnfe, the candlcllick, 
 and the table of fhew-bread ; in the latter, tuc 
 Vol. V. L altar 
 
:m Letters on the Sinai Covenaitt. 
 
 altar of burnt-ofFering, and the laver, where the 
 bufinefs of facrificature and wafliing was perform- 
 ed. Between thefe alfo a feparatiug veil hung. 
 This was a figure, for the time then prefent, of 
 the flate of things in the church on earth. Into 
 this church men have always entered by baptifm 
 •with water, and faith in the blood of atonement. 
 The altar of facrifice and the laver were placed 
 over againfl the door in the outer court of the 
 tabernacle. So men entered while the law flood ; 
 fo we enter under the gofpel. Formerly men faw 
 but the figurative prieft and facrifice ; now the 
 true Prielt has oft'crcd the true facrilice, and that 
 in the external part of the church, in the view of 
 Jew and Gentiie. The erofs is cxpoftd to the 
 view of all. Thus we fee a. better facrifice, and a 
 better priefl ; but lUU they are in the external 
 court, and this court is given to be trodden under 
 foot of the Gentiles. Men profaned the external 
 fervices of religion under the law ; they do fo ilill. 
 The crofs, its do£l:rines, and facrifice, have bten 
 abufed to the moft pernicious purpofcs. Specu- 
 lating on thefe fubjedVs, tc the Jew they have 
 been a flumbling-block, and to the Greek fooliih- 
 iiefs. Both have trampled under foot the Son of 
 God, and counted .the blood of th/;. covenant an 
 unholy thing. In many forms, other priells, and 
 other facrifices have been fet up in this place, to 
 the difparagement of the true one. 
 
 Yet Itili the true Ifraeiite mull enter the houfe 
 of God by this door, — by faiih in the facrifice, 
 and the laver of wafliing. This is the eilablillcd 
 plan of Heaven. By txccvnal ordinances we entir 
 into the holy place, the place oi erjoyment, the 
 .place of eating vi'lth God, walking in t!ie lighr of 
 •he candkfticks, or churches, eating the iacnfice 
 
 aud 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. jf2r 
 
 and fliew-bread, and ofF-ring up the inccnfe of 
 prayer and praife, let on fire by a fpark of love 
 from the crofs of Jefus. The outer court is the 
 place of fpeculation j the internal, the fcene of 
 enjoyment. 
 
 By the above view is not meant, that the real 
 difciples of Jefus fliould join in religious fellow- 
 Ihip with fuch as abufe and pervert the external' 
 fervices of Chriilianity, who corrupt the faith or 
 worfliip of the gofpel. Falfe Ifraehtcs let up idols 
 in the houfe of God of old, and offered facrifices 
 which God abhorred. Some joined the worfliip 
 of Jehovah with the worlhip of idols, profelhng 
 to fear the Lord, yet ferving their own gods. 
 Heathens, too, broke into the temple, defiling it 
 by their falfe worlhip. With fuch no true 
 Ifraelite was allowed to join in fellowfhip ; from 
 fuch he muft turn away. In like manner, even 
 in the apollolic age of Chriftianity, many corrupt- 
 ers of the faith and worfliip of the gofpel fprung 
 up, from whofe religious fellowihip t*aul charges 
 the true difciples of Jefus to turn away. He 
 foretells a ftill greater apoftacy in the latter times,, 
 under a kind of profefBon of Chriftianity. Yet 
 ftill he does not allow us to give up with an open 
 profeflion of the faith of Chrift, or to forfake the 
 obfervation of the external ordinances of worfhip 
 or difcipline he has inftituted. Ihis is to be 
 done, indeed, in a way of feparation from the 
 corrupters of that faith, and of thefe ordinances ; 
 yet ftill it mull be done -, and wherever a few are 
 thus met together, to worfliip in the fpirit, and 
 according to the truth of the gofpel, there, Jefus 
 has alTured us, he will be witli them to blefs 
 them. 
 
 In my next, I fii.dl review your ideas of the 
 ■ L z two 
 
124 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 two covenants, on which you fuppofe thefe {wo 
 churches were founded. I am, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your's, &c. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 "iN your ^ih letter to Mr Glafs, you divide the 
 •*■ Abrahamic covenant in two parts, the one call- 
 ed the old covenant, the other the new. The 
 former «* was only a temporal relation betwixt 
 God and a particular nation, which is now done 
 axvaj/f and come to an end. It was carnal and 
 
 earthy — in its worship sacrifices mediator—' 
 
 priests — sanctuary — promises, and subjects ;" where- 
 as, " the new covenant is an eternal relation be- 
 twixt God and his people from among all nations, 
 and is therefore called an everlasting covenant. 
 It is spiritual and heavenly, in its v.'orship, sacrijicey 
 mediator^ priest, sanctuary, promises, and subjects. 
 The old covenant, with all its typical oeconomy, 
 was founded on the temporal promife made to 
 Abraham concerning his fiefhly feed," (p. 62.) 
 
 *« This is called the old covenant, on account of 
 the temporal relation betwixt the Lord and that 
 nation, which is now done away. The law, on 
 account of the law therein given to them ; and 
 the firfl tistaviejity on account of the typical 
 adoption, and the temporal inheritance. On the 
 contrary, 
 
 *' When the fulnefs of time was come, and 
 
 God 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 1 25 
 
 God proceeded to fulfil the fpirltual promife, he 
 did it by means of another covenant, with Abra- 
 ham's fpiritual feed of all nations. This is called 
 the tiexv covenant^ in reference to the other, which 
 was made old, and the new fpiritual relation be- 
 twixt God and that new nation, made up from 
 among all nations, kindreds, and tongues ; the 
 ?tcw testmncnt, on account of the true adoption, 
 and the heavenly inheritance, of which Chrilt, 
 the firft-born, is both teftator and heir." 
 
 Such is your account of the two covenants; 
 and it muft be owned, it is more jull tiian many 
 others given on that fubjt'tb; Yet, in my view, 
 it is Hill highly imperfect, inaccurate in fome 
 parts, in others unjull; it gives no dillin£lidea of 
 the word covenant ; it makes the two covenants 
 totally dillindl in all refpedls ; it m >kes the right 
 of the native Jew to the land of Canaan ce.ifc at 
 the commencemeat of the new covenant ; it ex- 
 cludes the fpiritual feed from any claim to the 
 promife of the earth ; it makes the two feeds to 
 whom the promifes were nude, and the covenants 
 given, totally didindl:. 
 
 If we would have juft views of this important 
 fybje6li we muft attend to the matter of the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, and trace it up to its origin. 
 The ?nattery or thing conveyed by that covenant, 
 is a blefling. Thou ilialt be a bleding, fays God t'j 
 Abraham ; and when the Gentiles are taken into 
 that covenant, the blefling of Abrahanr is faid to 
 come upon them, Gail. iii. 14. This blefling was 
 firft revealed to man in Eden, when, to fupport 
 the hope of the trembling fmner, God aflurcd him 
 that a feed of the woman fliould appear, in due 
 time, to dellroy the devil, the murderer of man- 
 kind, and to abolifti all his works, even iin, death, 
 and woe. This promife was c.vlUd God's covenaur, 
 L3, io 
 
1 16 Letters on the Sinai C:^venant. 
 
 fo early at leafl as the days of Noah, fince Goi. 
 fays to him, " With thee will I eftablifli my cove- 
 nant," Gen. vi. 18. It was accordingly eflabliflied 
 in the line of Shem, through whom it defcended 
 to Abraham, Ifaac, Jacob, Judah, and David. 
 Here I fliall make the following obfervations. 
 
 I. Although this promife at firll i'eemed entire- 
 ly fimple, refpe61:ing one bleflang only, yet, in its 
 couife, it unfolded itfeif into tv/o capital blefhngs, 
 which parted again into flill lell'er fubdivifions. 
 Like the river of Eden, it was fimple in its origin, 
 yet, iffuing from the garden, it divided itfeif into 
 various heads. It was never determined to con- 
 fine its influences to a nation j no, by it all the 
 families of the earth were to be blefied. Nor did 
 it contain only fpiritual and heavenly blefTings, as 
 is commonly imagined, but all temporal and 
 earthly too. PjuI's account of godlinefs ever was^ 
 and ever will be true : " It is profitable unto all 
 things, having the promife of the live that now is^ 
 and of that which is to come." 
 
 As is the curse, or condemnation, fo is the 
 hlessing. The curfe was twofold, extending to the 
 life of man, and the earth, by which his life was 
 fupported. The free gift, then, or the blefiing, 
 mult have extended both to the earth and to the 
 life of man, otherwife it would not have been 
 commcnfurate with the curfe ; whereas, Paul al- 
 fures us, that it does not only reach as far as the 
 condemnation, but it " much more abounds.'* 
 Before the days of Noah, fuch as believed the 
 promife, had not only their fplrits fupported by 
 the hope of life and immortality through the feed, 
 or enjoyed friendly intercourfe with God, walking 
 with him in the inftitutions fymbolically exhibit- 
 ing the way to life, but earthly bleflings were 
 alfo given ttiem. Outcafls from the church were 
 
 made 
 
Letiets on the Siiiai Covenant. I Zf 
 
 made fugitives and vagabonds in the earth, un- 
 happy even in the pvefent life; otherwlfe why is it 
 confidtred as a curfe to be driven out to the land 
 of Nod. The covenant ever was given to eftablifh 
 the earth ; and when unbelief in, and contempt 
 of that covenant had filled the earth with violence, 
 fo as to dtftroy its conftitution by the flood, .it 
 was renewed by virtue of the covenant eftablifhed 
 with Noah. 
 
 However fimple, then, the promife might ap* 
 pear before Noah's time, yet in his days it was 
 obvioufly divided into two heads. The covenant 
 eftabliflied with Noah contained, Jlrst^ A promife 
 of life and happinefs to man, furnilhing him with 
 provifian for the fupport of the individual, and 
 the continuance of the fpecies j aflaring him, at 
 the fame time,^ that he would require an atone- 
 ment for the life of man, firft by the blood of 
 beads, and then by the blood of Him who is 
 every man's brother, who by dying fliould de- 
 flroy the devil, the fliedder of man's blood, the 
 murderer from the beginning, — a farther explana- 
 tion of the manner in which the feed of the wo- 
 man fhould bruife the head of the ferpent. Second- 
 ly, This covenant contained a promife of blefTmgs 
 to the earth, taking ofF the curfe from the ground, 
 and fccuring the regular interchangf^s of the fea- 
 fons, while the earth remains. Thus, according 
 to his f^ither's prediftion, Noah comforted man- 
 kind " concerning their work, and the toil of their 
 hands, becaufe of the ground which the Lord 
 liad curfed." Both parts of the promife are briefly 
 delcribed in Gen. ix. ii. " I will eftablifh my 
 covenant with you, neither lliall all flefh be cut 
 off any more by the waters of a flood, neither 
 ftiall there be a flood any more to deRroy the 
 earth." 
 
 Thefe 
 
r28 Letters en the Sirud Covenant. 
 
 Thefe two pronnifes, branches of the great ori- 
 ginal, Hke two ftreams, run through the whole 
 earth, diffufing bleihngs among all mankind, — 
 peace on earth, and benevolence to men. From 
 thefe proceeded all the light, the knowledge, and 
 happinefs of mankind in fucceeding ages. The 
 one had its fign or token of fecurity in the clouds, 
 the other in the fan6tuary. The rainbow was the 
 pledge of fecurity for man's natural life, and for 
 the fertility of the earth -, the blood of facrifical 
 beafts was the fign of God's determined purpofe 
 to take vengeance on the murderer of man, by de- 
 flroying him and his works, fin and death, until 
 the feed fliould come, whofe blood fhould give 
 the full afTurance of faith in this purpofe, on which 
 all the hope of men depends. Thus, all the na- 
 tions knew God, although they did not continue 
 to glorify him as God, nor liked to retain him in 
 their knowledge. Thus he was, not the God of 
 the Jews only, but of the Gentiles alfo, all having 
 an equal revelation, not only of his power of crea- 
 tion and prefervation of the univerfe, but of his 
 power to falvation. 
 
 The earthly and temporal part of the promife 
 was evidently the moft vifible and eafily underftood: 
 Every thing concerning the prefent life of man, and 
 the fertility of the earth, is perfe£lly obvious, as 
 its accompliflinTent was juft aboat to begin. But 
 as the coming of the feed, and of the falvation in 
 him, was then at fo vaft a diftance, this event is 
 revealed in figurative and darker language. The 
 method of atonement by the blood of beafts is 
 pretty clearly marked, as this was already in ufe, 
 and was foon to be more explicitly and fully efta- 
 bliChed in the line of Shem ; but the atonement 
 by the blood of Jefus is exprefftd in terms more 
 ambiguous, by lliedding the blood of the murderer 
 
 of 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 12p 
 
 of man by man, even by the hand of Him who is 
 every man's brother. 
 
 But the principal dream of this liver of blifs 
 was deftined to run in the line of Shem. In his 
 veins the fluid, the feed conveying falvation, did 
 flow, and through his generation it muft. flow for 
 many ages. Hence, full of this idea, the fpirit of 
 iiifpiration in Noah faid in terms of rapture, 
 <« BlcfTed be Jehovah, the God of Shem ! * 
 
 Accordingly, when it had proceeded in its 
 courfe to the time of Abraham, the God of the 
 promife appears to him, afl'uring him that ihe 
 blefhng was in him. Now, when we fee it making 
 its appearance in him, ftill it contains a twofold 
 blefhng, the one earthly and temporal, the other 
 fpiritual and eternal : " To thy feed will I give 
 this land. — In thy feed fhall all the families of the 
 earth be blefled." Both thefe promifes were con- 
 fined to the feed of Abraham, and that in the line 
 of liaac. The feed of Ifaac, the children of the 
 promife, inherited Canaan ; and of him, as con- 
 cerning the flefh, the feed came, to whom the pro- 
 mifes were all made, and in whom the nations are 
 blefled. 
 
 While fo large a portion of the earthly blefling 
 continued in conne£lion with the fpiritual, and 
 run parallel with it, a fide-branch of that fl:ream 
 diverged towards Arabia, to blefs Iflimael and his 
 defcendants, where it has run, and fhall continue 
 to flow while the earth remains : " Alfo of the 
 fan of the bond- woman will I m^ke a great na- 
 tion, becaufe he is thy feed," Gen. xxi. ii. 18. 
 
 In the time of Ifaac, another part of the tem- 
 poral promife was conveyed to Elau : •* Beheld," 
 lays his father, •' thy dwelling fliail be the fatnefs 
 j.'l the tarth, and of the dew of heaven from a- 
 bove." This blefTnig continued with the defcend- 
 
 ant« 
 
130 Letters on the S'riai Ccvencmtr, 
 
 ants of Efau, or Edom, till the Edomites were 
 finally fo incorporated with Ifrael, that they were 
 no more a didincl people. 
 
 2. From the above detail, I think it is evident, 
 that the temporal blelFing never was wholly fepa- 
 ratcd from the spiritual ; but the promife of earth- 
 ly blefiings, in all its branches, has ever had a ra- 
 dical connection with, and its origin in the promife 
 of the Saving Seed. Thefe two have been al- 
 ways fo intertwined together as never to be lepa- 
 rated. In proof of this, we never find any earthly 
 blefling conveyed to any, but by or through him 
 in whom the feed was for the time prcfeat. Thus, 
 when a bltfling was given to the earth and every 
 living thing upon it, it was difponed through 
 Noah, in whom the feed at that time was. In 
 him God eftab!ifi:ied his covenant. If Iflimaei 
 received a blellmg, it was becaufe he was Abra- 
 ham's feed. Kfau had a blefling difponed to him, 
 but it was through Ifaac, in whofe loins was the 
 feed of the promife. None but the fathers of 
 whom Chrill was to come, could convey the 
 blefling to their children ; and in every fuch con- 
 veyance we find both the promifes united ; the 
 fame teft:ator conveys both. The promife of the 
 feed, indeed, was of fuch a nature that it could not 
 be divided; one fon of a family only could be a 
 progenitor of the Mefllah. But the earthly pro- 
 mife could be, and accordingly was divided. Ith- 
 mael had a fliare of the earth granted him as v.-ell 
 as Ifaac, Efau as well as Jacob, and all the twelve 
 fons of Jacob had each his portion of Canaaa 
 alligned him. Yet all thefe were radically coa- 
 neded with the feed, and the principal branch of 
 the itream of earthly bJifs was never feparated 
 from that family in whom the feed was. Of 
 ■ Judah was Shiloh to come, and Judah had the 
 
 mod 
 
Letter s on the Sinai Covenant. 131 
 
 <Tiofl diftinguiflied portion in the holy land. Da- 
 vid, for the fame reafon, was raifed to be king 
 over Ifrael, and had the royalty entailed on his 
 family. The Moft High had his abode where 
 the feed was, and there the river united its ftreams 
 of earthly and fpiritual blifs to make glad the city 
 of God. Thus it mult have been ; for Paul af- 
 fures us, thit to the feed, even Chnft, all the pro- 
 mifes were made, and confequently he alone had 
 a right to difpofc of them. 
 
 3. Hence arifes the propriety of calling Je- 
 fus Chrift the covenant of the people. The blelT- 
 ing has been always lodged in him, and fo con- 
 netled with him, that it cannot be feparated from 
 him. Men have been, and Ihiil be blelTed in 
 him : and all connedtions between God and men 
 have been founded in him. 
 
 But to obtain juft ideas of this fubje£t, we mud 
 attend to the fcripture- account of the word ren- 
 dered covenant^ and of the phrafe making a cove- 
 nant between God and mm. 
 
 The pro?nise on which the covenant is eftablilh- 
 ed is fometimes called covenant ; as in Pfal. cv. 8. 
 
 11. There God is faid to make a covenant with 
 
 Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob ; and the covenant is, 
 " Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the 
 lot of your inheritance." Again, the laiv eita- 
 blilhed on the promUe is called the covenant. 
 Thus the law written on Hones is called the cove- 
 nant, and tables of the covenants given to Ifrael at 
 Sinai, Dcut. v. ;^. 9. 15. la this fenfe Paul ufes 
 the word in his epiillei to the Hebrews. By the 
 old covenant he means the law written on floncs * ; 
 by the new, the law written on the heart, Heb. 
 viii. 9. 10. Fmaliy, the feal, or that which ratihes 
 the covenant, is called the covenant. Thus cir- 
 
 cumcihon 
 
 * The whole law of Mofes is fdid to be written on itont-, 
 ■ as the len toundaLion-arnths of ihdt law were lb written. 
 
^3a Letters m the Sinai Covenant* 
 
 cumclfion Is called the covenant in Abraham's 
 S Gen. xvii. si. 13. The blood, too of the 
 facrifice ttain to ratify the covenant at Sinai .s 
 caUed « the blood of the|covenant,",Exod. xx.v/S. 
 
 The foundation of thefe different ideas muft be 
 fnntht for in the original word BiiRiXH, rendered 
 ^Sl Tn our verlion. This word is evidently 
 der ved from BarR, to select or chuse topur.fyor 
 t'ale clean. Sin is the pollution of the world ; 
 Tnd as God propofed to take -J^^^^^^^^^^^l 
 fire every facrifice for fm is called Berith, tne 
 •i;7r The blood of Jefus, the Son, cleanfes 
 P"'; ,11 fin Hence he is called God's Be- 
 ^^^H "an ' "eve" racrifice was feleded or cho- 
 fenofGodforthatpurpofe, hence the word de- 
 
 VD^Tchosen and Jefus is mod emphatically 
 caTed tfcSen, as^eleaed and appointed for 
 
 the ereat purpofe of cleanfmg from all unngh- 
 the great p f ^^ ^^^ ^ple. 
 
 '^^JV'S:^ co..^- Hence God is 
 f.lH o Lnve or make a covenant with any, by 
 S'^rnAhe blood of a facrifice, and people are 
 ft^eddmg the b^oo covenant with him, by haying 
 
 uMnTof the facrifice fprinkled on them. Thus 
 
 txloTA fan ts are faid to' enter into his covenant 
 all God s lai ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^3 ^^y 
 
 by facrifice, ^^^\' }• J ^ ^ ^ ^j^i^h men could 
 o.her way appointed of Gd by ^^ of his cove- 
 enter into h ^erith or ^.^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ 
 
 nant: and all ^"^^^'^'^ ? ^^ fanclified, called 
 of the covenant are laici w wc i r-'j», u^ 
 
 tZ, or fet apart for holy pu.pofes. God » B.. 
 rit-h is the foautain ot holuieis. 
 
 k is eaiy no.v to fee the reafon why the pro- 
 
 •r J 1 R-^rith as the promifes or the bkJ. 
 
 S'tar: i.r'chna elu^fthe true Ber.th. or 
 
 ';Si:. So. wncn God g-sh,sp,o„. cor cove 
 
 Lnc to Abr.Uunr, he c.pr.lte " thus. I w^" 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 133 
 
 give my Berith between me and thee," Gen. xtH, 
 2. To give Chrift in his feed, was to fecure the 
 blefiings promifed to him and his feed. Again, 
 he who was to be GckI's Berith to the people was 
 alfo to be a " leader a'ftd commander to the people •, 
 a judge, lawgiver, and king," to direft the fan£li- 
 fied, fuch as had entered into God's Berith, in 
 the way leading to the promifed inheritance. This 
 he could not do but by a law ; and hence the law- 
 is called Berith, or covenant, as obedience to it 
 rifes from faith in the Berith, as (lain to confirm 
 the promifes, all the blefiings of which are lodged 
 in him, and conveyed through him. 
 
 What we tranflate " making a covenant," is in 
 the original Carat, Berith, cutting off the purifier , 
 By cutting oiT the facrifice from the land of the 
 living, the promifed blefling is fecured, and all 
 who are fprinkled with the blood are engaged 
 tl^reby to yield the obedience of faith to him who 
 has bought them with his blood, and fo is their 
 Lord and fole Lawgiver. ScJ» exprefiive is the 
 phrafeology of fcripture ! 
 
 From what has been faid, it is eafy to fee that 
 God's covenant is very different from that fo call- 
 ed among men ; even a deed of two or more par- 
 ties agreeing mutually on certain terms and con- 
 ditions. Here both parties are on a level ; both 
 having rights, which they can either alienate or 
 not at pltafure. But God alone makes or gives 
 his covenant : *' I will give my covenant between 
 me and thee." So, when the New Teftament 
 fpeaksof God's covenant, it employs a word (^aia- 
 theke^ which always fignifies the deed of a llngle "* 
 perfon making a conveyance of his property to 
 another in fuch a way as he fees proper. This 
 may be done by grant, difpontion, or teftament ; 
 but as God propofed to convey his property to 
 
 Vol. V. M men 
 
134 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 men by the death of his Son, who is hence called 
 a teftator, the deed of conveyance is hence called 
 by Paul a testament. This teftament not only 
 contains a free and fovereign grant of privileges, 
 but alfo a law, exprefling the'::enure by which they 
 hold poffeflion of thefe privileges. This law re- 
 fults from the very nature of the thing. Faith in 
 the covenant, and a willingnefs to hold or receive 
 its privileges as a free gift, mufl; be neceflary to 
 the receiving thefe benefits, and gratitude or love 
 to the giver muft be the native fruit of this faith. 
 Hence, as love naturally yields obedience, love is 
 laid to be the fulfilling of the law. To defpife 
 the covenant, was to defpife the bleffing, and this 
 naturally cut off the defpifer from all the enjoy- 
 ment of it. 
 
 Having afcertained the fcripture-idea of the 
 word covenant^ I fjiall in my next examine more 
 particularly your idea of the Abrahamic covenan;-. 
 — I am, 
 
 S J R; 
 
 Tour's, Sec. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 XZOU have faid that the Abrahamic covenant 
 ■^ confii'is of two covenants, — the old and new. 
 What thf le two covenants are, Pdul tells us clear- 
 ly in the 8th of the Hebrews : but v«.here he calls 
 theic Abraham's ccvcfants, or covenants made 
 vv'ith Abrahan^ is not io cltar. Neither of thefc 
 
 covenants 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 135 
 
 covenants were made in Abraham's time. By the 
 old covenant he evidently means the law given by 
 Mofes, chiefly the Levitical law, the law of a 
 carnal commandment, having; ordinances of di- 
 vine icrvice, and a worldly fandluary, —all ferving 
 unto the example and fhadow of heavenly things. 
 This covenant was ellablifhcd upon earthly pro- 
 iuifes, and fo decayed and waxed old. But the 
 apoltle tells us ac the fame tim.e, that God made 
 this covenant with the fathers of the Jews in the 
 day when he took, them by the hand, to lead them 
 out of the land of Egypt^ Heb. viii. 9. And this 
 was 430 years after the covenant had been con- 
 firmed of God ill Chriil to Abraham, Gal. iii, 17. 
 confequently near 4c o years after Abraham's 
 death. It feems very odd, then, to call a fyftem 
 Abraham's covenant, which had no exiftence till 
 fo long a time after his death. 
 
 With refpeft to the new covenant, it is alfo 
 obvious, that it is not faid to be made till the other 
 ** waxed old, and was ready to vanifli away." 'Un- 
 der the law,* God indeed promifed that he would 
 make it in the laft days, or *' after thofe days," 
 the days of the firlt covenant, Heb. viii. ic. But, 
 according to Paul's reafoning, it was not made 
 till Chriit came in the flefh, who is its Mediator, 
 Priefl, and facnhce. Confequently this covenant 
 was not made till 1800 years after Abraham was 
 gathered to his people. 
 
 Let us, then, fee what the Abrahamic covenant 
 really was, and what relation the old and new 
 covenants had to it. 
 
 To underitand this, we mud ever keep in mind 
 what is called God's covenant or Berith. The 
 matter of it is a blefling, propofed to extend to 
 the earth and to the life of man j which bleffmg 
 in all its parts was lodged in the feed, Chriit Je- 
 M 2 lus, 
 
1 35 Litters on the Si/iai Covenant, 
 
 fus, and fo Jaid up in him that it cannot be con- 
 veyed to any but through him. This feed was 
 deftined to run through the veins of many gene- 
 rations, in a dire£l line from Adam to the Virgiiv. 
 Mary, in whom he was made of the feed of A- 
 braham,- and fo appeared in flefh, fraught with 
 all the blelTings of heaven. In whomfoever, ihen^ 
 the feed was for the time then prefent, there was 
 the blefling ; fo that it could be faid of that per- 
 fo.B, thou " (halt be a bleffing." Now, as God 
 had purpofed to convey this blefllng through the 
 death of his Son, the feed, he made the coming 
 of his Son, and the bleiTing in him, the fubje£t of 
 a promife ; which prom.ife was fometimes con- 
 firmed by God with an oath, often by a facrifice, 
 and always contained the rule or meafure of the 
 divine condudl towards men, and alfo the rule or 
 meafure of their condudl towards God. Thus, in 
 its fimplc form, it is a promise ftridlly fo called ; 
 when fworn, it became an o^/^; when confirmed 
 by a facrifice, it is a covenant, or rather teftament ; 
 and as containing rules of conduft, it is called a 
 law. God's covenant, then, in its perfeiSl form, 
 means, — His free grant, promife, or deed of con- 
 veyance of a blefling to any, confirmed by his oath, 
 ratified by a facriiice, and having a rule or law 
 annexed to it, or eftabliflied upon it, which rule 
 is at once the meafure of condu6i: to the granter, 
 and to fuch as receive the grant. 
 
 In the grant given to Abraham, we have a plaia 
 inftance of each of the above forms. The blelfing 
 was firlt given him in the form of promife. Gen. 
 xii. 2. 3. The fame promife was confirmed by 
 oath. Gen. xxii. 16. 17. 18. " By myfelf have 
 I fworn, faith Jehovah, that in blelfing I will blefs 
 thee," &c. It was ratified by facrifice. Gen. xv. 8. 
 -^17. ; and then it is called a covenaut or Berith, 
 
 ver. 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 137 
 
 ver. 18. " In the fame day Jehovah cut a Berith 
 with Abraham." In Gen. xvii. we find the grant 
 extended in full form 5 and then it contains the 
 law or commandment of circumcifion, ver. 10. 11. 
 « This is my covenant, which ye fhall keep be- 
 tween me and you, and thy feed after thee -, — every 
 man-child among you fliall be circumched." We 
 find this grant receiving all thefe epithets alfo in 
 Pfal. cv. 8. 9. 10. II. 42. — We may ai^d, Paul 
 calls it a teflament (diarheke), Gal. iii. 17. as it 
 conveyed an inheritance, and that through th'i 
 death ot the telfator. 
 
 We have traced the progrefs of this promife of 
 grant ci God, from its rife in Eden to tlie time of 
 Abraham. We have feen it e.xpand itfelf into a 
 tworbid bleding — the one refpedting the eartli and 
 the life that no.v is — the other refpedling the life 
 and world to come. It has fent off a variety of 
 fide-branches in its courfe, not only to fertilife the 
 ground, that flie may produce tood for the fup- 
 port of man and beaft, v.hile the earth remains, 
 but alfo to fupporc the heart of the finner with 
 the hope of atonement, and confequently of par- 
 don and life. So julUy is it called a pure river of 
 water of life, iffuing irom the throne of God. — 
 The main ilream ot this viver, howbeit, is now 
 deitined to blefs the family of Abraham, through 
 whole race it wds propoled to run for m^iny co- 
 ming ages, until tlie glorious period fhould come, 
 when all nations Ihould be made equal ihaiers of 
 its benign influences. 
 
 Accordingly, in examining the grant given to 
 Abranam, wl find it containing both earthly and 
 fpiritual bltfiings. In the di poiinve clause^ we 
 havc,yirj7, a rignt granted to the land of Canaan — 
 " Unto thy f^ed will 1 give this land •," secondly^ 
 univtrsal bUsiir.g to all nations in hitn to whom 
 M 3 the 
 
}^8 Letters $n the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 the inheritance of Canaan is difponed — " ^Sarah 
 {hall bear a fon— In Ifaac fhall thy feed be called^ 
 — In thy feed fhall all the families of the earth be , 
 blefled." — A vifible fymbol of the truth of each of 
 thefe promifes was alfo given to Abraham j a fa- 
 crifice of God's appointment confirmed his faith 
 in the former ; and the fea^ or fsgn of circumci- 
 fion ratified the latter, Gen. xv. and xvii. chap- 
 ters. — This grant was renewed to Ifaac, then, 
 to Jacob, and finally diftributed among his fons. 
 
 At lafl the time came for fulfilling the firfl; part 
 of the grant, — " Unto thy feed will I give this 
 knd." In terms of this promife, the fovereign 
 Proprietor orders the charter to be written out, or 
 extended in form, upon ftones by Mofes, and gives 
 Ifrael a smin or infeftment by the symbol of facri. 
 See, the inftituted mode of entering on the pro- 
 mifed inheritance. This charter, as all others,, 
 fpecifies the manner of holding the pofleflion, and 
 the reddendo^ or duty owing by the vaflal to the 
 royal fuperior. In this refpe6l it is called the laix;^ 
 as the fuperior prefcribes the manner of holding 
 the inheritance difponed, and the duty, or all the 
 a6ls of gratitude, by which the vafial mull exprefs- 
 his dependence upon his lord. — By having the 
 blood of the facrifice fprinkled on them, Ifrael en- 
 tered on the pofleflion of the inheritance, or had 
 iheir right fully confi:ituted, and confequently 
 became bound to hold the pofleflion by the te- 
 nure, and to periorm the facrificej prefcribed in 
 the charter. 
 
 This grant is called by Paul the Old Tefiiament 
 cr difpolition, and was evidently intended to fulfil 
 the promife made to Abraham, by putting his feed, 
 in pofftflion of the promifcd inheritance. Yet 
 this deed was not the Abrahamic covenant j as 
 Paul aflures us, " God gave the inheritance to 
 
 Abraham. 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 13V9 
 
 Abraham by promife, and that the promlft^ that he 
 fliould be heir of the world was not througii the 
 law." The law was only added to the promife or 
 difpofition confirmed by God unto Chrifl in the 
 time of Abraham. This free grant was the origi- 
 nal tenure by which the feed was to hold the land, 
 and this deed, promulged by royal authority, could 
 not be revcrfed by a law given 430 years after. 
 Thus the law, or covenant at Sinai, might wax old 
 and vanifh a^ay, while the promife on which it 
 was founded ftill remained firm. Firm and fure 
 it mull be ; for it was given to Chrilt at firfl:, nor 
 can it poUibly be feparated from him, for « the 
 gifts and callings of God are without repentance*" 
 Such as are ChrifVs have a right to the inheritance 
 difponed to Abraham's feed, totally independent 
 of the law : a right confirmed 430 years before the 
 law was given. They that are Chriil's are Abra- 
 ham's feed, and heirfe, not according to the law, 
 but " according to the promife." 
 
 This leads me to obierve, that the- land of Ca- 
 naan, promifed to the feed of ii'ibraham, was 
 meant to be a figure of the heavenly inheritance, 
 and a kind of earned of it. Not cnly fo, but it 
 had been certainly revealed to Abraham himfelf in 
 that light ; otherwife how could he have fought 
 after another country, even the heavenly, in confe- 
 quence of the promife of the land of Canaan given 
 to him ? in ficb. ix. 9. — 16. the apodle ttils us, 
 that Abraham fojourned \n the land of promife, 
 as in a Itrange country, dwelling in tabernacles 
 with ifaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the 
 fame promife; and that they fought " a better 
 country, even an heavenly." Now, how could 
 they feek a better country, if God had not promifed 
 it to them ? And fince we read of mo pronuie of 
 a couairy giyen them, but that of Canaan, we mull 
 
 netefiaiily 
 
140 Loiters on the Sinai Covenant 
 
 neceflarily conclude from hence, that God had^ 
 opened to their minds a more extenfive view 
 of that promife, as including the heavenly coun- 
 
 Thus the promifed inheritance was lodged in 
 Chrlft Jefus— the right to it was given to him, 
 and (lill remains with him. Even the figurative 
 Canaan, the earned of the heavenly, could not be- 
 held but by faith in him Even the law itfelf was 
 not disjoined from, but " added to the promife,'' 
 fo as to fubferve its purpofes. The carnal ordi- 
 nances it contained were all fliadows of good 
 things to come ; — the whole fyitem was divinely 
 appointed to be a fchool- mailer to lead men to 
 
 Ghrifl, that they might be jullihjd by faitii The 
 
 Old Teilament, then, was never feparated from 
 the New, but was eltablilhed upon it, and fubfer- 
 vient to it» 
 
 With rcfpedl to the new covenant or teft.^ment : 
 — As Paul calls the law of Mofes, written oiv 
 ftones, the Old Teifament, fo he plainly calls the 
 law of Chrilt, the fpirit or end of the law of* 
 Mofes, written in the heart, and founded on better 
 promifes, even the knowledge of God, pardon of 
 all iniquity, and an eternal mheritance, — the New 
 Teilament, Heb. viii. 10. 11. 12. The giant, or- 
 dispositive part of this charter, was made in the- 
 time of Abraham, and lodged with him and hi»- 
 feed, in thefe words, '* In thy feed ihall all the na-' 
 tions of the earth be blelicd." But it was not ex- 
 tended in full form, nor its full import revealed, 
 till the promifed feed came. Then the right was 
 written at large, and confirmed by the blood of 
 the facnfice, offered by the mediating pried, while- 
 the nations receive the fymbol cf sei~in and infeft- 
 ffient by tiic fp. Inkling ot the facrifical oiiyid upon 
 tliem in b.iptilm— " i3e baptifed for the remiiliori- 
 
 of 
 
Letters on the Si.'iat Covenant. ' 141 
 
 ©f your, fins ;" that is, as a fymbol of your entering 
 on the poflcflion of the privileges difponed on the 
 New Teftament, even the forgivenefs of fins, and 
 inheritance among them that aie fan6lificd — This 
 grant, when given in the fimple form of a promife 
 to Abraham, is called a covenant or teftament j 
 but it is only called the New Tcitament when fully- 
 extended and ratified by facrifice. 
 
 I Ihould now confider whether the promife on 
 which the old covenant flood be done away with 
 that covenant ; as alio, whether, as you aver, the 
 churches of the Old and New Teltaments were 
 really eilabliflied upon dilTerent covenants. But 
 before a proper anfwer can be given to thefe qusf- 
 tions, it is necellary to examine your ideas con- 
 cerning tke two feeds to whom the promifes and 
 covenants were made. — I am, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Your's, &c» 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 IN your 7th letter to Mr Glafs, (p. 65. 66.)y. 
 •*■ you aflert, " that the old covenant was carnal and 
 earthly in its suhjects, or people covenanted, they 
 being the fleflily feed of Abraham, children of the 
 temporal promife, related to God as his typical 
 people, and to Chrift as his kinfmen accordnig to 
 the flefh ; which typical and fleflily relation availed 
 them much for the enjoyment ot the typical and 
 earthly privileges of this covenant: but as Hagar 
 the bond-woman was caft out with her fon born 
 after the fleih, fo, the covenant itfelt being anti- 
 
 ^ quated^ 
 
14* ■ Letters en the Z'lnai Covenant. 
 
 quaked, its temporal typical privileges vanlflied,. 
 its fubje£ts were caft out and difinheriteH," &c. 
 Whereas " the new covenant is fpiritu;il and hea- 
 venly in its su^y'ectsy thev being the fpiritual feed 
 of Abraham, typified by the fleflily feed ; being, 
 chofeti in Chrid before the foundation of the 
 world, predeftinated to the adoption of children, 
 and redeemed by the blood of Chrift. By their 
 faith they appear to be the feed of Abraham, chil- 
 dren of the free woman, and heirs according to the 
 promife," &c. 
 
 By this account, the two promifes and covenants 
 were to'ally diilincl: from, and oppofed to omi 
 another, in their fubje£ls, even the two feeds of 
 Abraham, the one fltihly and typical, the other 
 fpiritual, and born from above •, the fornver known 
 by the flefh, the latter by their faith. — Let us fee 
 whether or not this account accords with the 
 Standard of Truth. 
 
 The foundation of this dlftiniftion between the 
 feeds of Abraham, is laid in the ftory of Iflimael 
 and Ifaac. Thefe differed in their birth : the one 
 was born after the flefh, the other by promife. — 
 iilimaei was an unbeliever, a perfecutor of the 
 child of promife, or a defpifer of Chrift : Ifaac 
 was a believer, a child of faith, the offspring not 
 of the flefti fo properly, as of faith in the promife. 
 Ifhmael was not called a child of God, nor count- 
 ed as the feed of Abraham, whereas in Ifaac was 
 his feed called. — The fon of the bond-woman had 
 no right to any of the promlfes made to Abraham ; . 
 but Ifaac was heir of both promifes. Only the 
 chiWren of the promife could have a right to in- 
 herit the promife. So fays Paul, " who are Ifrael- 
 ites, to whom pertain the covenants and the pro- 
 mifes," Rom. ix. 4. 
 
 Thefe two feeds were vifible in Ifaac's owa 
 family : Elau was a mere child of the flelh i Ja- 
 cob 
 
"Ldiers en the 'Sinai Covsnant. 143 
 
 cob had the promifes. In after-periods, this dif- 
 tinftion always exil'ed in Ifrael, although it was not 
 always vifible. Unbelieving, profane pc;rfons, liks 
 Efau, defpifing the promifed feed, were always a- 
 ir.ong the liraeiites, and very frequently difco- 
 vevecl then^felves openly. Unbelief, that root of 
 blttcrnefs, fpringing up, troubled the church of 
 li'rael. It continued to be fo when the pro- 
 mifed feed came. The unbelieving Jews, who 
 rejected and perfecuted the Mefliah, are ex- 
 prcfsly faid to be the feed of the bond- woman, like 
 Iflimael, 23 all, v ho had faith in the promife as 
 fulfilled in Chrift, are called children of the free- 
 woman, Abraham's feed and heirs according to 
 the promife. Gal. iv. 21. — 31. 
 
 Even in the New-Teftament flate of the church, 
 Paul forewarns us this would be the cafe. Many 
 unbelievers mingled with the real faints in the a- 
 poftolic churches. Hence the advice — '* Take 
 heed, left there be in any of you an evil heart of 
 unbelief in departing from the living God — Left 
 there be any fornicator, or profane perfon, as. 
 Efau, who for one morfel of meat fold his birth- 
 rjgiit." 
 
 From the above defcription of the two feeds of 
 Abraham, the following •truths are evident: i. 
 That by Abraham's fleihly feed the fcnpture means 
 fuch as are fprung of his tlefh o/;/;-, while they are 
 unbelievers in heart, and defpifers of the promifed 
 blefliijgs. 2. That all who have Aorahani's laith 
 in them are counted his true fpiritual feed, and 
 that this has been always the cafe fnice the birth 
 of Ifaac^ 3. That the offspring of Abraham's bo- 
 dy may be counted for the leed, provided they 
 had his faith ; altii5wgh not their connedlion with 
 bis flcfli, but with ias f^itii, gave them a title to 
 this epi'het. 4. That lioiie of tt'C promifes were 
 given or made to the uiibeiitvmg carudl feed of 
 " Abrairam \ 
 
144 Zetiers on the Sinai Covenanl. 
 
 Abraham ; only they that were of faith were 
 blefled with faithful Abraham. Iflimael received 
 none of the promifes, »or had any title to the pro- 
 mifed blefliTigs. The fame may be faid of Efau, 
 and of all the unbelieving Ifraelites. Such as be- 
 lieved not the promife, but defpifed the promifed 
 land, " could not enter in becaufe of unbelief." 
 An unbeliever among Ifrael had no more title to 
 enter the promifed land, or continue in it when 
 there, than a Moabite had. 5. That the flefhly, 
 z. e. the unbelieving, feed of Abraham never were, 
 nor could be typical of the fpiritual feed. Ifhmael 
 n?Ver was confidered as a type of Ifaac, nor Efau 
 of Jacob, nor the carnal Ifraelites of the fpiritual. 
 On the contrary, the one is always contrafted with 
 the other ; and the carnal feed fet up as a beacon 
 to wafn profelTors of the faith of their danger, 
 left they fbould fail by the fame example of un- 
 belief. 
 
 In this glafs. Sir, you may plainly fee the dif- 
 fimilarity between your defcription of the two feeds 
 of Abraham, and that which the fcriptures ex- 
 hibit. I am much miftaken if a fingle fea- 
 ture in the piifiure you have drawn will cor- 
 re^ond with the original. — Let us examine them 
 and fee. 
 
 I. You propofc that the whole Ifraelitifli na- 
 tion, the defcendants of Jacob, are called the 
 flefhly feed as oppofed to the children of the pro- 
 mife. The ofd coveinnt eliabiifhed in the tem- 
 poral promife was made with all the people of If- 
 rael ; and you fay that it was made with the flefh- 
 ly feed of Abraham, and not with the fpiritual. 
 This certainly fuppofes that the whole nation arc 
 called the childten of the flefh, or at leaft, if any 
 of the fpiritual feed were under that covenant, 
 they were under it only according to the flefh. 
 
 This 
 
Letters on the Sirtai Covsnani, 145 
 
 This is diredlly oppofite to the New-Teftame'ht 
 ideas of this matter. Paul tells us, that if-^he Jew- 
 ifh nation, " they were not all Israel who were of 
 Israel.'''' By Ifrael he means believers in the pro- 
 mife ; by thefe who were only of Ifrael, the chil- 
 dren of the flefh only^ as is clear from what he 
 adds. 
 
 *« They who are the children of the flefli, thefe 
 are not the children of God : but the children of 
 the promife are counted for the feed," Rom. ix. 
 6. 7. 8. Howabfurd, then, is it to call that nation 
 the carnal fleftily feed of Abraham, when it con- 
 fided of both. The unbelievers among Ifrael were 
 called the children of the flelh, as believers were 
 called children of the promife. Nor is it lefs ab- 
 furd to fay, 
 
 2. That the flefhly feed v/ere typical of the 
 fpiritual. Was Ilhmael a type of Ifaac ? or Efau 
 of Jacob ? or the unbelieving Ifraelites of the be- 
 lieving ? — Or, on the other hand, was the fpiritual 
 feed a figure of itfelf I — The fcriptures no where 
 fay fo : and indeed, to anfwer either of thefe quef- 
 tions in the affirmative, would be equally unfcrip- 
 tural and irrational. That the difpenfation the 
 Jews were under was figurative, is evident — that 
 the tabernacle and all its ordinances of divine fer- 
 vice were typical, or fervcd to the exemplar and 
 fhadow of heavenly things, is no lefs clear — and 
 that all the a£^s of God towards that people, iu 
 feparating them from the nations, and taking them 
 into a peculiar relation to himfelf, through his 
 Berith, was all a figure of what he would do in a 
 future period, is abundantly manifeft. But that, as 
 children of the ilelh, they were types of the chil- 
 dren of promife, is manifeftly faU'e. Such as be- 
 lieved in God, and obeyed him, were patterns to 
 believers infuture ages. Thofe who walked in 
 
 Vol. V. N the 
 
1^6 Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 
 
 the fleps of Abraham's faith, were the children of 
 Abrahacp, So it was then ; and fo it is flili : for 
 lie is the father of them that believe in all difpen- 
 fations. But the conduct and a£lions of his flefhl^ 
 feed, as oppofed to the believing, was fo far from 
 being a type of the temper and condudl of the 
 children of faith, that it is fet forth as a beacon or 
 caveat, that all profefToro of his faith may avoid 
 it. " All thefe things happened unto them 
 for types : and they are written for our admoni- 
 tion, upon whom the ends of the world are 
 come," 2 Cor. x. ii. Stephen informs us of 
 whom the unbelieving carnal feed under the law 
 were types — " Ye do always refift the Holy 
 Ghcft ; as your fathers did, fo do ye," A£ls, vii. 
 51. But, 
 
 3. You aver, that a flefhly relation to Abraham, 
 and to Chrifl: as their kinfman according to the fleOi, 
 *' availed the Jews much for the enjoyment of the 
 typical and earthly privileges of this covenant." 
 The enjoyment of Canaan is certainly the privi- 
 lege you here intend, as this is the fubjedl of the 
 promife : but that a fleflily relation to any perfon 
 entitled one to that enjoyment, I cannot find 
 in fcrlpture. Why did fuch multitudes of Ifrael 
 fall in the wildernefs ? Was it becaufe they had 
 no fleflily relation to Abraham? Or does not Paul 
 aflure us, that " they could not enter in becaufe of 
 unbelief ?" not becaufe they wanted ihs Ji:;sh, but 
 the Jliith of Abraham. Again, why do not the 
 Jewifh nation dill, enjoy Canaan ? Or why were 
 they caft out of it, when it was given them " for 
 an everlafling pofle lion .■*" Are they not flill the 
 children of the flefli .'' Paul gives the anfwer — 
 «< Becaufe of uubchef they were broken ofF," 
 Rom. xi. 20. As foon as any man denied the 
 faith of Abraham, he forfeited every claim to Ca- 
 naan 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 147 
 
 naan and its privileges ; no flefhly birth could 
 avail any thing. This is fo evident, that you are 
 forced to recant the above aflertion in your De~ 
 fence of Believer- Baptism *, where you allow, 
 that " the fleflily birth did not entitle to the tem- 
 poral privileges of the earthly kingdom. Old If- 
 rael obtained the earthly inheritance by the cove- 
 nant made with their father Abraham, Gen. xv. 
 8. Abftra£t from this, they had no claim to 
 it upon the footing of their birth or righteoufnefs, 
 more than any other people." So far you fay 
 right ; yet ftill you err in the main point, imagi- 
 ning, that on account of the faith of their father, 
 and of the promife made to him, the children had 
 a right to the inheritance, whether they held the 
 faith of their father or not. Here you err, not 
 knowing the fcriptures, which inform Ifrael, that 
 although Jehovah loved their fathers, and thus 
 chofe their feed after them to inherit Canaan, yet 
 he had cholen them to be a holy people, to fear 
 the Lord their God, to walk in his ways, and to 
 love him, and to ferve him with all their heart, 
 *' Circumcife, therefore, the fcrcfkin of your-'heart, 
 and be no more iliff-necked. But if thine heart 
 turn away, fo that thou wilt not hear, but (halt 
 be drawn away, and worftiip other gods, and feive 
 them, I denounce unto you this day, that ye fliall 
 furely perifli ; ye fhall__not prolong your d-ays upon 
 the land whither thou pafl'eft over Jordan, to ga 
 to poflefs it." No flcfialy conne£lion availed the 
 difobedient Ifraelite •, nor did it avail him that his 
 father had believed, while he himfelf did not walk 
 in the fteps of his faith. 
 
 4. You aflert, that the old covenant had not 
 the fpiritual, but the carnal or unbelieving If- 
 N 2 rael 
 
 J. age /3. , 
 
148 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. - 
 
 rael for its fubjecls*. A grofs miflake indeed I 
 The very coiitrarv is the truth. The fcriptures 
 inform us, that both covenants were given to the 
 very fame people, even the Jews — <' To whom 
 belonged the covenants a^id the promifes," Rom. 
 ix. 4. The fame apoRle tells us, that the new 
 covenant h;is the fame fubjeds with the old, Hcb. 
 viii. 8. — 10. " The days come, faith the Lord, 
 when I will make a new covenant with the house 
 cfIs7-aelzr\d\v\(hx\\Qho:i.':eofyt/dahy not accord- 
 ing to the covenpnt that 1 made with their fa- 
 thers." Thus both covenants were made with the 
 fame people, the oz:e with the fathers, the other 
 with the children. Accordingly, the very fame 
 identical people, even the native Jews, who re- 
 ceived the firfl teftament at Sinai, received alfo 
 the new. The firft New-Teftament church con- 
 iifled of the very fame people who had been mem- 
 bers of the Old-Tfcftamcnt church. Hence Peter, 
 addvefTing the old-covenant fubje61:s, tells them 
 that they are alfo fubjeQ;s of the new : •' Ye are 
 the children of the prophets, and of the covenant 
 which iGod made with our fathers, faying to A- 
 braham. And in thy feed fliall all the kindreds of 
 the earth be blefled," Thus both covenants and 
 promifes were primarily given to the fame people : 
 nor is there the remoteft hint given, either in the 
 texts quoted or any where elfe in the facred re- 
 cords, that they were given to different seeds. 
 
 That the fpiritual or believing feed were fub- 
 jecls of the Sinai covenant and promife, will ap- 
 pear farther evident from what Paul fays in Gal. 
 iv. 1. 1. &.C. ♦' Now I fay, that the heir, as long 
 as he is a child, diflereth nothing from a fervant, 
 though he be Isrd of all ; but is under tutors and 
 governors, till the time appointed of the father. 
 
 Even 
 
 * See the quotation in the beginning of this letter. 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 149 
 
 Even fo we, when we were children, were in 
 bondage under the elements of this world." That 
 by the heir Paul means the fpiritual feed, is clear 
 from the foregoing verfe, (chap. iii. 29. j, " If ye 
 be Chrift's, then are ye Abraham's feed, and heirs 
 according to the promife." 
 
 But to underftand this point fully, it is necefTary 
 to obfcrve what Paul fays concerning the feed to 
 whom the promifes were made, Gal. iii. 16. "To 
 Abraham and his feed were the promifes made. 
 He faith not, and to feeds, as of many, but as of 
 one, and to thy feed, which is Chrifh." From 
 this text it is evident, that all the promifes weic 
 made, or the blelfings difponed, to one feed, even 
 Chrift ; and that not only the promife of all fpiri- 
 tual bleflings is here intended, but alfo the pro- 
 mife of the inheritance of Canaan in its fuii ex- 
 tent, the following verfe leaves us no ground to 
 doubt : " For if the inheritance be of the law, it 
 is no more of promife : but God gave it to Abra- 
 ham by promife." The promife, then, in both its 
 parts, earthly and fpiritual, was made to Chrifh 
 at firft hand. The Father difponed to him the 
 kingdom j and, confcquently, no man could have 
 any title to any part of the blelFing but through 
 Chrifi:, to whom the promifes were all made, and 
 who alone has the power of difpofing of them, to 
 whom and in what meafure he fees proper. Now, 
 the fcripture afTures us, that fuch as are Chriil'a 
 can alone have a right to the privileges given to 
 Abraham and his leed : " If ye be Chrilt's, then 
 are yc Abraham's feed, and heirs according to the 
 promife." Nor is it lefs certain, that none are 
 Chrift's but thofe to whom it" is given to believe. 
 *« Ye are all the children of God by faith in Chrift 
 Jefus •," and " they which be of faiih are blcfled 
 \*dth faithful Abraham." No connedion with 
 N 3 A.braham's 
 
150 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 Abraham's flefh, then, entitled tc any blefling gf-. 
 ven to that patriarch. 
 
 Even the kingdom of Canaan belonged to Chrift. 
 This he difponed to Ifrael, to all fuch of the de- 
 fcendants of Jacob as profefled to believe and obey 
 him. To all fuch he gave infeftment and feifm, 
 of the inheritance, in the mod folemn form j but 
 at the fame time, the preamble and whole tenor 
 of that deed of conveyance (hews them, that they 
 could only retain or hold the pofleflion by fuch a 
 faith in him as works by love. " Diligently hear- 
 ken to the voice of Jehovah thy God — Love Je- 
 hovah thy God with all thine heart — Believe, and 
 thou fhalt be eftabliflied." This is the do6lrine 
 of the law •, this the docStrine of the gofpel. «' If 
 ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the 
 works of Abraham : ye would believe and obey." 
 Every unbeliever in the houfehold of Abraham 
 is like lihmael : to him none of the promifes be- 
 long ; being the flive of fin, he " abideth not in 
 the houfe for ever," but Ifiall be call out. 
 
 Thus I think it evident to a demonftratlon, that 
 both promifes or covenants were given to the fame 
 feed, and that none had a claim to them but in. 
 the right of Chrift, or by faith in his name : and, 
 confequently, all that you have faid concerning 
 the two feeds to whom the promifes were made, 
 is one continued feries of blundering. 
 
 It is furprifmg that your own realbning did not 
 lead you to the truth. Speaking of the promife 
 of Chrift and fpiritual blelTings, you lay *, " It 
 appears that the promifes, made unto the Jcwilli 
 fathers^ had a primary refpe£l unto their children j, 
 yet not unto all their natural children as such^ for 
 then that whole riation behoved to be faved ; but 
 
 only 
 
 * Defence of Believers' Baptifm, p. 1 1. 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. \^\ 
 
 only unto a remnant of them, according to the 
 ele^lion of grace." Now, from the fame promifes, 
 will it no,t alio conclude, that the temporal pro- 
 mife was not made to all the natural children of 
 Jacob as such ; for then that whole nation muft 
 have enjoyed Canaan, as all were equally related 
 to the flefli of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob? Where- . 
 as their hiilory informs us, that ail above twenty 
 years of age, at the Exodus from E^^ypt, fave Ca- 
 leb and Jofliua, fell in the wildernefs, and «* could ■ 
 jiot enter in becaufe of unbelief.". This promife, 
 then, only refpeCted the believing feed of Ilrael •, 
 for if it refpecVed the natural feed as suchy then 
 the promife of God hath failed, and his woxd 
 «' hath taken no efFetl." The word preached only 
 profited, when *« it was incorporated by faith with 
 them that heard it." 
 
 But you will fay. Were there not many unbe- 
 lieyers in heart to be found in polleihon of the 
 land of Canaan and its privileges ? To this I an- 
 fwer, INIany of that defcription were taken into 
 the covenant at Sinai, and many fuch afterwards 
 appeared in Canaan, in fucceeding ages. But 
 they were admitted at lirft, and continued after- 
 wards in the pofTsfiion, only on the profeflion of 
 faith and obedience. So foon as they rejected the 
 faith, and fcrlook the God of their tatntrs, they 
 were either deftroyed immediately, or tuieatened 
 with deilruclion. They were not all Ifrael who 
 were of Ifrael. This is preciiely the Hate of 
 things alfo in the New-Teltament church; yet I 
 hope you will not dy, for this reafon, the pro- 
 miles of that reflanient are made to liypocrites 
 and unbelievers. 
 
 In my next, I propofe to fliew the conne£liori 
 between thefe two covenants, and wherein they 
 
 differed 
 
152 Litters on the Sinai Covenants 
 
 differed the one from the other. In the mean- 
 time, I am, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Your's, &c. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 "j\/| AnKind are faved by hope in all ages, and 
 -'-■*- this hope has been always founded on a di- 
 vine promife. This promife was given to man 
 on the entrance of fin into the world, the promife 
 of the feed, containing all the bleHings whicti 
 men can need, or God has propofed to bellow, to 
 the ages of ages. This is the everlafling cove- 
 nant, on which all the divine difpenfacions are 
 founded, and to fubferve the purpofes of which 
 all contribute. It was promulged to Abraham in 
 the form of a royal edi6l, m.ore unalterable than 
 the laws of the Medes and Perfians, and no fin- 
 ner, none of the race of Adam, could entertain 
 any rational hope of falvatioa from (in and death, 
 or of the enjoyment of eternal life, but through 
 faith in this promife. Since, then, this promife 
 is confirmtd by the oath of God, and has been, 
 and is [lill, the euablifned conftitutioii of heaven, 
 we may be fure that God has never revealed or 
 appointed any liw, covenant, or deed of convey- 
 ance of any kind, either uneonnedted with it, or 
 oppohte to It. 
 
 ill what lighr, then, muft we view the law of 
 Moitb ? Dill it point out another plan of falvatiun 
 than through faith in the promife ? or <' is the 
 
 law 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 153- 
 
 law agalnft the promife of God ?" God forbid ! 
 fays Paul. Had there been a law given, intending 
 to convey* eternal life, righteoufnefs mull have 
 been by that law. The law of Mofes was not 
 given for that purpofc, r.nd fo was no rival of the 
 promife. Nor was the law unconrie£led with the 
 promife : it was made to be fubfervicnt to it. It 
 was a fchoolmalltr to bring men to Chrift, that 
 they might be jullified by faith. So far from 
 propofmjT any other plan of falvation, it Ihut men 
 up unto the faith which was afterwards to be re- 
 vealed. 
 
 The law of Mofes feems to have been appointed 
 for feveral purpofes, fuited to the two promifes 
 given to Abraham, and eflabliflied with Ifrael. 
 isty It was intended to give feifni and infeftment 
 of the land of Canaan to the fons of Jacob, by the 
 fymbols of facrifice and fprinkling of blood. This 
 fcifin was given in confequence of the difpofition 
 or charter given to Abraham, one claufe of which . 
 faid, " Unto thy feed will I give this land." By 
 a fymbol of this fame kind, Abraham had been 
 entered heir to the fame promife. Gen. xy. ^ii^f. 
 The law, ftri£tly fo called, was an inftrument of 
 theocracy or divine government among Ifrael as a 
 nation, propofing maxims and rules of condu6l to 
 that people, calculated to promote national hap- 
 pinefs, and lan<Slioned by temporal rewards and 
 puniihments. This intention of the law is fo ob- 
 vious, that it needs no illuilration. ^^fy* ^^ ^'^^ 
 intended to fubferve the grand promife of the feed, 
 with all fpiritual blefiings in him. This it did by 
 enjoining circumcifion, the token of the covenant 
 of the feed as about to come of their flefh j by 
 commanding them to believe in him when he 
 Ihould come,—" him fliall ye hear in all things," 
 while that part of it called the Levitical law^ with 
 
 its 
 
254 Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 
 
 Its whole fyflem of ordmances, was intended \.o 
 prefigure that feed with all his fpiritual bleflings, 
 — to keep alive the knowledge of the plan of the 
 remiffion of fins through faith in the blood of a- 
 tonement, — to convey to them an earnell of the 
 fpiritual bleiTings in the promife, by admitting 
 them to a delij^htful fellowfhip with God in the 
 fanQuary, the figure of Chrifl:, — and, in fhort, by 
 {hutting them out from all hope of juftification 
 in any other way but by faith in atoning blood.— 
 So properly does Paul fay, the law is not againft, 
 but added to the promife -, and to get a full view 
 of this important fubje£V, it will be neceflary to 
 attend to that; apoftle's illuflrations of it. 
 
 In the end oi the 3d, and through the whole 
 of the 4th chapter of his epillle to the Galatians, 
 he fets this matter in a ftrong and full point of 
 view, ijf, " It was added, becaufe of tranfgref- 
 fions." As neither penitencs, nor prayers, nor 
 pious refolutions, nor good deeds of any kind, 
 could procure pardon for a finner by the law, un- 
 lefs he brought the facrifice for his fin, and had 
 it offered by the pried according to the law, this 
 method of acceptance wich God was obvioufly in- 
 tended to prevent men from tranfgrefling, or go- 
 ing out of the way eftablifhed by the promife. 
 The law contained precepts fo numerous, and fo 
 impofTible to be obferved even for a fingle day, 
 that it made every man a finner ; and as no finner 
 could draw nigh to God but through a priell and 
 a facrifice, this effe£lually excluJed all dependence 
 on works of righteoufnefs the finner could do to 
 conciliate his Maker's regards, and " fhut him up 
 to the faith," or to live by faith in that facrifice, 
 •which was for ever to perfecl iiic (anclified. Thus 
 he had daily fet before his eyes the truth of Ha- 
 
 bakkuk's 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 155 
 
 bakkuk's maxim, — '< He who is righteous by faith 
 ftall Jive." 
 
 2. Paul views the law as a fchoolmafter, In- 
 cluding the idea of a teacher and a governor, in- 
 llru6ling the children of God's family in the ele- 
 ments of divine knowledge, and keeping them in 
 feivile awe and dread by temporal penalties, until 
 the time appointed of the Father. Such was the 
 ofHce affigned the law of Ivjofes in the houfe of 
 God ; and is it pollible, then, that the law could 
 be intended to teach the children difobcdience to 
 their parents .'' Yet this the law muft have done, 
 if it taught them to attempt to live in oppofition 
 to the plan eftablifhcd and publiflied in an irrever- 
 fible decree by the Lord of the family, 430 years 
 before this fame pedagogue had any office af- 
 figned him in the houfehold. The ordinances 
 and inftitutions of the law were the alphabet of 
 Chriilianity, or the rudiments of the gofpcl : and 
 it was the office of the law to teach the children 
 the power of thefe elementary characflers, and to 
 form them in fuch combinations, as, when pro- 
 perly arranged, like words forming a fentence, 
 fhould point out fome truth of the gofpel, fome 
 part of the character or office of Jefus Chrift, 
 who is the end of the law for righteoufnefs. As 
 the fcholars, however, were generally dull of hear- 
 ing, and the characters themfelves being of the 
 hieroglyphic kind, numerous and difficult to be 
 underftcod, the progrefs in learning them was 
 flow at all times. At laft, the key to open thefe 
 characters being loit, the vanity of imagination 
 put a fenfe on them, far more favourable to the 
 prid? of the human heart, a fenfe by which the 
 law was truly againft the promife- It taught 
 them to fay, that the Governor of the univerfe 
 
 put 
 
1^6 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 put ofF the chara(Ster of Creator, and, In condfe- 
 fcenfion to the favoured iiation of Ifrael, afTumed 
 the form of a moral governor, pronodiig to give 
 his creatures eternal life on condition of their per- 
 forming oHedience to a certain fet of external rules 
 propounded in the lav/. Thus men were led to 
 reft on the morphofis, the mere form and letter 
 of the law, in oppofition to the true fpirit or fenfe 
 of it. This is the idea which inflamed the oppo- 
 fition to Meffiah when he came ; this is the fource 
 of all oppolition to the gofpel ftill. Mifled by 
 this falfe commentary, you, and many moderns of 
 no mean name, have interpreted the law as op- 
 pofed to the gofpel. According to you, the law 
 was a mere covenant of peculiarities, made with 
 the carnal feed of Jacob, propoiing national hap- 
 pinefs as the reward of external obedience. Others 
 view it as a covenant of works, annexing eternal 
 life to perfect obedience to what they call the 
 moral law \ and thus directly oppofe the law to 
 the promife, averring that there was a law given 
 that could have given life ; — a commentary not 
 unworthy of that great genius, the firll commen- 
 tator on fcripture, whole comment we have re- 
 corded in the third chapter of Genefis. In this 
 fenfe, Paul, indeed, fometimes fpeaks of the law, 
 contrailing the righteoufnefs of the law with that 
 of the gofpel \ but it is only v/hen addrelTing Jews, 
 who underftood the law in this fenfe, or caution- 
 ing Chriitians againft any reliance on the law in 
 the JewiHi fenfe of it, as in chat view it directly 
 oppofcd the gofpel. It is evident, howbeit, when 
 he givcD his own view of it, he ihews that the 
 go:')el was the fpirit of the lav, and ttiar it is im- 
 pofliibie to obey the law without believing in Him 
 who is the end of the law for nghtcuufnefs. lince 
 
 this 
 
Letters on the Sluai Covenant. 157 
 
 this IS the exprefs command of the law, <« Him 
 fliali ye hear in all things, whatfoever he fhall fay 
 unto you." But, 
 
 3. The conneclion and difference between thefc 
 two covenants will be bed underllood by attend, 
 ing to the allegory recorded, Gal. iv. 21. — 31. 
 There the family of Abraham is confiJered as a 
 fymbol of the family of God, from the time of 
 the giving of the law at Sinai, to the txiA. of the 
 world ; or of the ftate of the church under both 
 teftaments ; — an allegory ilrangely niifunderftood 
 by you, and many other writers on this fubjedl:. Ha- 
 gar, indeed, (lands in the allegory in the place of the 
 Sinaitic covenatit, as Sarah reprefents the Zion or 
 new covenant ; but it has not been attended to, that 
 Hagar in the allegory does not reprefent the cove- 
 nant or law given at Sinai as defigned or intended 
 by God, but the law as explained by the unbe- 
 lieving Jews in Paul's time. As thefe Jews op- 
 pofed the gofpel, they interpreted their law fo as 
 to oppofe the gofpel alfo. Thus, Paul does not 
 fay that Hagar and Sinai anfwer to the Jerufa- 
 Itiw which was before Chrift came ; for then (he 
 muft have filled Sarah's place as well as her own, 
 as Sarah was in that Jerufalem as well as Hagar, 
 the promife as well as the law ; but he fays, Ha- 
 gar anfwers to the Jerufalem, or church of the 
 unbelieving Jews, which 7iow zV, and is in bon- 
 dage with her children. The neceflary confe- 
 quence of this is, Iflimael was not a figure of, or 
 does not anfwer to, the feed to whom the cove- 
 nant at Smai was given, or to Ifrael under the 
 law before Chrift ; otherwifi he fills Ifaac's place 
 alfo, fince the heir of the promife was likewife 
 under the law durmg that period. Gal. iv. i. — 4, 
 Ifhmael, then, in this allegory, only reprefents the 
 unbelieving feed of Abraham, children of that Je- 
 VoL. V. O rufalem 
 
rjS Letters on the Shun Covenant. 
 
 rufalem which, in the time of Paul, perfecuted 
 the free woman and her feed. 80 miilaken is 
 your idea, that Hagar and her fon reprefented the 
 old covenant and its fubje<Sls, all of whom, you 
 fay, were caft out at the commencement of the 
 new covenant. 
 
 To underftand this allegory properly, it muft 
 be obferved, that Sarah was the true wife and 
 miftrefs of Abraham's family long before Hagar 
 had a place in it : and even when Hagar was ad- 
 mitted to it, fhe was introduced in the chara6ter 
 of a hand-maid, not to oppofe, but to ferve Sarah, 
 It was Sarah that gave her to Abraham to be his 
 wife ; and hence her fon was confidered as the 
 fon of Sarah, and not fo properly of Hagar. " Go 
 in unto my maid," fays Sarah, <« it may be I 
 may obtain children by her," Gen. vi. 2. When 
 Ifaac was born, Ifhmael was ftill confidered as a 
 child of the family. Hagar was flill the fervant 
 of Sarah, and entirely in her power ; both lived 
 in one houfe, as did their two fons alfo. Ifaac 
 ;\nd lihimael were confidered as fons of the fame 
 family : both had the fign of the fame covenant in 
 tlieir flefli, and both lived peaceably in the fame 
 houfehold as brethren, until the time of the wean- 
 ing of Ifaac, that is, as commentators feem to al- 
 low, when Ifaac was about five years of age. 
 
 Such was the firft (late of Abraham's familyj — 
 a fine pi£lure of the ftate of the family ot Ifrad 
 from the time of the giving the law at Sinai until 
 the coming of MeiTnh. The promifc had been 
 in that tamlly long before the law, and was the 
 true mother and iv.illrefs of the houfehold. hx. 
 lad the law was added, not as a rival to o^:pofe 
 htr, but a fervant to obey her. The children bv>rn 
 under the law were all confidered as the children 
 of God, and heirs of the proaiife. Ail had the 
 
 fame 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 1 5 J 
 
 fame fign of the covenant In their flefli, the feal 
 of the righreoufnr-fs of the faith •, nor was there 
 any external badge of diftin£tion among them. 
 All profefied the fame faith, worfhipped at the 
 fame place, and according to the fame ritual. Du- 
 ring that Hate of minority, all were equally fub- 
 jt£ted to the fevere difcipline of the law, infpiring 
 a fpirit of bondage to fear, while they learned the 
 elements of this world under the lafli of the angry 
 pedagogue. " The heir, while a child, is no 
 better than a flave, though he be lord of all." 
 Some, indeed, ferved God only from fervile cuf- 
 tom, or a fpirit of fear j others from faith in the 
 promife. These were born by promifes, those of 
 the flefh. But their birth was fecret, not pub- 
 liflied as yet to the world. Each, too, had his 
 own nourifliment : the one imbibed the fpirit of 
 fervility, the other fucked the brealls of the coa- 
 folations of the promife. This, however, was in- 
 vifible ; they both ate the fame vifible bread, and 
 drunk the fame vifible cup. Both lived together 
 as brethren of tlie fame family, and in the fame 
 houfe, until the time appointed of the Father for 
 emancipating the heir of the promife from the 
 difcirline of ihe pedagogue, and weaning him from 
 the breails of a ceremonious ritual. 
 
 Sometimes before this, the feed of the bond- 
 woman had interpreted the law as a covenant of 
 works, promifing righteoufuefs and eternal life to 
 all her fons, on account of their fl;;flily oonnedlion 
 with Abraham, and on condition of their per- 
 forming the mere external works or deeds of the 
 law, without regard to the end and fpirit of it. 
 If they ferved God " in the oldnefs of the letter,'* 
 they laid in their claim to life eternal, and the 
 pofll'flion of the promifed inheritance. Thus Ha- 
 gar had become a rival to Sarah ; the miitrefs, 
 O 2 inllead 
 
1 6o Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 inftead cf the fcrvant ; the law was truly againfi: 
 the promife of God, Thus the bond-woman and 
 her feed perfecuted the free womau and her feed 
 with ♦' cruel mockings." This produced a change 
 in the family. The bond-woman and her foi>, 
 having forf.iken their ftation in the houfehoW, and 
 become open enemies inftead of friends, Sarah in 
 the figure had faid, " Caft out this bond- woman 
 and her fen : for the fon of this bond-woman 
 /liall not be heir with my fon, even with Ifaac." 
 This was fpoken as a prophecy of what would 
 happen in an after- period of the Abrahamic fa- 
 mily. 
 
 This is the Hagar of whom Paul fpeaks : this 
 the Jerufalcm, which then was, and was, as flie 
 llill is, in bondage with her children. While the 
 covenant of Sinai, or the law, kept its ftation af- 
 figned it in the houfe of God, it was no difgrace 
 to be under it, more than it is ftiameful for the 
 child of a nobleman to be in the nurfery, under- 
 the tutorage of an handmaid. In this view, the 
 ]aw was fpiritual, holy, juft, and good ; o inciding 
 with and fubferving the defigns of the promife. 
 In this light, the fons of the free woman ftill re- 
 member her kind ofEces with gratitude, and re- 
 colledl the inftruclions of their ancient nurfe and 
 tutor with profit, as 'enforcing the precepts, and 
 throwing a luftre around the maxims of their pa- 
 rent. But as foon as the law fet up as a rival to the 
 promife, pretending to be the true mother of the 
 family, and claiming the inheritance in her own 
 right, independent of, and exclufive of tiie pro- 
 mife, flie was not only ufelefs, but hurtful in the 
 iamily, and was ejedled accordingly with all her 
 fqns. 
 
 It is now clear, that Paul does not oppofe the 
 Jerufalem of old, or the church as conitituted at 
 
 Sinai J 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant, l6l 
 
 Sinai, to the Jerufalem from above, or the church 
 under the New Teilament. He only contrails 
 the law as explained by the unbelieving Jcvi-s ia 
 his time, and the Jerufalem or church conftituted 
 on it in that view, with the promife, and church 
 or children adhering to the promife, as the mo- 
 ther of them all. The law, indeed, was always 
 distinct from the promife, as the hand-maid from 
 the miflrefs, and fo could be piit away at the 
 pleafure of the head of the family. Hence the 
 fault of the true fons or believers of the promife 
 in the days of Paul, who would be ftill under the 
 tutelage of the dry-nurfe, even after their father 
 had difmillcd her from his fervice — would be un- 
 der the difcipline of tlie pedagogue, when the fa- 
 ther had declared them to be of age. This was 
 highly undotitul. But the condutl of the unbe- 
 lieving Jews amounted to direct rebellion. They 
 avowed the law as their true mother, and defpl- 
 fed the promife, perfecuting her feed, and refu- 
 fmg to hold the inheritance but folcly in the right 
 of the law. The original right came by promife ; 
 but they would not fubmit to the righteoufnefs of 
 God, and hence they have not attained to righ^ 
 teoufnefs, but have fallen from grace, as every 
 one murt, who claims the Inheritance in right of 
 law. 
 
 1 may add, tha^when Idimael was eje£led from 
 Abraham's houfe, he had a place of refuge pro- 
 vided for him by God, and a promife thit he 
 fhould dsvell there in the prefence of ail his bre- 
 thren, and even increafe fo as to become a great' 
 nation; and that beoaufc he was Abraham's i^^d 
 according to the tlefh, Gen. xxi. i j. The un- 
 believing Jews nave bita treated in tiie lame man- 
 ner : " They aie beloved for the fatiier's fake;" 
 and although cait out of his houPs and inheritance, 
 
 O3 J€t 
 
loa- Letters on thi Sinai Covenant. 
 
 yet God has aflured them of an afyluiw In all- 
 places whither- he hath fcattered them ; where, 
 ihey (hall increafe and multiply, dwelling in the 
 prefence of all their brethren, fo that it (hail not: 
 be in the power of all the nations, combined to- 
 gether, to extirpate them : « I will not make a 
 full end of thee." How pundual has this pro- 
 mife been accompHQaed ! This has certainly come 
 forth from the Lord of hoft§. — I am, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Your's, &c. 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 Sir, 
 
 T HOPi: you will now fee what anfwer muft be 
 given to the queftion propofed in the end of 
 my fourth Letter, viz. Whether, as you aver, the 
 churches of the Old and New Teltaments were 
 really eflablifhed upon difFerent covenants. The 
 promife of the feed, with the univerfal blcfllng in 
 hitn, was the real foundation of both churches. 
 Faith in the promife, as about to be accomplifhed,. 
 was the mother of the children of God from the 
 beginning until Chriit came : «< The hope of the 
 promife m.ide of God unto our fathers," fays Paul, 
 «• unto which our twelve tribes, niftantly ferving 
 God, day and night, hope to come," A6lsyxxvi. 
 6. 7.- Peter, too, addreffing the Jews, fays, «♦ Ye 
 aysjhe childien of the covenant, which God made 
 
 with 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. \ 63. 
 
 with our fathers, faying unto Abraham, And ia 
 thy feed {hall all kindreds of the earth be blefTed,"^ 
 A6ts, iii. 25. This he fnys to the Jews who had 
 not yet believed in Jefus of Nazareth as the feed 
 of the promi(e, and fo were flill under the Old 
 Teflament, hoping for the promife. The church, 
 then, under both teftaments, were founded on the 
 fame promife — the Old-Teftament church, on the 
 promife as about to be accompliflied, the New- 
 Teftament church, on the promife as already ful- 
 filled in Jefus of l»^azareth. The law, or old cove- 
 nant, ferved in the former as a tutor, handmaid, or 
 nurfe, like Hagar in the family of Abraham, but 
 was not the mother of the family, and hence has 
 been difcarded from her ftation, the time of her 
 fervice being ended. Since the faith is come, we 
 are no more under a tutor, or fchool-mafter. 
 Tliis, howbeit, has made no material alteration in 
 the family. Sarah and Ifaac are the conftitutional 
 parts of it, and remain fo, when Hagar and her fon 
 are rejetled. 
 
 Had the church of old been eftabliflied upon the 
 old covenant, or the law of Mofes, then Paul's 
 reafoning (Rom. xi. 16. — 25.) is not only incon- 
 clufive, but abfurd. He confiders Gentile be- 
 lievers as branches of a wild olive, grafFed among, 
 the Jewifh believers, the branches of the true 
 olive, partaking with them " of the root and fat- 
 nefs of the olive." The unbelieving Jews, though 
 natural branches, had been broken ofF, to make 
 room for the ingraftment cf the believing Gentiles, 
 thefe branches of the wild olive. Here, then, is a 
 ftock trom which believers in Chriil among the 
 Jews were not broken off", 'and into which the 
 chofen from among \hc Gentiles were ingrafted. 
 Ihis cannot be the old covenant, as that waxed 
 old,, and was ready to vanifh away in Paul's time, 
 
 fQ 
 
:^4 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 fo that neither Jew nor Greek had any thing far- 
 ther to do with it. It is a ftock in which all the 
 branches " flanJ by faith." What then can it be, 
 but the promise of the se^d, and the blefling in him, 
 with which no man can have any conne£lioa 
 without believing it ? Of this promlfe the Jews 
 were the chiklren ; for its fake they were all born, 
 and enjoyed all the privileges they had been fo 
 liberally blelTcd with. By f^ith in the fame pro- 
 mife, we Gkatiles too become Tons : We '« are all 
 the children of God by faith in Chrifl: Jelus." 
 
 This not only fhews us, that both churches 
 were founded on the fame covenant, but that both 
 are radically one and the fame church. The be- 
 lieving Jews were not broken off from their old 
 ftock, but we were graffed in among them, and with 
 them partake of the root and fatnefs of the olive, 
 ©r of all the privileges virtu-illy included in the 
 promife given to Abraham. The Jews were the 
 ftaminal branches of the church under the law, 
 and of them alio the fir.H: Chrifti;in churches were 
 wholly conftitoted. We are but adventitious 
 fcions, graffjd in contrary to nature, and would 
 do we!i not to be high minded, but fear. 
 
 This leads me to correct a very common mif- 
 take on fpcaking on this fubje6t. You and many- 
 others call the New-Te lament church the GmtiU 
 church, in oppofiiion to that under the law, for- 
 getting that " we aie budt upon the foundation of 
 the apoftles and prophets, Jcfus Chrilt himfelf 
 being the chief corner-llone,^' all of whom were 
 Jews. Oar Saviour and falvation are of the Jews. 
 All the apoftles, who preached the gofpel, and 
 planted the firll New-Teftament churches, were. 
 Jews by birth. Fo the Jews the goipel waS firfl 
 preached ; and of them the fird churciics in Chrift 
 were ccnltituted, Paul, too, has allured us, thai 
 
 although 
 
 \ 
 
Letters en the Sinai Ccvetwnt. 16^ 
 
 although becaufe of unbelief many of that people 
 are broken off, yet Ccd is able to graff them in 
 again — Not only fo, but he will graff them in ; 
 for " thefe have now not believed, that through 
 cur mercy, they also may obtain n-.ei'yP Yes j 
 " How much more fliall ihefe which be the na- 
 tural branches be graffed into their own olive- 
 tree ?" Is this properly a Gentile church ? " Boaft 
 not againfl: the branches." 
 
 " But by far the greateft number of the mem- 
 bers of the Kew-Teftament churches confifts of 
 Gentiles." Very true ; but were there no Gentiles 
 ill the OM-Tcilament church ? Abraham's family 
 was the radical church of Ifrael, and was not by 
 far the greateft part of that little fociety made up 
 of ftrangers, /'. e. Gentiles ? Did not even the 
 conftitution at Sinai make one law, in religious 
 matters, for Jew and Gentile ? Did it not fay, 
 *' As ye are, fo fhali all the itrangers be before the 
 Lord. One law and one manner fhall be for you, 
 and for the flranger that fojourneth with you," 
 Numb. XV. 14. 16. This ordinance, too, continued 
 through all the generations of that fhate, in confe- 
 quence of which, multitudes of Gentiles became 
 Jews in after periods, fo that the temj^Ie had a 
 court of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews. Not 
 only in the profperous days of Solomon, but even 
 during the captivity of Babylon, *« many of the 
 people became Jev/s," Eflher, viii. 17. 
 
 Where, then, lay the difference, in this refpeft, 
 betwixt the Old and New Teftament Hates of the 
 church? This deferves particular attention. The 
 Gentiles, we have feen, were adnv.icd to both ^ 
 but not on the fame footing. Ihe i ivil polity, or 
 law of the ftate, did not admit Genti.es to become 
 naturalized fubje6ls of the Jewifh commonwealth. 
 Canaan, by the law^ was divided among the tribes 
 
 of 
 
1-66 
 
 Letters on the Sinsn Covenant. 
 
 of Ifrael, according to iheir families ; and whatever 
 portion of the land was alTigned by lot to a family, 
 it was hereditary in that family, fo that it could 
 not be alienated, even to a brother Jew, but for a 
 time ; much lefs could it become the; property of 
 a ilranger for ever-, or even for a fnigle day; 
 Gentiles, then,, could only be admitted among 
 Ifrael in the character of ftrangers and r.>journcrs< 
 incapable of being fellow heirs, or of holding 
 landed property among them. Servants they 
 might be, according to the law, or they might 
 trade with the Jews occafionally j but brethren 
 they could not be. So highj fo- flrong was tha 
 wall of Nartition reared by the political law of that 
 nation between Jews and Gentiles ! 
 
 With refpedl to the ctreaioiiial or religious' 
 law, — as Gentiles were excluded by the law of the 
 flate from fulfilling any office in the depirtment 
 of government, fo by the laws regulating the 
 offices of religion, they were equally incapacitated" 
 for officiating in any order of the priefthood. In 
 this relpevSl, however, they were only upon the 
 fan^e footing with eleven tribes of Ifrael, as the 
 facerdotal offices were the fole prerogative of the 
 fons of Levi, liut with regard to all the ordinary 
 fcrvices of religion, as bringing facrifices, wor- 
 Ihipping at, and praying towards Jerofalem, there 
 was one law and one manner appointed for the 
 iFraelite, and for the Itranger fojourning with 
 him. The llranger, prof^ffiig faith in the pro- 
 mife given to Abraham, was admitted to the 
 church by the fame rites which admitted an 
 IfraeUte. In this refpedl, the people of ths 
 heathen lands might become Jews, and worlhip 
 the Lord of holts at Jeruf dem. Accordingly, vtc 
 read (A6ls, ii. lo.) of profelytes, as well as Jews, 
 aiTcaibled at Jerufalerato keep the feall of Pente- 
 
 coft,. 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. iS-j 
 
 eft, vho bad come from very diftant regions for 
 that pur|5ofe. In the Iccond temple, indeed, there 
 had betn a wail of panitioa eredtd between the 
 outer court, where the Jews were admitted, and 
 the court of the Gentiles, in which prolelytes af- 
 fembled for worfhip , but that this was of divine 
 nppoiiumenr, is no where faid in fcripture. 
 
 From the above review, tht-n, it feems evident, 
 that the laws Irom Sinai, diit£ling religious fer- 
 vices, did not, properly fpeaking, form a wall of 
 partition between Jew and Gentile. They v/ere 
 directed to the Jew firft, indeed ; but they had all a 
 fecondary refpcO. to the Gentile. The fame is 
 alfo true with refpe£l to the gofpel-inftltutions. 
 Whatever the gofpel fays, it fays it «< to the Jew 
 firlt, and then to the Greek," Rom. i. 16. ii. 10. 
 Gentiles are blefled in Chrift j but the Jews were 
 io f.rst. Unto them, firft, God having raifed up 
 kis Son, fent him to blefs them. 
 
 But the civil or ftate laws of Ifrael made an ef- 
 fectual feparation between Jew and Greek, as we 
 hjve feen already. No heathen, or one not of 
 Abraham's feed, could be incorporated with If- 
 rael, hold landed property in Canaan, or be a fel- 
 low. heir, and of the fame body, having a title to 
 the privileges of the commonwealth oi Ilrael. A 
 Geniile was only a llranger and foreigner in the 
 eye of the ftate, even v/hen admitted to all the in- 
 ftitutions ot the church. This wall of feparation 
 the gofpel has demoliflied, fo that Gentiles are no 
 more ftrangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens, 
 fellow burgcfles with the faints, and of tiie houfe- 
 ho'd of God. 
 
 Here, then, lies the true difference between the 
 two churches, with refptc^ to the iiJiniflion of the 
 Gentiles. Even when brethren in the Old Tefta- 
 meut church, they were ftill viewed as " aliens 
 
 from 
 
l63 Lettefs on the Sinai Covenants 
 
 I 
 
 from the commonwealth of Ifrael, and ftrangers to 
 the covenants of promife ;" they had no title to 
 the promifcd inheritance, nor to hare the feed of 
 the promife dcfcending from them. But now the 
 cafe is totally altered. Jews and Gentiles are bre- 
 thren in all refpe£^s, " fellow-heirs, and of the fame 
 'bodyj partakers of the fame promife." The new- 
 covenant includes both equally, giving them both 
 the fame right to the inheritance, and to all fpiri* 
 tual bleflings in heaveniies in Chrifl. The Gen- 
 tiles have their part and lot with the Jews in the 
 inheritance of the gofpel, fo that there is no differ- 
 ence. 
 
 This, is what Paul calls " fellowfhip of the 
 myftery," or the myfterious fellowfhip. That the 
 Gentiles (hould be admitted to church-member- 
 fliip with the Jews, was no myllery at all. Tlie 
 law itfelf had enjoined this union, prefcribing one 
 law and one manner of worlhip to Ifr.iel, and to 
 the ftranger fojourning with them. But that the 
 Gentiles ihould be fellow-citizens, jcint-heirs of 
 the fame inheritance with them, of the fame polity, 
 or commonwealth, w>is a myllery indeedv The 
 law had mentioned no fuch thing. It made the 
 Gentiles aliens and Grangers. The prophecies, 
 •indeed, had given obfcure hints of this fellowlfiip 5 
 but the gofpel alone has revealed the myllery, 
 which was hid in God from ages and gene- 
 rations. 
 
 I (hall now condder the other queftion propofed 
 in the end of my 4th letter, — " Whether the pro- 
 mife on which the old covenant ftood be done a- 
 way with that covenant ?" According to your, 
 i. e. the vulgar opinion, both vanilhed away to- 
 gether, both being fulfilled anil antiquated. Per- 
 haps this IS a miilake j — let us confult the unerring 
 craciesj and fee. 
 
 That 
 
hetters on the Slnai Covenant. t6<) 
 
 That the old covenant has waxed old, and va* 
 niflied away, is a point indifputably evident ; but 
 that the promife, on which it was founded, is ful- 
 iilled, and lb done away as of x\o more force, is 
 not fo clear. By this promife, Abraham's feed 
 liad a title to the land of Canaan : « Unto thy 
 feed will I give this land." This promife was ori- 
 ginally unconnedled with the law, or what Paul 
 calls the old covenant : " For the promife, that he 
 fhould be heir of the world, was not to Abraham, 
 or to his feed through the law, but through the 
 rlghteoufnefs of faith." If, then, the right to the 
 inheritance came not by the law, the abolition of 
 the law could not deflroy that right ; and, fince 
 Paul aflures us, that the right came by fai;h, or, 
 what is the fame thing, by promife, it would feeni 
 evident, that the right (lands as valid as ever, and 
 that nothing can exclude his feed from tlie poffef- 
 fion of that inheritance, but their unbelief of the 
 promife made to their father. This idea agrees 
 exactly with the original grant, " I will give unto 
 thee, and to thy feed, all the land of Canaan, for 
 an everlasting possession.^'''' Gen. xvii. 8. You teli 
 us, indeed, that Canaan is called an everlafting 
 poflefhon, becaufe, though given to Ifraei for a 
 Ihort time only, yet the thing fignified by it is c- 
 ternal. This idea throws luch an air of uncer- 
 tainty around the fcriptures, that it is impoffible to 
 afcertain their true fenfe. If the term everlastings 
 when applied to Canaan, means only a temporary 
 duration, how can we be aflured that it has ano- 
 ther fenfe when applied to the heavenly inherit- 
 ance ? The truth is, the original word rendered 
 everlasting has always the fame idea annexed to 
 it i it uniformly denotes a period, including all 
 the ages of Mciiiah's kingdom, tiie duration of 
 Mediatory interpoiiiion, extending to the time 
 
 Vol. V. P when 
 
lyo Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 
 
 when Mefliah (hall deliver up the kingdom to the 
 Father, and God fhall be all in all. This king- 
 dom fhall not end in time, or give place to ano- 
 ther ; but it fhall be loft in eternity. With the 
 duration of this kingdom, the riglu of the Jews 
 to Canaan is commenfurate ; for " the gifts and 
 callings of God are without repentance." God 
 gave Canaan to Ifrael ; and although the actual 
 pofleflion of that land depends upon their faith, 
 and the obedience conne£led with it, yet their 
 right ftands fo firm, that, even in Babylon, they 
 could ilill call Judea their own land. The cafe 
 is the fame ftiil. By unbelief, rejecting the Mef- 
 liah, they have been long fcattered like vagabonds 
 iimong the nations ; yet Mofes affures them, that 
 if they returned to the Lord their God, and 
 Ihould obey his voice, he would return, and ga- 
 ther them from all the nations whither he had 
 fcattered them. Not only fo, but he adds, " If 
 any of thine be driven out unto the utmoft parts 
 of heaven, from thence will the Lord gather thee, 
 and will bring thee to the land which thy father 
 poliefled, and thou flialt pofTefs it," Deut. i-xx, 
 
 I -6. Here is no time limited ; but if at any 
 
 time, during the exiilence of that people, they 
 ihall obey the voice of their God, their rcitoration 
 to Canaan is certain ; and that this fliall happen in 
 a yet future period, is indifpucably evident. Mofes, 
 in his long, Deut. xxxii. fpeaks of the ftate of the 
 Jews after tiie com.ing of Melhah, and the calling 
 of the Gentiles; lor fo Paul explains verfes 2j(t 
 and 4^d in Rom. x 19. xv. lo. There Mofes 
 foretells their fcattered and wretched ftate, during 
 the times of the Gentiles, but concludes wiiii a 
 prediclion, that at laft GoJ " will be merciful to 
 his land, and to his people." Both Canaan and 
 Ilrael, then, have ftlU a peculiar relation to God, 
 
 — the 
 
Letters on the Sinai Cove?iant. 171 
 
 the one is ftill his land, and the other his people ; 
 
 and mercy is referved for both. When and how 
 fliall this happen ? Hofea anfwers, *' Ifrael (hall 
 abide many days without a king, and without a 
 facrifice, — afterward fhall the children of Ifrael 
 return, and feek the Lord their God, and David 
 their king ; and fliall fear the Lord and his good- 
 nefs in the latter days," Hof. iii. 4. 5. Zecha- 
 riah alfo informs us, ti)at at that time Jerufalem 
 fliall be " lifted up and abide in her place ; the 
 juft fhall dwell in it, and there fliall be no more 
 curfe, and no more the Canaanite in the houfe of 
 the Lord of hofts," Zech. xiv. 10. 11. 21. Then, 
 fays God, " I will rejoice in Jerufalem, and joy 
 in my people ; and tlie voice of weeping fhall be 
 no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying," 
 Ifa. Ixv. 19. rhis period, the time of the relti- 
 tution of all things, is not yet come j but come 
 it (hall. Jehovah will haflen it in its time. 
 
 Of this period all the prophets fince the begin- 
 ning of the world have fpoken. We may explain 
 away the plain obvious fenfe of thefe prophecies 
 as we will, to fuit our fyrtems, accommodating 
 them to events which have already happened, but 
 all in vain. While the New-Teftament writers 
 (Rom. xi. 2. Pet. iii. 13. Rev. xxi. xxii.) aflure 
 us that this period is ftill future, it is vain for us 
 to perplex ourfelves in wrclling the fcriptures. 
 For this period Ifrael is prcfcrved adiflindl people, 
 feparated from all the nations whither they are 
 fcattered in the evil day. God has iliut them up 
 in unbelief, only that they m.ay obtain mercy. 
 
 Their prophecies concerning the humble fuffer- 
 ing ftate of Mefliah are hid from the minds of 
 the Jews. Here lies their error; hence, M'hen 
 MefTiah came to his own, his own received him 
 not. But all their ideas of his glorious appear- 
 P 2 ance 
 
2^2 Letters en the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 ance are jufl and accurate. We laugh at the ex- 
 pedations of Ifrael j but thtir hopes (liall not be 
 difappointed. 1 hey expedl Mtfliah to appear in 
 glory, in the clouds of heaven, that they fhail fee 
 him and know him ; that he will come for their 
 falvation, and to bring them to their own land, 
 while all his enemies fliall be deflroyed. The 
 prophecies jullify thefe expectations : " They fhall 
 look upon him whom they have pierced, and they 
 fliall mourn," as Saul their pattern did, when he 
 faw him. Then God " will avenge the blood of 
 his fcrvants, and will render vengeance to his ad- 
 verfaries, and will be merciful urto his land, and 
 to his people." When the Redeemer comes to 
 ^jion to turn away ungodiinefs from Jacob, then 
 •» ail Ifrael (hall be faved." I am, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your's, &e. 
 
 LETTER VIIL 
 
 SIR, 
 
 'T'Reaiing on the two covenants, the earthly 
 -*■ and the fpiritual, you confider the fubjetSls 
 of the latter as having no right to the promifes of 
 the former. Earthly bleffings were promifed to 
 the Jews only, in which promifes New-Teftament 
 believers have no interelt. The promifes of the 
 old covenant, you fay, were " carnal blefhngs in 
 earthly places, refpedling only a profperous life in 
 the earthly Canaan; the fubjetls of. which were 
 
 the 
 
Letters on the Sinai Coven.: fit. 173 
 
 the flefhly feed of Abraham," Lettersy Sec. p. 64. 
 6^. " While the promifes of the new covenant 
 are fpiritual bleffings in heavenly places." 
 
 This idea is very common ; let us fee whether 
 itbejud. We have feen the two promifes, or 
 the two great branches of the original promife, 
 conveying earthly and fpiritual bleirings, both fo 
 eonnetled together, that they have never been fe- 
 parated from the beginning of the world to the 
 lirft appearance of MclFiah. In Jefus Chrift all 
 the promifes were originally laid ; and Paul tells 
 us, that when he came, " in him all the promifes 
 arc yea and amen.'"' Thepromifed blelfiii^s, then, 
 mult be all m him -, and hence one would be apt 
 to conclude, that believing in Chrift, wt are ftill 
 heirs of the promifed bleftings, whether earthly or 
 fpiritual. Believing in Chiiit, Abraham had the 
 promife of being heir of the world ; but it feems 
 now, this promife is long ago fully accompliihed, 
 and is no more to be looked for in Chriit ; although 
 Paul affures us, that they that are Chrilt's are Abra- 
 ham's itcdy and fo heirs according to the promife. 
 
 The promife that Abraham fhuuld be heir of 
 the world, feems to be much miltaken. 1. It is 
 imagined, that the country promifed ro him was 
 only the land of Canaan, properly (o called ; and 
 doubtlefs tills land was molt obvioufly nicluded in 
 the grant, v/hen God faid to him, '« I will give to 
 thee, and to thy ictd after thee, the land of thy fo- 
 journings, all the land of Canaan." In this refped, 
 the piomife was fuHiiled in the diys.of Jolhua, 
 when ifrael got poireilion of Canaan. Yet this 
 was but a imaii part o; the inheritance intended 
 in the grant. In Ezca. xxiii. ;i. ood fays, '♦ I 
 will fet cny bounds ir^.n th- Red Sea even unto 
 the fea cf the i-'hiliituies, ana irom the dtlart un- 
 to, the river i" z. e, thy dominions Ihall extend 
 P 5 froi^. 
 
2 74 Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 
 
 from the Red Sea and the Mediterranean on the^ 
 weft, unto the Euphrates on the eaft. This pro- 
 mife was not accompli fhed until the days of Solo- 
 mon, who, we are told, " reigned over all king- 
 doms, from the river (Euphrates) unto the land 
 of the Philiftines, and unto the border of Egypt," 
 1 Kings, iv. 21. Yet even this dominion, exten- 
 iive as it was, is but an earneft or fpecimen of 
 the purclvafed poflelhon, or of the land conveyed 
 by promife. Paul fays that Abraham was heir of 
 the world, and not only of a fmall country in it j 
 and that the whole earth was intended by the 
 grant which God gave him, is clear from the in- 
 terpretation of it given to his feed, Chrift Jcfus. 
 When he rofe from the dead, the fure decree was 
 declared to him, or he got the fure mercies of 
 David. A part of that decree, or of David's 
 mercies, we have in Pfal. Ixxii. 8. " He Ihail have 
 dominion alfo from fea to fea, and from the river 
 unto the ends of the earth." Solomon enjoyed a 
 part of this, but Jefus got the whole ; as it is 
 written in Pfal. ii. 8. &c. <•• Afk of me, and I 
 will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, 
 and the mtermoft parts of the earth for a poffef- 
 Con." Thus the whole earth is given to the feed 
 of Abraham. 
 
 Thus the land cf Canaan, ftri£lly fo called, was 
 but an earneft, or fmall fpecimen, or fample, of 
 the inheritance given to Abraliam and his feed by 
 promife. Solomon had a far larger domunon, 
 given him •, and Chrift is made Lord of the whole 
 earth. 
 
 This is not all. Abraham explained the pro- 
 mife a-, extending farther lllli. He viewed it as a 
 promile ot a better country, tven an heavenly one. 
 Such a country ue and the other patriarchs fought, 
 aiS- we are cxprcfsly told, Heb. xi. to. 13. 16. 
 
 ihey 
 
Letters en the Sinai Covenant, ly^j 
 
 They fojourned in the land of promife, as in a 
 ftrange country, lookirg for a city which hath 
 foundations, whole builder and maker is God." 
 This city was not in the Canaan which Ifrael in- 
 herited of old ; for we are informed, it was pre- 
 pared for them in that country they defired, even 
 the heavenly, ver. 16. a certain proof that the 
 heavenly country was included in the promife. 
 Abraham fought this country by faith ; and this 
 faith was but a belief of the promife of God. 
 If this country, then, had not been meant in. the 
 promife, his faith could avail nothing. 
 
 2. This promife is explained as meant to be ac- 
 compliflied to his feed, and not to himfelf in pcr- 
 fon. This feems not to tally with the terms of 
 the grant, ** I will give unto thee, and unto thy 
 feed after thee, the land of Canaan," Gen. xvii. 8. 
 Paul, too, informs us, that " Abraham was call- 
 ed to go out unto a place, which he should after 
 receive for cm iiiheritcince,'''' Heb. xi. 8. But this 
 land to which he went out at the call of God, he 
 has not yet received in perfon for an inheritance, 
 even an everlafting poileflion *, confequently he 
 muft receive it in a future period, of which I (hall 
 treat in a little. 
 
 3. It is averred, that the earthly promife be- 
 longed only to the carnal, and not to the fpiritual 
 feed of Abraham. — That the land of Canaan was 
 only given to the believing feed, defcended trom 
 that illullrious patriarch according to the flefli, 
 and not to the children of his faith among the 
 Gentiles, !S abundantly evident. At lead to the 
 former only it was given, before Chrifl. came. 
 But we nave feen that the promife to Abraham 
 made him heir of the whole world, when under- 
 ilood in its full latitude, yea, it extended to hea- 
 ven. Itieif. lu this view, all the I'e.d of Abraiiam, 
 
I'jS Letters on the S'mai Ccvenatit, 
 
 all that are Chrifl's, whether Jew or Gentile Bf 
 nature, have an equal title co the inheritance pro- 
 mifed to their father. This is fo evident from 
 Paul's reafonings in his fourth chapter of the 
 eplftle to the Romans, that it is furprifing how 
 men would mifs his meaning. In ver. i j. we are 
 told, that " the promife that he fliould be heir of 
 the world was not to Abraham, or to his feed 
 through the law, but through the righteoufnefs of 
 faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, 
 faith is made void, and the promife made of none 
 cfFe6l." Therefore, ver. i6. it, i. e. the promife 
 that he fhould be iielr of the world, as no other 
 is here mentioned, " is of faith, that it might be 
 by grace j to the end that the promife mi~ht be 
 fure to all the feed " And left we fhould dream 
 that this inheritance belongs only to the feed of 
 the circumcifion, he adds, «« not to that only 
 which is of the law, but to that alfo which is of 
 the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us 
 all." It is certain, then, that the promife of the 
 world given to Abraham, is given equally to 
 all his believing feed. Such as were of the law 
 had pofleffion of a part of it, but the whole of it 
 belongs to fuch as believe. As the inheritance 
 was not of the law, the law could not diveil 
 us of our right ; and the gofpel or new covenant 
 is fo far from cutting off our title to the earth, 
 that it illullrates and confirms our claim j affuring 
 us that all the promifes are yea and amen in .Chriit 
 to all the feed. 
 
 This is the exprefs do£lrine of the prophets, 
 and of the apollles of Chrift. That the meek 
 fh.ill inherit the earth, when the wicked Ih iii be 
 cut off, is forecoid again and ag?in in David's 
 Pfalms ; and that the whole earth Ihail be given 
 ih mior a poJeiTon, is clsArl/ e^preffed in Dsi. 
 
 vii. 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 177 
 
 vH. 27. " The kingdom and dominion, and the 
 greatnefs of the kingdom under the whole heaven, 
 fliall be given to the people of the faints of the 
 Mofl: High, whofe kingdom is an everlaftmg, 
 kingdom." Tliis fhall happen, we aie told, when 
 the judgement Ihall fit, and they (liall. take away 
 his dominion," the dominion of the bead, *♦ to 
 confunie and to deftroy it to the end." This is 
 the bead of whom Paul fays, 2 ThefT. ii. 8. 
 ** Whom the Lord will confume with the fpirit of 
 his mouth, and deftroy with the brightnefs of his 
 coming." — Such is the kingdom given to the faints, 
 according to the Old-Tcftament prophets. Noc 
 is the New feftament lefs explicit in afcertaining 
 our title to the earth. When our Lord is opening, 
 his mouth to proclaim the bleflings of the gofpel, 
 he does not fay that his friends ihall Ibjourn oa 
 the earth as ftrangers, or even have a reiidence in 
 it only, but, " Blell'ed are the meek, for they ihall 
 inherit the earth," Matth. v. 5. This prediction, 
 we know, is not verified in the prefent ftate o£ 
 things, as all, even the be(t, are but iirangers and, 
 pilgrims on the earth. But Pet?r informs us that 
 this happy sera will commence at the diiTolution 
 of the prefent fyftem, when God will create 
 new heavens and a new earth, according to his 
 promife, Ifa. Ixv. 17. Ixvi. 22. This is the hope, 
 not of fuch as (hall be born at that period onl)', 
 but of all the faints. All are reprefented by Peter 
 as " looking for and halting to the coming of the 
 day of the Lord, wherein the heavens being on 
 fire fhall be diiTolved, and the elements (hall melt 
 with fervent heat ; the earth alfo, and the works 
 that are therein, fhall be burnt up " This, how- 
 ever, ihall not make void the promife ol God, for 
 *' neverthelefs voe^ accordnig to his promife, look 
 for a new heavens and a new earth, wherein 
 
 dwelleth 
 
1^78 Letters on the S inai Covenant. 
 
 dwelleth righteoufnefs." This was the hope of 
 Chndians tven in Peter's time; for he adds, 
 " Wherefore, beloved, feeing that ye look for 
 fuch things," &'C. 2 Pet. iii. i? — 14. This hope 
 is common to all the redeemed, awd hence is made 
 the fubje(fl of their fong, Rev. v. 9. is. " Thou 
 haft made us to our God kings and prit fts ; and 
 lue shall reign Gfi the earth.'''' This muft be in the 
 new heavens and the new earth, according to the 
 prophecy of Ifaiah, chap. Ixvi. 21. 2 2. So true 
 is it, that of " the time of the rcftitution of all 
 things, God hath fpoken by the mouth of all his 
 holy prophets, fince the world began." 
 
 Thus the church of God has, in all periods, a 
 title to earthly, as well as to fpiritual privileges, 
 an earth as well as a heaven. Eden was firfl given 
 to the righteous man ; and Eden then was a fpeci- 
 men of what the whole earth (hall be in the pro- 
 cefs of ages. The fpiritual blefTings man enjoyed 
 therein made it alfo an apt figure of the aew hea- 
 vens, as well as of the ne<v earth. The throne 
 of God, the river and tree of life, the blelTings of 
 the new earch, are all defcribed in terms obvicufly 
 borrowed from the (late of things in Eden. — The 
 fame may be faid of Canaan. Ihis land was dif- 
 poned to Ifrael, both as a fpeclmen and figure of 
 the new heavens and new earth. The Jerufalem 
 built in it was a figure of heavenly things, or of 
 that new Jerufalem, which lliall come down from 
 God out of heaven, to be the glory of the new 
 earth, Rev.xxi. 10. 11. ihen the tabernacle of 
 God fhall be with men, and he fhall dwell with 
 them ; when he fhall iiave made all things new. 
 This new Jerufalem is preparing in heaven ; it is 
 referved in heaven for us ; and hence is called the 
 heavenly Jerufalem, a city not of this buildmg ; 
 but at latt ihe fliall come down from God out of 
 
 heaven, 
 
Letters on the Sinni Covenant. l^p 
 
 heaven, that the nations of them that are faved 
 may walk in the li}i;ht thereof. Then all the 
 kingdoms of this world (hall become the kingdom 
 of the Lord, and of tus Chrift, and the fiiats 
 ftiall reign with him on the earth. This kingdom, 
 perhaps, fh-dl at firft only extend to the utmoU 
 lines of the Roman empire, where the Papal au- 
 thority has been acknowledged. This, it is pro- 
 bable, (hall be the kingdom in which the faints 
 Ihall reign with Chrirt a thoufand years ; while 
 the civil powers or beads beyond that boundary, 
 in the four quarters of the world, fhall be in per- 
 fe6l lubjedtion to Jefus, being awed by the fword 
 proceed mg out of his mouth, or by the terrors of 
 his authority. This feems to agree with Daniel's 
 defcription, chap. viii. ii. 12. When the judge- 
 ment fits, and the books are firft opened, ver. 10, 
 only the Roman bead is llain, and his body de- 
 flroyed, and given to the burning flame ; while 
 his kingdom is given to the faints of the Molt 
 High, ver. 27. ; yet after this we are told, that as 
 to " the rell of the beafts, they had their domi- 
 nion taken away ; yet their lives were prolonged 
 for a feafon and a time," or till the thoufand years 
 were expired. Rev. xx 7. 8. During this peiiod, 
 all thefe dominions (hall ferve and obey Chrift, 
 Dan. vii. 27. fo that " there ftiall be one Lord, 
 and his name One," Zech. xiv. 9. Again, at the 
 end of this feafon and cime, the rebellion of thefe 
 other beafts or nations Ihall bring on the general 
 judgement, the final dcitrudlion of the world 
 of the ungodly ; and the new heavens and 
 new earth ftrall appear in full perfe61ion, when 
 *< the finner Ihall be confumtd from the earth, 
 and ill' men ihall no more b.C)'' Pfal. civ. 35. 
 Thus he will drive out the Canaaniies before us 
 h-j little and little, untft <* there Ihall be no more 
 
 the 
 
1 8o Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 the Canaanite in the houfe of the Lord of hofts.'* 
 This is the everl.ifting kingdom of our Lord Je(us 
 Chrift, into which an abundant entrance (liall be 
 miniilred to all the faints of God. 
 
 But you will fay, All this will not prove that 
 believers in Chrilt have any prefent right to an 
 earthly inheritance. To this I reply, The earth 
 is given to Chrift for a poflc'flion, and confequent- 
 ly to his people ; for he has difponed to them a 
 kingdom, even as the Father has difponed it to 
 him. But there is a difference between a right 
 and an aclual possession. All the kingdoms on 
 earth belong to Chriil by right, but he.fufFers his 
 enemies to poff::fs them at prefent, until the time 
 appointed by the Father. His faints, then, can- 
 not inherit the earth, until their Lord fhall take to 
 him his great po.ver and reign ; for they can only 
 reign with him. In the mean time, they muft be 
 in Tubje(fl:ion to the powers that are, and that by 
 their Lord's authority. He is Prince of the kings 
 of the earth; ruling in the kingdom of men, he 
 gives it to who-i^ioever he wills. His people, 
 then, have ^^o b'..!Jiefs to oppofe thefe to whom 
 their Lord has b-cn pleafed to give the kingdom 
 of men. Yet Itill this kingdom is difponed to 
 them, and they ihall poflefs it at Chrift's appear- 
 ance and his kingdom. 
 
 To under ft and this fully, we muft attend to 
 the cafe of Abraham and his feed. He had the 
 grant of the land of Canaan given to him and his 
 feed, vvhen he came out of his native land ; yet, 
 when he came to the land of promife, he was but 
 a ftranger and pilgrim in it, having not a foot of 
 property, fave a burying place for himfelf and fa- 
 mily J nor did !iis feed get a6lual pofleirionof that 
 inlKr'tanv':e, till 430 years after the right was con- 
 lirmed by God in Chrift. In like manner, they 
 
 that 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. tSi 
 
 that are Chrifl's, and fo Abraham's feed, mud 
 fojourn as ftrangers in the earth -, they muft ferve, 
 like Ifrael, the Pharaohs and Nebuchadnezzars of 
 the world, who have now afflidled and opprefled 
 them for many centuries. The chains of the 
 fpivitual Babylon and Egypt have indeed been 
 broken, and liberty proclaimed to Ifrael for fome 
 time pail ; yet ftill the wildernefs is before them, 
 which they muft pafs before they can enter the 
 promifed inheritance. Such the prefent (late of 
 things is to the Chriflian ; and fuch the coming 
 fcenes will be, until the reftitution of all things. 
 Then <* evil-doers (hall be cut ofF: Jerufalem (liall 
 be built on her own hill, the joy of all the earth. 
 The meek fliall inherit the earth, and fnall de- 
 light themfelves with the abundance of peace." 
 
 Thus, they that are of faith are ftill bleiTed 
 with faithful Abraham. V/e are heirs with him 
 of the fame promile, and fliall (it down with him 
 in the kingdom of God, He mull enjoy Canaan 
 in perfon ; for God faid, " Unto thee will 1 give 
 this land." The fame promife is fure to all the 
 feed. Ihe promife is in Chrift, and in him we 
 obtain the inheritance — not an inheritance in the 
 prefent conftitution of the earth, referved for fire, 
 and foon to be melted with fervent heat. Never- 
 thelefs we, according to his promife, look for 
 new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth 
 righteoufnefs ; and all fliall have their dwelling 
 there, who love his blefled name ; each (landing 
 in his own happy lot at the end of the days.j 
 
 O let me feek the city's facred height, 
 Whofe walls eternal, on foundations firm, 
 No gulphs e'er threaten, and no ftorras can fliake 1 
 Whole gates are glory, and falvation flrong 
 Htr tow'ring bulwark j -where for ever flunes 
 
 Vol. V. ^ The 
 
1 8 2 Lettsjs on the Sinai Covenant 
 
 The Light himself, ador'd ; and on the juft 
 Pours an unfading beam, completing all 
 The prophet's promife, and ihe patriarch's hope. 
 I am, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Your's, &c. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 TTAVING examined the Abrahamic covenant, 
 ■^^ and found that its two promifes are but 
 branches of the great original promife of the 
 iced ; that both are lodged in v>hrift, in whom all 
 the believing feed have a right to both, and that ia 
 all the ages of meafured duration, until the king- 
 dom fliall be delivered up unto the F.tlier — I pro- 
 pofe now to review your ideas of what che fcnp- 
 tures call " the token of that covenant," even cir- 
 cumcrfion. 
 
 In your 7th letter to Mr Glas, you have ex- 
 prefled your views on that point clearly enough. 
 *< Circumcifion was hereditary to the old 1;r:iel, 
 and by God's appointment encailed on their ileili- 
 ly feed. — The typical Ifrael was born of the Ikfh. 
 — The ordinance of circumcifion belonged only 
 to the temporal promife, and the temporal typical 
 relation betwixt God and Abraham's feed accord- 
 ing to the fkfli. — The flclhlv birth fufficientiy dif- 
 tinguiflied the fubjetts of circumcifion. — To par- 
 take of this privilege, it was neceflary they fiiould 
 be the flelhly feed of Abraham," p. 57. — 68. 
 
 Such 
 
Letters on the Siuai Covenajit. 183 
 
 Such is your opinion ; and it muR be owned it 
 is neither novel nor singular. Mr Booth has quo- 
 ted a multitude of celebrated authors, all agreeing 
 with you, on the whole, in your ideas of the Abra- 
 hamic covenant and its token. Error, however, 
 cannot plead prefcription ; nor can all the writings 
 in the world change a falfehood into truth. 
 
 ist. According to you, circumcifion belonged 
 only to Abraham's feed according to the flefh ; 
 which flefiily birth fufHciently diftinguifhed the 
 fubjecls of circumcifion -Here a variety of diffi- 
 culties occur. Did Abraham beget Eliezer of 
 Damaicus, and all the fervants of his houfehold, 
 born ip it, or bought with his money ? Yet, were 
 not all thele commanded to be circumcifed at the 
 fame time with himfelf and his feed ? Gen. xvii. 
 12. 13. 27. Now, as we are told, (Gen. xiv. 14. )> 
 that he had at leaft 318 men fervants trained for 
 war, befidts children, all fons of the ftranger, not 
 of his feed, is it not evident, that descent from A- 
 braham's flefli gave no exclufive title to circumci- 
 fion ; yea, that one only of his feed was circum- 
 cifed at firfl:, while above four hundred Gentiles 
 received the fame token of the covenant? Again, 
 every profelyte from among the Gentiles to the 
 faith of Abraham, was circumcifed in all the ages 
 of the Jewifh (late ; fo that many thoufands re- 
 ceived the token of the covenant, who had no 
 fleOily conne6lion with Abraham. Every fuch 
 profelyte, too, had a right to circumclfe his child. 
 Was this by defcent from Abraham's flefh ? Be- 
 fide?, was any (Irangcr of any nation, Amaiek 
 and a few others excepted, excluded from the 
 congregation of the Lord, on profelfing the faith .'' 
 Or, could they be admitted to that congregation 
 without circumcifion ? If not, how did " the 
 flcfhly birch fufHciently diftinguiih the fubjecls of 
 1^ 2 this 
 
1 84 Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 
 
 this inftitution ?" — What abfurdity fobig that pre- 
 judice cannot fwallow ! 
 
 zdly^ You fay, that " circumcifion v/as heredi- 
 tary to old Ifrael, and entailed by God's appoint- 
 itient on their fiefhly feed." — How, then, did ifli- 
 mael partake of it, who was not of Ifrael at all ? 
 How could Abraham give three or four hundred 
 ftrangers an equal fhare in it with his own fon I 
 The fame thing was done by his pollerity in fu- 
 ture ages. It feems Ifrael muft have been com- 
 plaifant indeed, when they admitted flrangers fo 
 readily to fhare with them in an inheritance en- 
 tailed on them by divine appointment I Moreover, 
 if they inherited by entail, the privilege was un- 
 alienably fixed in their perfons. How came they, 
 then, to lofe it ? They are Abraham's flefhly feed 
 fiili, yet Paul tells them they are now the concision 
 only, and not the circumcifion at all, Philip, iii. 
 2. 3. Now, believers in Chrift only are the cir- 
 cumcifion. Again, Efau loll his birth-right, for 
 himfelf and his offspring, and confequently all 
 title to circumcifion as a fign of right to the tem- 
 poral promife ; yet was not he and his fons of A- 
 braham's fleflily feed as well as Jacob .'' 
 
 3^^, You aver, that " circumcifion diftinguifh- 
 ed the fledily feed of Abraham :" yet we have 
 feen multitudes circumcifed, and that by divine 
 appointment, who were not of Abraham's feed. 
 Hov/ could this badge difliinguifh Ifaac and Ifh- 
 mael from the fervants of the houfehold, bought 
 with money, or begotten by flaves ? The Egyp- 
 tians, Ethiopians, and fome others, pra6lifed cir- 
 cumcifion alio. Muft they, 'too, be fprung from 
 Abraham ? Yea, any man of any nation had a 
 divine title to circumcifion, on profeffing the faith 
 of Ifrael ; could this make him the offspring of 
 Abraham's flefii 1 
 
 ^thlyy 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 185 
 
 /^thly^ You confider clrcumcifion as a figii or 
 token of a right to the temporal promife, or inhe- 
 ritance of Canaan. It was certainly, then, the 
 {ign of a lie. Ilhmael was circumcifed by divine 
 appointment, and yet, at the fame time, God ex- 
 cluded him from any title to Canaan, or any tem- 
 poral privilege of Abraham's covenant. The fame 
 is true of Efau and all his pofterity ; they were 
 circumcifed, but had no inheritance in Can.ian. 
 Profelytes, too, were circumcifed, as were the 
 fl.ives and fervants of Ifrael ; yet this rite conferred 
 no right oa them to inherit tiie land given to If- 
 rael, as I have already demonflrated Your af- 
 
 fertion, then, is fo paradoxical, that I know not 
 how to make either fenfe or truth of it. 
 
 ^thlyy Circumcifion, you fay, was a fign of the 
 old covenant, or <• belonged to the temporal pro- 
 mife" — the promife of the temporal poflclBon oi 
 Canaan. This is a leading principle in your fyf- 
 tem, and, as fuch, merits a particular confidera- 
 tion. What renders it at lead doubtful is, that 
 Paul tells us the old covenant was not made till' 
 400 years after that, whereof circumcifion was 
 the token ; and his mafter informs us, that cir- 
 cumcifion was " not of Mofes, but of the fa- 
 thers." Add to this, when the old covenant was 
 ratified, no perfon was circumcifed at all 5 yea, 
 for thirty-fix years after this, circumcifion was in 
 defuetude among ifrael, until they had arrived at 
 Canaan. It is not eafy to fee, then, how this rite 
 couid be the token of that covenant, fince it was 
 not performed, neither at the ratification of ir, 
 nor fo long after. 
 
 The truth is, this matter hitherto has been alto- 
 gether miftaken. The temporal promife given to 
 Abraham, v.'iiich was the bahs of the Sinai cove- 
 nant, is to be found in the i5th chapter of Gene- 
 
i86 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 Cs. There we read of a grant or covenant God 
 made to Abram, faying, " Unto thy feed will I 
 give this land," naarking out, at the fame time, 
 the boundaries of that temporal poflefTion with the 
 utmofl accuracy, and afcertaining the period of 
 entry to the pofleffion of the promifed inheritance, 
 ver. 13. — 21. Of this grant Abraham defired a 
 token, faying, « Lord God ! whereby fhall I know 
 that I fhall inherit it V ver. 8. "Oa this occafioii 
 God (hewed him the token, the fymbol of ratifi- 
 cation, in a vifion. A facrifice of beafts is order- 
 ed, that Abram might fee by what symbol his feed 
 was to take infeftment of the land, when the pro- 
 mife (hould receive its final ratification at Sinai. 
 Here is not a word of circumcifion, but of facri- 
 fice. The blood of beafts, not the blood of cir- 
 cumcifion, was the token or feal of that old cove- 
 nant. 
 
 The covenant, whereof circumcifion was the 
 sign^ is recorded in the 17th chapter of Genefis. 
 This you call the old covenant, which has now 
 vanilhed away with its fymbol. Afiertions, how- 
 ever, avail nothing : Let us examine its contents, 
 that we may fee v/hat it really is. 
 
 1st, The promife or grant here given by God 
 to Abram is, «* thou flralt be a father of many 
 nations — I will make nations of thee," ver. 4, — 6. 
 Now, whatever reference this may have to the nu- 
 merous ifTue of his body, yet Paul affures us this 
 was not the principal blelfing latcuded m th^i pro- 
 mife. He quotes tliis very promile in Rom. iv- 
 I'l. and explains it in the moft uncqaivocal cerms. 
 Abraham " rece;ved the fign or circumcifion, that 
 he might be the father of ail them that believe, 
 whether circumcifed or uncircumcifed, — ^^Who is 
 the father ot us all ; as it is wricten, 1 have made 
 thee a father of rnany nations," ver. 11. — 17. 
 
 By 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 187 ■ 
 
 By this grant, then, he is not made a father of a 
 carnal unbelieving feed, but of a believing feed a- 
 niong all nations, even of all w!io walk in the 
 fteps of his faith. This promife (lands to all ge- 
 nerations, and is mod fully accomplilhed under 
 the New-Teilament difpeafation. Is it poffible, 
 then, that this can be the covenant or grant, which 
 waxed old and vaniihed away in Paul's time \ while 
 Paul alTures us, that it only had begun to receive 
 its full accompliQiment vn that very period. — This 
 granr, then, is not the fume with that in Gen. xv. 
 as this laft refpedls only his natural feed who 
 (hould believe, conveying to them a temporal in- 
 heritance ; whereai the promife under review re- 
 ipe£l3 all that believe, v/hether Jew or Greek. 
 This promife, then, is the fame with that record- 
 ed, Gen. xii. 3. *' In thpe fliall all the families of 
 the earth be blefied ;" and confequently is the bafis 
 of what Paul calls the New Tellament or Dia- 
 theke. 
 
 idly. In this grant v/e find alfo the promife of 
 the land of Canaan, ver. 8. " I will give to thee, 
 and thy feed after thee, the land of thy fojourn- 
 ings, even ail the land of Canaan." Is not this, 
 you will fay, the old covenant j the fame with 
 that menrioned in Gen. xv. 18. — 21.? I anfwer. 
 It is not. The feed tlicre fpoken of is evidently 
 the natural IVed of Abram, and none elfe, — a feed 
 who were to ferve the Egyptians, and be afflifted 
 400 years ; after which they (liould come out 
 wich great fubftance, and enter Canaan in the 
 fourth generation, ver. i^. — 16. --But the feed in 
 thib i~iA\ chapter includes all believeis ; to all 
 whom Abraham is here conftituted a father, as 
 we have .ilready leen. The Ca 1 .an, too, defcri- 
 bed \\\ chapter 15th, is the land which was given 
 only to ifraei after the flcih , partly in the days 
 
 ©i 
 
l88 Letters on tie S.t:al Covenant » 
 
 of JoQiua, and the remainder in the reign of Da- 
 vid and Solomon. This was but a pledge and fi- 
 gure of the land promifed in chapter 17th. The 
 Canaan difponed here is an inheritance fure to all 
 the believing feed of Abraham. So Paul explains 
 it : " The promife that he (hould be heir of the 
 vi'orld is of grace, to the nd that the promife may 
 be fure to all tlie f'^^d, not to that only which is 
 of the law, but to that alfo which is of the faith 
 of Abraham, who is the father of us all," Rom. 
 iv. 13, 16. Now, if all the believing feed fliall 
 inherit that Canaan, this cannot take place till the 
 fecond appearance of Mefliah, as they will not be 
 all born before that period. When he comes, 
 men will be marrying, and giving in marriage. 
 Confequently, the land here promifed is the inhe- 
 ritance rekrvtd in heaven for us ; a kingdom 
 which fliall appear with Chriit in the liew heavens- 
 and new earth. — In this fenfe Abraham hnniVlf 
 underllood this promife, for he fought " a better 
 country, even an heavenly j" and if his God had 
 not piomifed him fuch a country, how could he 
 feek it in faith ^ 
 
 In correfpondence v.-ich this view of the pro. 
 mifed l.md, it is faid to be given " for an everlafl- 
 ing pofleffioH," ver. 8. and the grant difpofing it 
 *' an everlafting covenant." No fuch epithet i* 
 conferred on the covenant in Gen. xv. as it only 
 granted the temporal polTcfFion of a fmall part or 
 fpecimen of Abraham's mheritance. To get rid 
 of this argument, you aver, that " this covenant is 
 called everlafting wit! refpett to the antitype." — 
 llowjejuneand evafive this comment! It overthrows 
 the faith of Chriilians. The new covenant is 
 called the everlafting covenant. This, by your 
 interpretation, means a covenant of ihort duration; 
 Earetveilj then, ye fweet hopes of the go.pel J 
 
 Poetry 
 
 1 
 
Lctter-J on the Sinai Covenant, 189 
 
 Poetry may admit of fuch liberties of exprelTion, 
 but law requires words and phrafes of the mod 
 afcertained and unequivocal fenfe. Now, the 
 grant before us is written in the ftyle of law, and 
 confequently, in terms of no ambiguity A mer- 
 cy it is you was not made a lawyer! Every charter 
 conveying property in fee imp/e, or for ever, mufh 
 have been explained by you as a fntk of limited 
 duration ! Or are the wcids of God lefs accurate 
 than thofe of men ? 
 
 5£//_)', The ancients only got a new name when 
 exalted to higher offices, relations, or honours, or 
 vhen fom.e new remarkable event had befallen 
 them. Here Abraham receives a new name, ex- 
 prefTive of the new dignity conferred on him, as 
 ftanding in the relation of a father to believers in 
 Chrirt, of all nations. A certain evidence that 
 this is a new covenant far more honourable than 
 that granted him in the 15th chapter. 
 
 4ihly, In this grant God lays, <' I will be a God 
 to thee, and to thy feed after thee — I will be their 
 God," ver. 7, 8. This promife fays, isi, That 
 he would prepare for them a heavenly city. So 
 Paul explains it, Heb. xi. 16. " They dtlire abetter 
 country, an heaveniy : wherefore God is not afha- 
 med to be called their God ; for he hath prepared 
 for them a city." The feed mentioned in the grant 
 is all the believing feed, v/ho never can meet in 
 any one city in the prefent world. 2^/y, It means 
 the refurreclion from the dead to life eternal, that 
 they may enjoy the eternal inheritance. So cur 
 Lord explains it, Luke, xx. 37. 38. " Now, that 
 the dead are raifed, even Mofes fhewed at the bulh, 
 when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, 
 Ifaac, and Jacob : For he is not a God of the 
 dead, but of the living." All to whom Jehovah 
 is a God muft be raifed from the. dead j for he is 
 
 not 
 
190 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. -^ 
 
 not a God of the dead, but of the living. — This is 
 the promife cur Saviour h^s promifed us, even 
 eternal life. Ti)is, then, is the covenant of better 
 hopes. 
 
 j)/ZVv> ft defcTves obfervation, that God cal's tliis 
 grant by the dtfiinguiflied epithet, my covenant, 
 'Jlius he called it when he eftablilhed it with Noah, 
 Gen vi. 18. " With thee will i eftablifh my cove- 
 nant." Thus he calls it, when given to Abraham 
 — " Behold my covenant is with thee," Gen. xvii. 
 4. 7. 9. £0. i^. 14. ThiiS, alfo, when he fettled 
 it in the time of Ifaac. He had blefTrd Iflimael, 
 and pjomifed to make him a great nation, ver. 26. 
 But, adds he, " My covenant will I eflablilh with 
 Ifaac," ver. 2r. This mufl: be the blefhng God 
 gave by promife to Adam, the feed Chrift, whom 
 God calls his Berith given to the people. He is 
 the centre of all blelTmgs, and the channel through 
 which all flow to the fons of men. To give him- 
 all things, then, is to give all things with him. 
 We are informed by Paul, that the promifes were 
 all, f5ri£ily fpeaking, made to him, and that in 
 him they are all yea and amen ; fo that, wherever 
 he was, there were all the promifes. According- 
 ly, we find the whole grant recorded in this chap- 
 ter fummed up in the promife of a fon, even 
 Ifaac, with whom God propofed to eftablilh his 
 covenant ; or, in other words, to make good alF 
 his promifes, by fending his Son on the line cf 
 Ifaac, cf whom, as concerning the flefh, Chrift 
 came. — This is what Paul calls preaching the gof- 
 pel to Abraham. This Abraham believed, and it 
 was counted to him for rightcoufnefs. 
 
 As this patriarch's faith mud have correfpond- 
 ed with the revelation God gave him, we can ea- 
 fily fee what were the articles of his belief. He 
 believed, 1st, That he fhould have a fon in his 
 
 old 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 191 
 
 eld age, even Ifaac : idly. That in his line the 
 Meili'ah, the fetd of the promife, Ihouid take 
 Helh : 3///)', That this feed {hould be made heir of 
 the world, or of all things : 4thlj, That all the 
 families of the earth thould be blelfed in him with 
 a part or lot in that inheritance : $thly. That he, 
 and all who believed this record of God, in every 
 nation, fhould inherit thele promifes, and confe- 
 quently be raifed from the dead for that purpofe. 
 — Such was the faith that faved before Chrift 
 came ; fuch is the faith that faves dill. Abraham 
 believed that the promifes would be accomplifhed ; 
 we believe that the feed is come, and that all the 
 promifes in him either have been, or (hall be ful- 
 filled in their time. Thus there is but a circum- 
 llantial difference betwixt the faith of believers in 
 all the ages of time. 
 
 This, then, it is manifeft, is the conftitution of 
 which Paul fpeaks, Gal iii. 17. *' Thus, I fay, the 
 covenant that was confirmed before of God in or 
 unto Chrirt, the law which was 4^0 years^ after, 
 cannot difannul, that it fliould make the promife 
 of none effect." The plan of Heaven for the fal- 
 vation of mankind was made known by a royal 
 edict, 430 years before the law, or Sinai confti- 
 tution, was made, and was never intended to be 
 altered by the law of Tvlofes. What Jeremiah 
 and Paul call the Uiw covenant^ is but a deed of 
 injejtnunt and seisin given, in terms of the disposi- 
 tion lodged with Abraham, to thofe who believed, 
 in all nations. The receiving of the promife of 
 the Spirit through faith, writing the law on the 
 heart, is the principal part of this new covenant j 
 and this is exprefsly called, " The bleffing of A- 
 braham come on the Gentiles through Jefus 
 Chrilt," Gal. iii. 14. 
 
 •Such is the covenant, of which circumcifion 
 
 was 
 
^92 Letters on the S:r,cn Covenant. 
 
 wa5then>,7or token; not a conftituHon which 
 waxeth old, but a covenant which Hands to a 
 thoufand generuioiis. The only argument you 
 adduces (upport of your opinion is, thnt circum- 
 cihon IS enjoined in the law of M >fes, (Lev 
 xn. 3.), from whence you conclude that it mult 
 be the hgn of the Sinai covenant. A llrange ar- 
 gument this ! In the fame law we have another 
 command, « Circumcife the fore-lkin of your 
 heart, and be no more iliff-necked," Deut. x. 16. 
 This IS a law of Mofes, confequently, by your ar- 
 gument, It too mud be a fign of the old covenant. 
 Ihe truth is, circumcifion is no where called the 
 fign or token of the Sinai covenant ; nor is it fo 
 much as mentioned when the people were taken 
 mto that covenant. The blood of bulls was the 
 fole fign of Ifrael's entering into that temporary 
 conititution of things, Exod. xxiv. 
 _ Let us, then, take Paul's plain account of this 
 mftitution, and we may be aflured it will bear the 
 fcnareft fcrutiny : « He received the fjgn of cir- 
 cumcifion, a feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith 
 which he had, being uncircumcifed," Rom.iv. n 
 It was a fign and feal, not of the righteoufnefs of 
 the law or or any right to privileges conferred 
 by the lav, but of the righteoufnefs of the faith, 
 or, m other words, of a right of pure grace »- 
 This ihall be the fubjed of my next. In the mean 
 time, I remain, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Your's, &c. 
 • LETTER 
 
Litters on the Sinai Coi-enani, I $3 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 TDHiLOSOPHERS and wits of the inffdel clafs havf 
 -*• long confidered circumcifion as a fubjeil ot 
 derifion. An operation fo indelicate, and fo need- 
 lefs in their view, muft be unworthy of infinite 
 wifdom ', and, indeed, if the end and defign of 
 that appointment be not properly attended to, even 
 the wife and good may be puzzled in accounting 
 for its propriety. Your i<ieas on this head feem 
 to me very abfurd, calculated only to darken the 
 fubjedl. Indeed, if human authorities could juf- 
 tify your miiiakes, you can produce an abundance 
 of that kind. Your brother Mr Booth has per- 
 formed this fervice for you, in his Pcvdohaptism. 
 Examined, &.c. ; in which fifty eminent authors 
 are quoted in fupport of your opinion, whofe ideas 
 on this point I now propofe to examine. 
 
 1. By your opinion, circumcifion was intended 
 to be " a fign of carnal descent,^' or of defcent 
 from the flefh of Abraham — If this was the in- 
 tention of God in appointing circumcifion, it 
 never did nor could anfwer its end. Even Ifaac 
 by this mark could not afcertain his defcent, as all 
 the numerous male fervants of the houfehold v/ore 
 the fame badge. Any man of any nation might 
 become a profelyte to Abraham's faith j and every 
 fuch profelyte was circumcifcd. Was this a badge 
 of carnal descent^ Common fenfe will make a 
 proper reply. 
 
 2. It was a mark of national distinction, or % 
 diftinguifhing character of Judaism, — a ftrange 
 
 Vol. V. R blunder 
 
194 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 blunder this ! How could this diftinguifli Ifrael 
 from the Arabs, Egyptians, Edomites, INIoabites, 
 and Ammonites, all of which pra£lifed circum- 
 cifion ? The circumcifed profelyte, too, was not 
 confidered as a native of Judea, but was flill call- 
 ed '* a ftranger fojourning wich Ifrael." — A certain 
 evidence that this rite was riever intended as a 
 mark of national difi.in£lion. 
 
 3. You confider it as a fign of a right to the 
 terredrial inheritance and temporal bleffings pro- 
 mifed to Abraham. If fo, it muft have been fuch 
 a token to Ifhmael and the fervants of Abram's 
 houlehold, and confequently was the fign of a /zV, 
 as the promife of the temporal polieiTicn of Canaan 
 was confined to Ifaac and his defcendants. Ten 
 thoufimd profelytes, too, were circumcifed ; none 
 of whom had any claim by promife to the tempo- 
 ral inheritance difponed to the feed of Ifaac in 
 
 the old covenant So abfurd are all your ideas on 
 
 this point I So dangerous is it to leave the plain 
 tra6t of fcripture, and to follow the devious paths 
 of hypothefis — an ignis fatiius feducing us into a 
 quagmire of abfurdity. 
 
 We have feen that circumcifion was made the 
 fign or token of the everlalling covenant given to 
 Abraham. Its defign in general, then, muit have 
 been, to confirm the faith of Abraham and his 
 feed in the truth of the promife, and of 7~ight 
 which they had by faith to ail the promifed bleil- 
 
 But, to obtain a full view of this fubje<£l, it is 
 necelTary to underftand, i.f^. What, in this cove- 
 nant circumcifion was a fign of ; 2^7;', What it 
 fignified or fealtd with refpcct to God ; Z^l}', 
 \Yhat it cxpreflcd on tlie part of the cireumciled ; 
 — artt ndlug, at the fatne time, to the piopri:ty of 
 this fign for anfwering thefe feveral purpofes. 
 
 1st) 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 1 95 
 
 I J/, The leading promife given to Abraham was 
 that of MefTiah, the feed to whom all the promifes 
 are made, taking flefli of his feed ; and as this 
 was the principal part of the covenant, we may- 
 be fure circumcifion was chiefly intended to ex- 
 prefs or signify that glorious fa£l. This is what 
 Abraham believed, when it was reckoned to him 
 for rigbteoufnefs, Gen. xv. 3. — 7. And Paul 
 tells us that circumcifion was a feal of the righ- 
 teoufijcfs of the faith, which he had before he 
 was circumcifed j confequently it was a fign of 
 this very fa£t, which believed produces the fame 
 cfFe£l, a fenfe of rigbteoufnefs or acceptance with 
 God, in the h^rts of all the children of the pro- 
 mife. In this view, how proper was the fign of 
 circumcifion ! Sealed in '< the hill of the fore- 
 r^in," the appointed vehicle for conveying the ele- 
 ments of human exiftence, it lively exprefl!ed thefe 
 truths, Meffiah was to be a man, and that he 
 
 •would take flefli of the feed of Abraham Wif- 
 
 dom iierlelf could not have chofen a more expref- 
 five fign. 
 
 idlj, Cutting off the forefldn, in this view, evi- 
 dently exprefTed the manner in which the Meffiah, 
 the feed of Abraham, {hould convey the promifed 
 bleflings to mankind j even by being <' put to 
 death in the flefli, cut off fsom the land of the 
 living, or by the blood oJ- his crofs." Not by his 
 birch in the flelli, but by the blood of his cutting 
 (ff, or by the circumcifion of his flefn by death, 
 does the bleiTing of Abraham come on all the fpi- 
 ritual feed. Hence his blood is called " the blood 
 of the New Teftament," the true feal of the 
 te (lament given to Abraham in its new ftate, 
 wherein its bleifings are fully adminiftered to all 
 the children of the promife. 
 
 ^dlj'y Through this blcod of Mefliah's death, 
 R 2 or 
 
ig6 Letters on the Shai Covenant. 
 
 or cutting off, the body of the fins of our fleRi io 
 cut off a!fo, or " our old man is crucified with 
 him," Rom. vi 6. Believing that he was put to 
 death in the fiefli, we arm ourfelves with the fame 
 mind, and are difpofed to give up this mortal body, 
 with all its lulls, into the hand of God, that it 
 may be deftroyed, that henceforth we may not 
 ferve iin. That circumcifion was intended to be 
 a fign of this, is attefled both by Mofeo and Paul. 
 *' Circumcife," or cut cfF, fays Mofes, " the fore- 
 fkin of your hearts," Deut. x. 16. " In whom 
 (in Chrill) alfo ye are circumcifed with the cir- 
 cumcifion made without hands, in putting off the 
 body of the fins of the fle(h, by the circumcifion 
 of Chrift," fays Paul, Col. ii. 11. Here it is evi- 
 dent, that putting off the body in which fia 
 dvvells, is the thing fignified by circumcifion, and 
 that this is effected by " the circumcifion of 
 Chrift," or by his death, which is reprefented both 
 by circumcifion and baptifm. It is alfo plain 
 from thefe texts, that what Mofes calls " the 
 forefkin of the heart," Paul calls *' the body of 
 the fins of the flelh, — our old man," This out- 
 ward man muft be put off, that the inward man 
 iiiay exert himfelf in all the delightful exercifes of 
 divine love. The heart, enilaved by the flefli and 
 its lufts, cannot love God. Hence fays Mofes, 
 ♦' The Lord thy God will circiwicise thine heart to 
 love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and- 
 with all thy foul," 8-c. Deut. xxx. 6. In this 
 view, how expreffive was the sign of circumci- 
 fion ! So obvious and flriking is the analogy, that 
 I need not enter on particulars. 
 
 II. With refpe£l to God, this inftitution sig?ii- 
 Jied and sealed his firm purpofe to fulfil all that he 
 had promifed 5 that he would fend his Son of A- 
 braham's feed according to the flefli, and that all 
 
 the 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 197 
 
 the other bleflings promifed fhould be conne£led 
 with, and conveyed through him. Moreover, 
 by giving this fign to ftrangers, not of Abraham's 
 feed by nature, he evidently indicated his intention 
 to confer the bleiring of Abraham on the Gentiles 
 as well as the Jews, in terms of the prcnife, " la 
 thy feed ihail all the families of the earth be blefl- 
 ed." Alfo, by bellowing it on infants, he ihewed, 
 that " of fuch is the kingdom of God." 
 
 III. Wiih regard to the perfons circumcifed 5 
 every adult, by iubmitting to this operation, pro- 
 fefled taitn in ihe accompliihment of the promifes 
 made to Abraham, that the Saviour fhould be of 
 his {e,t6, and that all bleflings were connedted 
 with him. in this refped; the circumcifer and the 
 circumcifed were one. The rite itfelf was a £^^n 
 and feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith, or of 
 our juftification by faith. This it figniiied to A- 
 braham ; this it fignified to his houfehold. ft is 
 not probable, that any adult would have fufFered 
 Abraham to perform lo painful an operation upon 
 him, had he not believed in the divinity of its in- 
 ftitution, and been inilru£led at lead in its prin- 
 cipal defign. 
 
 But you fay, " CircumciGon is indeed called a 
 feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith ; but it was 
 a feal only to Abraham of his own faith." He 
 received circumcifion as a " father to his natural 
 feed as fuch," p. 60. Oi» So you and many be- 
 fore you have (aid. But let us hear Paul : " He 
 received the figa of circumcifion, tJjai he rtught he 
 the father of ail them that Z\-//cvV." With refpedi 
 to circumtilion, then, as well as uncircumcilion, 
 he was a rather culy i j them that believed. Now, 
 di<- ills natural cluslrti;, as suchy believe ? if not, 
 how could circumcihou fign'fy taat he was a fa- 
 ther to his nai-urai feed as sucj^ fi.ice it only deno- 
 R 3 ted 
 
198 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 ted him to be the father of believers ? This cir- 
 cumcifion evidently pointed out, telling his natu- 
 ral offspring that they could not be counted as A- 
 braham's feed, unlefs they believed in the feed of the 
 promife ; in confequence of which belief he him- 
 felf had been circumcifed. ^ot ?iS ^ Jiatmal, but 
 as a believing father, did Abraham receive the fign 
 of circumcifion •, confequently, none could be his 
 children in that refpe(ft in which he was circum?- 
 eifed, but fuch as believed as he did. — This is the 
 tiniform dodlrine of Paul. He affures the Jews, 
 that where faith in the Meffiah is wanting, out- 
 ward circumcifion cannot denote any man to be 
 the feed of Abraham j as it was originally intend- 
 ed to be a fcal of the righteoufnefs of the faith. 
 He never was a Jew who was only fuch outward- 
 ly. This is common fenfe. 
 
 But how abfurd is your hypothefis ! If Abra- 
 ham received circumcifion as a natural father, why 
 did he circumcife the fervants of his houfehold, to 
 whom he flood in no fuch relation ? Again, if 
 your idea be juft, the bleffings of the covenant 
 whereof circumcinou was the lign, muft have 
 been unaiienably entailed on Abraham's pollerity, 
 as such, whether they believed or not. Why, 
 then, did God exclude Ifhmael and Efau from 
 thefe privileges ? Why did multitudes of Ifraei 
 fall in the wildernefs, and come fliort of the pro* 
 mifes ? Why exclude all the unbelieving Jews 
 from all thefe promifes for i^co years ? Are they 
 not Abraham's natural feed? Your hypothefis can 
 furniih you v/lth no anfwer j but would you (loop 
 to hear Paul, he would tell you, no profeffed un- 
 believer had any title to circumcifion, or the bleff- 
 ings ic fealcd. Hence Ifbmaei was cult out, be- 
 cauie he perlecuted the child of the promife with 
 «ruel mockings j. Efau, becaufe he defpited the 
 
 promifed 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenani. 399 
 
 promifed feed ; Ifrael in the wildernefs, " becaufe 
 they believed not God, nor trufted in his falva- 
 tion •," the Jews after Mefiiah came, becaufe they 
 believed not that Jefus of Nazareth was the Chrilt, 
 but faid, " This is the heir, come let us kill him." 
 Thefe have pra£tifed circumcifion, but it is of the 
 Egyptian kind, not Abraham's; the conchion^ a 
 mangling of the llelh, not a fign of the righteouf- 
 nefs of the faith, which was the circumcifion gi- 
 ven to Abraham. 
 
 But you will reply, Where are we told that A- 
 braham's fervants believed ? or could children of 
 eight days old believe ? Yet thefe were circumci- 
 fed. How, then, was this rite a fign of their be- 
 lieving ? 
 
 The fcripture affords us a full and plain anfwer 
 to thefe queilions : " Jehovah faid. Shall i hide 
 from Abraham the thing which I do ; feeing that 
 Abraham fliall furcly become a great and mighty 
 nation, and all the nations of the earth fhall be 
 blefled in him ? For I know him, that he will 
 command his children and his houfeaold after 
 him, and they lliall keep the way of the Lord, to 
 do jurtice and judgement j that the Lord may 
 bring upon Abraham that which he hath fpokea 
 of him," Gen. xviii. 17. — 19. Here it is evident, 
 \st. That the promife given to Abraham was con- 
 ne6lcd with his faith, and that it was to be fulfil- 
 led to him only through tiis fidelity in teaching his 
 children and houfehold the way of the Lord, and 
 commanding them to walk in it. zdly. As cir- 
 cumcifion was the ieal of this very promife, it 
 mult alfo have been conuedled with this faith, in 
 all that received it. ld.ly. As ilhmael the fon 
 was now thirteen ye.^rs of age, he and all ihe fer- 
 vants in the houfehold mull have tieen inltrut^sd 
 ia the way of the Lord, and walking in it, ar Icalt 
 
 by. 
 
200 Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 
 
 by external profelTion : " I know," fays Jehovah, 
 " that he will command his children and his 
 houfehold, and they fhall keep the way of the 
 Lord." Coiifeqi-iently, they received circumcifion 
 as profefTors of his laith, and not, as you and 
 your brethren aver, whether they believed or not. 
 The fame was the cafe with regard to all the 
 flrangers in the houfeholds of Ifrael afterwards ; 
 none of them were permitted to profefs idolatry. 
 /\thly. Infants were commanded to be circumcifed, 
 not (imply on account of the faith of their pa- 
 rents, but becaufe the education of the children 
 in that faith made ir certain that this would be 
 the faith of the children. That the faith of the 
 parent will be the faith of the child while in 
 youth^ is as certain as that a believing parent will 
 teach the faith to his children. Hence we can 
 call an infant of a believer a believing child, with 
 as much propriety as v/e can call it a rational 
 creature. That it will believe, i.e. knov/ and pro- 
 fefs tl^e faith, is as certain as that it will reafon. 
 Accordingly, God commanded Abraham to cir- 
 cumcife his infant-feed, not becaufe they were his 
 natural feed, but becaufe he knew that he would 
 command his children, and they fliould keep the 
 way of the Lord, to do jufticc and judgement. 
 
 The houfehold of Abraham was an houfehold 
 of faith. None could receive its privileges, of' 
 continue in the houfehold, but on a supposition, or 
 a profession of the faith. The cafe of Ifhmaei 
 puts this beyond all doubt. While he profeflcd, 
 or did not deny the faiih, he was retained in the 
 houfehold ; but the untarit he began to difcover 
 his infideluy by fcoifing at the feed in whofe line 
 the promi'c \vas about to be fuliilled, and fo 
 mocking at the faith of Abraham, he was call out 
 
 of 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 201 
 
 of the family with indipiation, and circumcifioa 
 became to him as uncircumcifion. 
 
 2d^yy Abraham's circumcifing the ftrangers la 
 his houfehold, and their fubmitting to be circum- 
 cifed, was an obvious fign, on the part of bofli, 
 that they beheved that Jews and Gentiles had an 
 equal claim to the blelhngs fealed by cir-cumcifion. 
 This, at leail, was the meaning of the a£lion. 
 The promifed blclTiig was, that Abraham lliould 
 be the father of many nations, or that m his feed, 
 of the line of Ifaac, all the families of the earth 
 (hould be blefled. Of this covenant circumciHon 
 was tlie sign ; and how properly did it exprefs the 
 thing figmfied, being adminiilered at the fame 
 time to Jew and Gentile ! Su plainly was this fel- 
 lowfliip of Jew and Gentile pointed out in the 
 primary inftitution of circumcilion ! It was after- 
 wards loft, indeed, by the pride and ignorance of 
 the Jews •» and fo became a myllery hid from ages 
 and generations, until it was again manlfefted to 
 the apollles of Chrill. 
 
 3.'f/;/, Submitting to be circumcifed, as Abra- 
 ham was, was a sign of obligation to obey as he 
 did. Abraham's faith in the promife dil'pofed 
 him to obey every command of God addrefled to 
 him: and our Lord tells the Jews, " If ye were 
 Abraham's children, ye would do the works of 
 Abraham." Hence, when the Mofaic law was 
 added, 430 years after this, circumcifion denoted 
 their obligation to obey this alfo. It was added to 
 the promife, and fubferved the accomplilhment of 
 what God had fpoken to Abraham concerning the 
 feed about to come, and the blefling in him. 
 This it did by commanding men ** to keep the 
 way of the Lord, and to do juilice and judge- 
 ment." In this view Paul tetlifies to every one 
 that is circumcifed, that he is a debtor to do the 
 
 whole 
 
202 Letters on tlie Sinai Covenant, 
 
 whole law," Gal. v. 3. In this refpe£t circumci- 
 fion was connedled with the law of Ivlofes, but in 
 no other. 
 
 In the above view of things, the ends and pur- 
 pofes of circumcifion indicate the higheft wifdoni 
 and defign, — worthy to come forth from the Lord 
 of hofts, who is wonderful in counfel ; whereas 
 all your conceptions of that fubjedt are trifling, 
 abfurd, and inconfiftent. 
 
 Before I conclude, I cannot help animadverting 
 with fome acrimony on anotlier common idea of 
 the defign of circumcifion, as if the fupreme Lord 
 had intended thereby to fix a ftigma of infamy 
 upon the appetite, organ, and a£f, by which he 
 had propofed to carry on his procefs of creative 
 power in the continuation of the human fpecies. 
 Every perfon of common underllanding, atteqd- 
 ing to what has been faid, will eafily fee, that the 
 very reverfe is the fadt. That which impeJes the 
 joy and cfFeifl of this procefs was indeed ftigmati- 
 ic^ with infamy, being cut off in circumcifion j 
 but the print left by that operation was evidently 
 intended as a fign of honour, — of no lefs honour 
 than that refulting from a conne£lion with that 
 feed of Abraham, on whom the happinefs of man- 
 kind depends for eternity. Had God commanded 
 this mark to be imprinted on the heathen, there 
 might have been fome apology found for the above 
 opinion ; but to imagine, that when he intended 
 to confer the higheft honour that ever was given 
 to man, the honour of being the father of that 
 feed in whom all the bleffings of heaven were 
 lodged, that he, at the fame time, as a fign of this 
 dignity, fixed a mark of infamy upon the very 
 vehicle and act by which he propofed to accom- 
 plifli this glorious purpofe, or to convey this 
 bleffing to man, — is certainly the fpawn of mo- 
 
 naftic 
 
Letters on the Zh-.ai CovenatiU 1203 
 
 naftic delirium, hatched in the darkeft cell of fu- 
 perfticion, — a frenzy happily unknown in Ifrael, 
 who viewed it as their higheft honour, to have an 
 offspring, numerous as the land on the fea-fliore, 
 — as the ftars of heaven for multitude, 
 
 I am, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Your'5, &.C. 
 
 LETTER Xr. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 T Propose, in this epiftle, to review your ideas 
 ^ of baptifm, and the objedlions you and your 
 brethren produce againfl: the argument, taken from 
 circumcifion, in fupport of infant-baptifm. 
 
 In p. 66. of Letters to Mr Glas^ you tell us, 
 «' The fpiritual feed of Abraham are heirs accord- 
 ing to the promife, to whom belong all fpiritual 
 privileges, baptilm among the reft." Had you 
 profcfled Ouakerifm, this propofition would have 
 been entirely in character. It baptifm by the 
 Holy Spirit, exclufive of water, be the whole 
 bapdfm inOitutcd by Chrift, then, undoubtedly, 
 bap ifm is a fpiritual bleffing indeed. But 4s bap- 
 tifm with water is the only fubjetl of difpjte be- 
 tween you and your opponents, it is hard to con- 
 ceive what idea you annex to the above words. 
 You conteft, that baptifm means iinmeifion in 
 vater. If fo, I own I am too dali to apprehend 
 
 any 
 
S04 Letters on the Si'jn.i Covenant. 
 
 any f^irituality either in the water, or in the z€t 
 of immeriing in it. If the fpiritual blcflings con- 
 ferred by Tefus Cbrifl be ail of a piece with this, 
 they will avail us little. Simon Magus was bap- 
 tifed, who was (till in the bond of iniquity, defti- 
 tute of tlic Spirit. The law had divers baptilms, 
 yet thefe Paul calls <* carnal ordinances." When 
 water, or dipping in it, became fpiritual, 1 know 
 not. — If you fay baptifmhas a spiritual desigjt, io 
 had all the wafliings appointed by the law ; in 
 which refpe£l the law is faid to be fpiritual. 
 Every fuch wafhing pointed to the oifice of Mef- 
 (iah, whofe bufinefs it is to give the Spirit, clean- 
 fing us with clean water from all our filthinefs, 
 and from all our idols. Separated from the Spirit, 
 as it is in innumerable inltances, baptifm now is 
 no lefs carnal than any one of the wafliings infti- 
 
 tuted by the law So great is your miftake with 
 
 refpedl to the riatiire of baptifm. Yet this falfe 
 notion, together with your mifconceptions con- 
 cerning the defign both of circumcifion and bap- 
 tifm, IS the .foundation of all your arguments a- 
 gainil the idea of the fucceflion of baptifm to cir- 
 cumcirion \ or that baptifm ferves the fame pur- 
 poses in the New-Teftament ftate of the church, 
 which circumcifion anfwered in the Old. 
 
 Your arguments on this fubje£l I now propofe 
 to confider ; nor (hall I here confine my inquiries 
 to yours only, but (IkiH alfo animadvert on thofe 
 of your brethren, Mr Booth, D'Anvers, Venema, 
 &c. 
 
 I, You aver, that baptifm belongs to the true 
 Ifrael, the fpiritual feed, whereas circumcifion be- 
 longed to the typical Ifrael, Lett. 7. p. 57. A 
 groTs miftake indeed! By the typical Ifrael you 
 mean the unbelieving Ifrael, born of the flclh, 
 and fo fleih only ^ in oppofition to Ifrael bom of 
 
 the 
 
Letters on the Suiai Covenant. 205 
 
 the Spirit. It certainly, then, did not belong to 
 Abraham, for he believed God, and received cir- 
 cumcifion as a fign of this faith. Nor could it 
 belong to Ifaac, who was born by promife. But 
 I need not infill on an abfurdity, fo fully expofed 
 in the preceding fheets. The truth is, circumci- 
 fion belonged to none but to the houfehold of faith, 
 and fo in this refpe£l differs nothing from bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 1. CIrcumcifion, you fay, belonged to the old 
 covenant, but baptifm to the new. — In this you 
 err, not knowing the fcriptures. I have fully 
 proven, that although circumcifion *' was re-en- 
 joined in the law of Mofes, it was not of Mofe?, 
 but of the fathers." It was not a fign or feal of 
 ■the law given at Sinai, but of the gofpel preached 
 to Abraiiam. I add, You may as well fay that 
 baptifm was a fign of the old covenant, fince, al- 
 though it was not of Mofes, but of the fathers, 
 yet it was taken into that oeconomy, the law con- 
 fiding «« of divers baptifms." With refpe£l to its 
 nature and general import, baptifm has been the 
 fame in all ages. None dared to approach God 
 without wafhing in water, under the old oeconomy 
 more than under the new. There is a difference 
 between an inftitution conne6ted with the old 
 covenant for a time, and a law peculiar to it. If 
 you infer that circumcifion was peculiar to the 
 old covenant, becaufe enjoined in the law of Mo- 
 fes, you mufl alfo conclude, by the fame confe- 
 quence, that " Thou (halt love the Lord thy God 
 with all thine heart" was alfo peculiar to that con- 
 ftitution. 
 
 3. You, Mr Booth, and many authors quoted 
 by him, agree that birth of the flesh gave a claim 
 to circumcifion ; whereas faith or regeneration 
 only furnifh a title to baptifm. Hence it is conclu- 
 
 VOL. V. S ded^ 
 
2o6 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 ded, with an air of triumph, that baptifm has a 
 defign totally different from circumcifion. It is 
 truly aftoniftiing, with what infolence you and 
 your brethren talk on this lubjecft. Mr Booth, 
 (Poedobaptifm, p. 306.), avers, that Abraham's 
 male infants, and even adults, were entitled to 
 circumcifion, " merely in virtue of their carnal 
 defcent. This right they enjoyed independent of 
 fan£lifying grace, either in themfelves or their pa- 
 rents, and even detached from every idea of a pre- 
 tenfion to it, in the one or the other. Nay, the 
 domeftics of Abraham, whether born in his houfe, 
 or bought with his money, whether in a carnal or 
 a regenerate flate, were as fully entitled to this 
 rite as their venerable mailer." Impious afler- 
 tions, though produced by pious writers ! — Was 
 circumcifion appointed without refpe£t to Abra- 
 ham's faith ? Does not Paul fay that he received it 
 as " a feal of the righteoufnefs of the faith ?" How, 
 then, could his feed have a right to this rite " in- 
 dependent of faith either in themfelves or their pa- 
 rents, and even detached from every idea of a pre- 
 tenfion to it, in the one or the other ?" Did not 
 'Abraham receive this fign, that he might be the 
 father of all them that believed in the circumci- 
 iion ? Moreover, it is indifputably evident, from 
 what I have faid above, that none of his offspring 
 were circumcifcd without refpe£t to their faith. 
 If any of them apoftatifed from the faith, they 
 were commanded to be cut off from among the 
 people. Circumcifion was intended to keep alive 
 the faith of the coming of MelTiah, the great pro- 
 mife to which it was annexed. Without this it 
 was uncircumcifion, as is clear from Paul's rea- 
 fonings, Rom. ii. The unbeliever who did not 
 keep the law, or the fpirit and defign of the law, 
 as a pedagogue leading to Chrift, never was a Jew. 
 
 The 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 207 
 
 The very infants were circumclfed with refpe£k to 
 their faith : " For I know," fays God, " he will 
 command his children to keep the way of the 
 Lord." The fame is faid of his houfehold. They 
 were entitled to this rite as profefling the faith of 
 Abraham. None but fuch were allowed to dwell 
 in his houfe. " I know him, that he will com- 
 mand his household, and they fliall keep the way 
 of the Lord, to do juflice and judgement." His 
 houfehold was the houfehold of faith ; fo foon aS 
 Ifhirael profefled unbelief, he was caft out from 
 the houfehold and all its privileges. Birth, in 
 that refpedl, availed him nothing,— fo evident is 
 it, that the flefhly birth never gave any a title to 
 circumcifion. 
 
 With refpe£l to the defign of baptifm, you alfo 
 greatly err, — confounding two things very diftindl, 
 baptifm, and the external adminiftration of it. 
 Baptifm in itfelf, it is admitted, is a fign, as you 
 fay, " of the remiflion of fins by the blood of 
 Chrift ;" and in fum — " of the spiritual, eternal, 
 and invisible bleffings of his kingdom." This you 
 have illullrated with great propriety, particularly 
 in a late publication. But you miftake its fignifi- 
 cation with iefpe£t to the perfon baptifed — imagi- 
 ning that it denotes his real faith or regeneration, 
 or that he is a real member of the church invisible^ 
 partaking of all her fpiritual, eternal, and invi- 
 fible blefTmgs. On this abfurd idea you aver, that 
 « there is not the leaft hint given in all the fcrip- 
 ture, that baptifm is appointed to be a sign and 
 token of a perfon's belonging to the kingdom of 
 God, as it appears in this world *." Confequent- 
 ly, baptifm muft be a sign of a perfon's belonging 
 to the invifible church. If fo, then baptifm is 
 S 2 appointed 
 
 * Defence of Believer- baptifm, p. 15. 
 
2zB Litiirs en the Sinai Ccvenani, 
 
 appointed to be the sign of a licy as, in innume- 
 rable inflances, even of the apolloiic baptifm, it: 
 was adniiniftered to perions in the gall of bitter- 
 nefs and bond of iniquity. When adminiftered 
 to Simon Magus, was it a s'gn of his regenera- 
 tion ? You will not fay fo What, then, becomes 
 cf your view of its fignification ? — You have a 
 ftrange idea of Chrift, that he inftitutes an ordi- 
 nance which cannot anfwer his purpofe ! 
 
 According to your fcheme, you cannot admi- 
 iiifler baptifm to any but real believers. They 
 mull not only appear to be of the kingdom of God, 
 but be really fo. How, then, can you baptife at 
 all, unlefs. you prcfefs to fearch the hearts, and 
 try the reins, of the children of men ? Mr Booth 
 eftabliihes the fame abfurd idea, profefling, with 
 his favourite Venema^ p. 274. that " it is not law- 
 ful to baptise any one, if he is not really a believer." 
 The meaning is, the apodles and difciples of 
 ChriO". were daily aciing unlaivfully, in adminifter- 
 jng baptifm to multitudes, who afterwards drew 
 back to perdition. Alfo, Jefus Chrid has laid his 
 difciples under a necefTity to break his laws, by 
 commanding them to baptife «ow but rf«/ belie- 
 vers, while he with-held iVom them the power of 
 judging men's hearts, — a power indifpenfably ne- 
 cefl'ary to fulfil his law. Error is always inconfif- 
 tent with itfelf, and always blasphemes the conduct 
 of Chriil and his apoftles. 
 
 The truth, on the contrary, is confident and 
 quite obvious. Baptifm belongs to the visible 
 church, and a visible fociety muft proceed on a 
 visible footing in the adminiftration of her ordi- 
 nance. Real believing makes a member of the 
 invifible church, but, while this is unknown, he 
 is not a member of a vifible church ; whereas a 
 profession of faith, whether fincere or not, makes 
 
 it. 
 
s^ 
 
 Letters on the Sinai Covenunt, 209 
 
 it iaivful for a vifible church to adminifter the vi- 
 able baptifm. Thus the apoftles a£ted, and they 
 furely under flood their commifTion. By the bap- 
 tifm of the Spirit we become members of the in- 
 vifible church ; not fo by the baptifm of water. 
 This laft is a fign that the perfon baptifed has pro- 
 fefled the faith, and fo is a fign of his admiffion to 
 the communion of that vifibie fociety into which 
 he has been initiated. As the church loves the 
 truth he has profefled, they muft love him for the 
 truth's fake, fo far as they fee it dwelling in him. 
 Yet Chriil never commanded us to believe, that 
 every perfon profefling the faith, and baptifed, is 
 really a member of the invifible kingdom of God ; 
 he has only commanded us to treat him as fuch, 
 till he evidences the contrary charadler. 
 
 Thus circumcifiun and baptifm has been admi- 
 niftered on the fame footing, even a profession of 
 the faith of Abraham. 
 
 4. In conformity with your fyflem, Mr Booth 
 fays, (p. 305.), " Baptifm is an appointment 
 purely xt\\^\Q\i%, and intended for purpofes entirely 
 fpiritual ; but circumclfion had a political afpe£t, 
 being a fign of carnal defcent, a mark of national 
 diftinition, and a token of interell in thofp tem- 
 poral bleflings that were promifed to Abraham." — 
 That baptifm is an inftitution purely religious, is 
 granted; but that circumcifion had any fuchj&o//- 
 tical aspect as is above mentioned, is falfe, as I 
 have already proved. It was, indeed, a mark of 
 diftinQion between believers and heathens ; but 
 ihe fame is true of baptifm. It was no mark of 
 national diftinttlon, as many not of that nation 
 received it. Nor was it a characteristic of Judaism 
 (as Dr Erlklne phrafes it) in any other fenfe than 
 that in which baptifm is a chara6terillic of Chrif- 
 tianlty. No man was confideied. as a Jew who 
 S 3 was 
 
^v> 
 
 2 1 o Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 
 
 was not circumclfed ; nor can any be confidered 
 as a Chriftian, who has not been baptifed, or at 
 lead is ready to fubmit to baptifm. If the Do6tor 
 means, that baptifm is not a certain fign of real 
 Chriftianity, it is equally true, that circumcifion 
 was not a certain fign of real Judaifm. " For he 
 is a Jew that is one inwardly, and circumcifion is 
 that of the fpirit." 
 
 But, fays the Do£lor, " Circumcifion imprefled 
 ^n abiding mark ; whereas baptifm impreflcs nO' 
 abiding mark." This certainly means, that this 
 abiding mark ferved to afcertain his defcent, both 
 to himfelf when grown up, and alfo to others. 
 Thus D'Anvers explains it, and adds, " By this 
 mark one knows, not only that he was a Jew, 
 but that he had a right to his father's tempo- 
 ralities." Strange ideas thefe ! the daughters of 
 Zelophehad, I fuppofe, were at no lofs to know 
 their defcent, or their right to their father's inhe- 
 ritance, although they had no fuch mark. As 
 many neighbouring nations, alfo, pradlifed cir- 
 cumcifion, no man, merely by infpe£ling this 
 mark in his flefti, could be certain whether he was 
 a Jew by birth or not. In vain, too, would the 
 fon of a profelyte have produced this mark in a 
 plea of right to an inheritance in Canaan So evi- 
 dent is it, that by this mark no man could afcer- 
 tain his defcent, either to himfelf or to others. 
 
 In this refpe£l, then, circumcifion had no pre- 
 eminence above baptifm. One could know that 
 he had been circumcifed in infancy by a Jew, only 
 by a previous knowledge of his defcent, and by 
 the tefi-imony of fpe6tators. In the fame manner 
 can one's baptifm in infancy be afcertained. The 
 parochial regifter, with the teftimony of his pa- 
 rents and other witiiefles, renders the fa6l indubi- 
 tably certain i whereas, although baptifm had im- 
 prefled 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenmit. 2il 
 
 prcffed an abiding mark on his flefti, he could not 
 be certain whether he had been baptifed into the 
 faith of Chrift or not, as many Pagans pra6tife 
 infant-baptifm. 
 
 5. Venetna, as quoted by Mr Booth, fees a pro- 
 priety in " imprinting this mark of circumcifion 
 in memhro genitalia as a fign of a numerous off- 
 fpring, and of temporal benefits connc6ted with 
 their very nativity ;" and hence infers, that there 
 is no analogy between circumcifion and baptifm. 
 — But did not many Jews die in infancy without 
 iifue ? and of fuch as grew up to nianhood, many 
 had few children, and others none at all. If cir- 
 cumcifion, then, was to be a fign of a numerous 
 offspring, it was, in many inftanccs, the fign of 
 a lie I Again, what temporal benefit was connect- 
 ed with the nativity of a flave, or the fon of a 
 profclyte ? None at all. So abfurd are the ideas 
 of Mr Booth's learned and judicious profefibr • 
 
 But, viewing this mark as a fign of the divine 
 purpofe to raife up to Ifrael a Saviour of the feed 
 of Abraham, we at once fee an obvious propriety 
 in imprinting it genita!i?ne/?ibro. Hence, alio, WC- 
 can eafily fee why no fuch mark is appointed now. 
 The birth indicated by circumcifion is already pro- 
 duced, and has openly appeared to men. While 
 the Son of the promife was yet the secret One^ the 
 mark of faith in his appearance might well be 
 worn in the moft secret part of the body; but 
 now he is publicly manifefled, his fervants muft 
 wear his mark on \.)\t\x forcht^ads. 
 
 6. Mr Booth afks, *' If baptifm facceeded in 
 the place ot circumcifion, how came it about that 
 both of them were mjull force at the same time ;.. 
 that is, from the commencement of John's mmif- 
 try to the death of Chrill ?" A more abfurd quef- 
 tion was never put 1 This author admits that the 
 
 Chriltian 
 
212 Letters on the S'niai Covenant, 
 
 Chriftlan baptlfm was not inftituted till after the 
 refurredlion of Chrift : how, then, could it be in 
 full force before his death ? The baptifm of John 
 
 was not Chrifl's Of the fame kind is the quef- 
 
 tion he adds, — " Again, admitting the fucceflion 
 pretended, how came it that Paul circumcifed Ti- 
 triothy after he had been baptifed ?" I anfwer, If 
 Paul had circumcifed Timothy by divine authority, 
 or had enjoined the obfervation of that rite on all 
 Chriftians, this queftion would have had fome 
 foundation ; but we are exprefsly told, that he 
 performed this ceremony, not from confcience to- 
 wards God, but from maxims of prudence, ♦' be- 
 caufe of the Jews which were in thofe quarters/' 
 ACks, xvi. 3. 
 
 7. D'Anvers fays, baptifm does not anfwer the 
 ends of circumcifion, ist, Becaufe " circumcifioii 
 was a fign of Chrift to come in the flefli, and 
 baptifm, that he was already come in the flefh, 
 witnefling to his incarnation, death, burial, and 
 refurre^lion." — So far as it goes, this is a juft 
 enough account of the defign of thefe ordinances j 
 but if the argument founded on it be juft, we 
 mufl alfo conclude, that the apoftolic gofpel does 
 rot anfwer the end of the gofpel preached to A- 
 braham, becaufe this declares that Chrift was to 
 come in the flelli j and that teftifies that he is al- 
 ready come. 
 
 T-dlVi " Circumcifion was to be a partition-wall 
 betwixt Jew and Gentile •, but baptifm teftified 
 the contrary." I anfwer, If this was the defign 
 of circum.cifion, was it not ftrange that God, at 
 its firft inftitution, ordered at leaft an nundred 
 Gentiles to be circumcifed for one J^w ? An odd 
 kind of partition this ! The trurh is, circumcifion 
 was only a partition betwixt profeflbrs of Abra- 
 ham's faith and the heathens ; and fuch is baptifm 
 
 ftiUc 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 2l J 
 
 iftlll. But, 26 any man, of any nation, profclyted 
 to the faith, has now a title to baptifm, fo had he 
 of old to circumcifion. 
 
 3^'/^, He adds, " Circuracifion initiated the 
 carnal seed into the carnal churchy and gave thenn 
 a right to the catnal ordinances ; but baptifm gives 
 the spiritual seed an entrance to the spiritiiul churchy 
 and a right to partake of the ypirittial o} dinances.''^ 
 This is all over a miflake. Circumcifion initiated 
 men to the Abrahamic church, which flood en- 
 tirely by faith. Was this a carnal church ? Had it 
 been intended as a fign of initiation to the Mofaic 
 church, confiituted at Sinai, it would have certainly 
 been performed at the giving of the law, as num- 
 bers of infants had been-born fince the Exodus from 
 Egypt ; yet this was fo far from being the cafe, 
 that circumcifion was altogether omitted during 
 the forty years journey in the wildernefs. Sprink- 
 ling with the blood of bulls was the fign of enter- 
 ing into the Sinai conftitution ; as circumcifion 
 was the token of faith in the promife. The law 
 was added to the promife, and the fign of the 
 law to that of the promife. — Again, if circumci- 
 fion was intended to initiate the carnal seed^ Ifli- 
 mael and his feed o?iIy had a right to it, as they 
 were born after the flefh. Why circumcife the 
 father of the faithful, and Ifaac the fon of the. 
 promife ? Sure they were not the carnal feed. — 
 The truth is, circumcifion and baptifm were both 
 inftituted to initiate the profeflbrs of the faith of 
 Abraham into the visible church of God, as a fign 
 of right to the visible ordinances. Thefe ordinan- 
 ces, though carnal or earthly in their nature, were 
 fpiritual to the fpiritual under the law, as they 
 all had a fpiritual defign. This is flill true under 
 the gofpel. To call Ifrael the carnal feed, and 
 members of vifible churciies now the fpiritual, is 
 
 tha 
 
214 Letters cti the Sinai Covenant, 
 
 the highefl abfurdity. Writing to the Corinthians, 
 Paul fpeaks *' not to them as to fpiritual, but as to 
 carnal, and babes in Chrift." Inftead of eating 
 the Lord's Supper, be tells them, they only eated 
 their own fupper, and not the Lord's. Was this 
 to then, a fpiritual ordinance ? — Befides, are not 
 Ifrael called a holy nation ; and did they not all 
 eat the fame spiritual meat, and all drink the fame 
 spiritual drink ? Where, then, lies the diffe- 
 rence ? 
 
 a^thly, ** Trees and fruits were capable of cir- 
 cumcifion." It is ftrange what abfurdities men 
 will produce in fupport of a favourite opinion ! 
 Was circumclfion of trees and fruits a token of 
 the covenant ? Were they circumcifed *' in the 
 flefh of the forefkin ?" Or did God command A- 
 braham to circumcife trees or fruits ? If not, then 
 fuch circumcifion was no religious a£l or fign of 
 intereft in the covenant of Abraham. — Trees and 
 fruits are juft as capable of baptifm as of circum- 
 cifion. 
 
 I can only find one other argument produced to 
 difprove the analogy between circumcifion and 
 baptifm. The former, Venetna fays, v/as a type 
 only, whereas the latter is a pledge or earneft of 
 what it reprefents. Where he finds this diftinc- 
 tion I know not. The very reverfe feems to be 
 the truth. Circumcifion was a fign of " the put- 
 ting off the body of the fins of the flefh ;" and 
 was not a part of that very body, as a pledge or 
 earneft of the whole, actually put off in circum- 
 cifion ? Baptifm is a fign or figure of the fame 
 thing ; but waftiing the body does not cut off any 
 part of it ; and confequently, in baptifm we have 
 no pledge or earneft of the thing fignified, but an 
 exprefllve fign or figure. — If you fay, lemiflion of 
 fins is conneded with baptifm as a pledge of all 
 
 fpiritual 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 2 1 $ 
 
 fplritual bleffings, — What remiflion of fins had 
 Simon Magus, who, after baptifm, was yet in 
 the gall of bitternefs, and bond of iniquity ? 
 
 Thus i have examined your ideas of circumci- 
 fion and baptifm, and alfo all the arguments pro- 
 duced by Baptifts and felf-inconfiftent Poedobap- 
 tifls, in refutation of the idea of baptifm as fuc- 
 ceeding circumcifion, with refpe£l: to its ends and 
 purpofes, in the church of God ; and I hope you 
 now fee that the whole is one continued fyftem of 
 abfurdity, founded on the mofh falfe and miflaken 
 views of fcripture that ever ignorance prefumed 
 to nubUlh to mankind. 
 
 When it is faid, however, that baptifm fuc- 
 ceeds circumcifion in the New-Teftament church, 
 it is not meant that this is the fole office of bap- 
 tifm. As an initiatory iymbol, or token of ad- 
 miflion to the vifible church of God, it has fuper- 
 feded the ufe of circumcifion by divine appoint- 
 ment -, but this is not all. In my Diflertation on 
 Baptifm, I have (hewed that baptifm was appoint- 
 ed as an initiation to the houfe and fervice of God. 
 It was fo before the law of Mofes ; it was fo in 
 that law which flood in divers baptifms. This 
 was common to all the Jews, male and female, 
 young and old. By this, too, all profelytes to 
 the faith of Abraham were admitted to the houfe 
 of God ; and thus alfo their infants were received. 
 To thefe other ordinances the law added the 
 fprinkling of blood, which was alfo adminiflered 
 
 to all. By this epithet baptifm is alfo called 
 
 Now, what can be concluded from all this, but 
 that baptifm not only fills the fame place in the 
 Ne(v-Tellament church which it had in the Old, 
 but has alfo fuperfeded circumcifion and the 
 fprinkling of blood, anfwering the fame ends now 
 which they fubferved of old .•* The confequence 
 
 is 
 
2j6 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 is evident and inevitable ; infants had a fliare in 
 each of rheie rites fornierly, and fo cannot be ex- 
 cluded from this claim, unlefs by divine authority. 
 Hence, as Jel'ua Chrirt made no alteration in this 
 refpe£l, to diveil infants of this right is to a£l 
 from caprice, not from refpe£l to the laws of re- 
 ligion. 
 
 I kno^v, indeed, what your brother Mr Booth 
 has obje£led to the practice of baptifm under the 
 Old Teftament ; and I am aftoniftied to find him 
 calling it '•' a Rabbinical cuftom. Rabbinical bap- 
 tifm, Talmudical bathing," &c. intimating that 
 fuch a praftlce had no exitlence, but in the reve- 
 ries of the ialmud. On this fuppofition he fays 
 many fevere things ; only, however, to difplay 
 his own weaknefs, and the power of prejudice 
 over the bed. In narrating this facl, we have 
 every reafon to believe that the Rabbins fpeak 
 truth ; as all the Jewilli writers agree, both with 
 refpcdl to the exiftence and circumftances of this 
 pratSlice, without a jarring voice. Moreover, had 
 it been a falfehood, it could not have been invent- 
 ed by the Rabbin?, the mod inveterate enemies of 
 Jefus Chrift. It is well known, that the principal 
 obje£lion of the Jews againd Jefus was, that he 
 changed the law and cudoms of Mofes. Now, 
 John Baptid and Jefus Chrid pra^lifed profelyte- 
 baptifm ; which pra£lice was made a danding law 
 in the Chridian church. In this the ordinances 
 of our Lord correfponded with the law of Mofes, 
 fuppofing the aliertion of the Rabbins to be true ; 
 and is it credible, that his mod malignant enemies 
 would have invented a dory, which they them- 
 felves mud have known refle£led no fmall honour 
 on the chara6ter of Jefus of Nazareth ? 
 
 But our faith in this matter does not depend on 
 the veracity of the Rabbins, but on the word of 
 
 God. 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 1 1 ) 
 
 God. liVael were taken into the covenant by clr- 
 cumclfion," baptifm, and fprlnkling of blood ; and 
 ftrangers alfo were permitted to take hold of that 
 covenant. Nor is it lefs certain that the divine 
 law faid, <* One law and one manner (hall be for 
 you, and for the flranger that fojourneth with 
 you ; as ye are, fo (hall the ftranger be before the 
 Lord," Numb. xv. 15. 16. If you will admit, 
 then, that Ifrael at anytime obeyed the law of 
 God, we are certain that profelytes were admitted 
 to the covenant of Abraham, in the very manner 
 narrated by the Rabbins, whether they had told 
 us fo or not. Shall we difcredit the Rabbins, be- 
 caufe they fpeak according to the fcriptures ? — 
 When they fpeak oi plungnig, they are immediate- 
 ly dubbed oracles of truth ; let them fpeak of in- 
 fant-baptifm, they, like the Cretans, are always 
 liars ! — So inconfiftent with itfelf is the fpirit of 
 prejudice. 
 
 Nor does it avail to tell us, that this pra<S:ice 
 " is not fo much as once mentioned in the records 
 of infpiration." We read of many people beco- 
 ming Jews under the Mofaic economy, yet, du- 
 ring all that period, we do not find the manner of 
 their admiffion fo much as once mentioned in the 
 Old-Teftament hiilory. — Muft we therefore con- 
 clude that they became Jews without circumci- 
 fion ? Or if you admit that Ifrael pra6tifed profe- 
 lyte-circumcifion, merely on the authority of their 
 uninfpired hiftorians, and the probability of the 
 cafe, why not admit their pradiiling profelyte-bap- 
 tifm on the fame evidence ? 
 
 1 know no fet of people fo inconfiHent as you 
 Baptift-writers. Oppofing the Quakers, you (Ire- 
 nuoufly infill on immerfioii in water, with a cere- 
 monious exadlnefs, as efiential to Chriliianity. 
 Writing againft the Poedo-baptifts, again, we hear 
 Vol. V. T you 
 
2 1 8 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 you fpeak of nothing but a spiritual seed, spiritual 
 church, and spiritual ordinances ; even baptifm be- 
 comes wholly spiritual ; and confequently has not 
 any thing carnal, fuch as water, in it at all. It 
 is a fpiritual blefling, you fay, and does not put 
 away the filth of the flefli — the very argument of 
 the Ouakers againft the ufe of water in b-.iptifm. 
 Why, then, fuch a pother about water, which in 
 itfelf can only reach the flefh ? 
 
 Again, fpeaking of our Lord's commiffion to 
 baptife, you argue thus : 
 
 Only he that is taught or believes is to be bap- 
 tifcd ; — an infant cannot believe, and therefore is 
 not to be baprifed. 
 
 But, commenting upon Mark, xvi. 16. " He 
 that beiieveth fhall be faved," you admit that in- 
 fants, dying in infancy, are faved, notwithftand- 
 ing the conne£lion fo exprefsly Hated in this text 
 between believing and falvation. So that your 
 meaning is, 
 
 3e that beiieveth fhall be faved ; 
 Infants cannot believe ; yet, 
 
 infants, dying in infancy, ilvall be faved. 
 
 Is not this fine logic ? Since you have allowed 
 *' all fpiritual bltfilngs'' to infants, 1 humbly think 
 you might have added, " and baptifm among the 
 reft." If the fecond text admiits them into heaven 
 without faith, I cannot fee how the fi.ft can be 
 conflrued as excluding them from baptifm — You 
 may unravel thefe inccnfiftencies at your leifure. 
 — -I am, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your*3> S:c. 
 
 LLXriR 
 
A- 
 
 Letters on the Sinai Cova:a/it. 215 
 
 LETTER XII, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Ttending to what has been faid in the two 
 preceding epiftles, I hope you now fee the 
 weaknefs of your argument againll infant-baprifm, 
 as if it proceeded upon the footing of a flefhly 
 conne£tion with a parent, or at lead fuppnfed that 
 the fubjecls of the kingdom of God are to be dif- 
 tinguiftied by the faith of another. We have feea 
 that circumcifion proceeded on no fuch tooting, 
 God made known his covenant to Abraham, and 
 put the token of it, riot only in his own fleOi, but 
 in that of his children, becaufe I know, fays God, 
 " that he will command his children, and they 
 Ihall keep the way of the Lord." The faith of 
 the parent is here rationally confidered as the faith 
 of the child, as nothing can be more certain, than 
 that a child will receive his lirft ideas from his pa- 
 rents, whether in religion or in any thing elfe tf 
 nor is it lefs certain, that a believing parent will 
 train up his child in the nurture and admonition 
 of the Lord ; fo that from a child he may know 
 the fcripturc, which is able to make him wife un- 
 to faivation. Thus the church, in adminillering 
 baptifm to a child, confiders him as of the faith ;, 
 fiie is certain that he will profefs the faith during 
 non-age. Ke may afterwards, indeed, make fhip- 
 wreck of the faith j but 10 may one baptifed in- 
 adult years. 
 
 Hence, alfo, you may fee the propriety of ad- 
 miniltering baptifm to the infants of believing pa- 
 rents. Only a believer can be fuppofed to educate 
 his child in the faith of Chrill, It would be fol- 
 T z ly 
 
320 Letters en the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 iy to imagine that an infidel will do fo ; and 
 hence, as baptifm is a Clirlftian inftitution, it can- 
 not be admlniftered rationally, but to fuch as are 
 fuppofed to be of the houfehold of faith. 
 
 I now proceed to obviate an objedlion, which I 
 know win arife in your mind againft: my ideui of 
 circumciiion. If circumcifion was a feal of the 
 righteoufnefs of the faith, or of the everlafting 
 covenant given to Abraham, and not of the law 
 or old covenant, how came that rite to be abolifii- 
 fd when the faith came, or this eveilafting cove- 
 nant was ratified by the blood of Jtfus ? AVhy, 
 alfo, was not baptifm made void at the fame time ? 
 "Vv'hy retain and enforce the latter, and vacate the 
 obligation of the former ? 
 
 In anfwer to thefe queftions, we mull obferve, 
 that circumciiion was principally intended to be a 
 lign of the promife, that Mefliah fiiouid take flcflx 
 of the feed of Abraham, and that in him all na- 
 tions lliould be blefled. In this view, circumci- 
 fion ferved as a memorial of the promife, and 
 tended to keep alive the hope of believers, and to 
 iupport their faith in the accomplifhment of the 
 promife in due time. But when the feed came, 
 and the promife was fulfilled, it is eafy to fee, that 
 circun^cifion, the fign of his being about to con-.e, 
 eould anfwer no purpofe. To continue the prac- 
 tice of circumcilion after this, would not only 
 have been ufelcfs, a m.ere mangling of the flefli 
 to no manner of purpofe ; but it muit have a- 
 mounted to a denial of the truth of the gofpel, 
 that the promife is fulfilled in Jefus of Nazjreth. 
 In this cafe, what was the fign of faith before 
 Chrifl came, muft now be the mofl obvious token 
 of unbelief. Hence Paul boldly tells the belie- 
 ving Jews in the Galatian churches, that whofo- 
 ever is circumcifed, is a debtor to do the whole 
 
 law } 
 
Lttters on the Sinai Covenant. 221 
 
 hw ; that is, if any man infills upon circumcifioii 
 as neceflary under the gofpel-difpenfation, he ta- 
 citly denies that MefTiah is come in the flefli, and 
 fo is yet under that law which was intended to 
 continue in force till the faith Ihould come. Cir- 
 cumcifion had its end and accomplilliment in the 
 incarnation and death of Jefus Chrilf, and confe- 
 quently mult have vaniflied away of itfelf. It is 
 now, then, a mere letter without the fpirit ; not 
 only diveiled of divine authority, but contrary to 
 it ; a refufing to fubniit to the righteoufnels of 
 God by faith in Jefus Chrilt, and an attempt to 
 obtain falvation by a mere work of pretended 
 righteoufnefs which a man can do. With great 
 propriety, then, does the apoftle fay, that if a 
 man be circumcifed with this view, " Chrilf lliall 
 profit him nothing," — feeking to be juftified by 
 the law, a mere external rite, *' he has fallen from 
 grace," and cannot defcive even the name of a- 
 Chriftian. 
 
 But, with refpe6l to baptifm, the cafe was very,' 
 different. It was never intended to fignify th& 
 defcent of jNIelfiah from Abraham ; and hence it 
 did not receive its end and accomplifliment bv his 
 incarnation, or taking fklh of Abraham. It was ' 
 not properly a fign of the coming of Chrilt ia 
 flelh, but a Hgn of what he would do when he 
 came. It teltifzcd that he would wafh us from 
 our fins in his own- blood, that we might be kings 
 and priefts to God, being cleanfed from all tiithi- 
 ncfs of the flelli and fpirit. This is his work (liJl ; 
 and, confequcntly, it is proper that the fign of 
 this action ihould continue to be adminiltered to 
 ail who believe in Chrilt for the remiinon of fins. 
 Accordingly, it is continued in the church ftiU, 
 and is the lign of the fame blefling now as for- 
 merly j only, under the new difpenfation, it lias 
 T 3 fomething 
 
222 Letters on the Sinai Covenant, 
 
 fomething added to its fignificacion, — it tefiifies 
 that the purifier has Come to fulfil his promif!:', 
 or to " faiidlify the people with his own blood." 
 
 You now fee the propriety of abolifiiing cir- 
 tumcifion, and retaining baptifm under the New- 
 Teftament adminiftration. — I fhail here add, that: 
 when it is faid baptifm fucceeds circumcifion, it 
 is net meant that the former anfwers every purpofe 
 :iow, which the latter fubferved before Chrifi: 
 came. To prefignify our Lord's taking flefli of 
 the feed ci Abraham was the peculiar province of 
 circumcifion -, in which office it had neitlier col- 
 ]esgue nor fucceiTor. But, confidered as a badge 
 of the houfehold of faith, a sign of initiation into 
 a fociety poflefling the bleffings promifed to A- 
 braham, and a token oi, the putting oiF the body 
 of the fins of the flefh by the circumcifion of 
 Chrift, baptifm ferves the fame purpofe, or figni- 
 fies the fame thing with circumcifion ; and fa, 
 in thefe refpetls, may be faid to have fuccecdtd 
 it. 
 
 I fnall now conclude this ep'.^oiary corrcfpond- 
 ence with a few mifcellaneous obiervations on 
 what you have faid in your Defence of Bciic-jer- 
 Baptis!?!. In a nore at the bortom of p. 27. 28.. 
 you reafon thus : " As the Lord's Supper is among 
 the all things which the baptifed difcipks mull be 
 taught to obferve, it is plain that none are proper 
 fubjefls of baptifm, but fuch as may immediately 
 after receive the Lord's Supper. This is as if yoa 
 had faid. The paffover was among the all things 
 which 3 Jew was bound to teach his children dili- 
 gently to obferve ; none, therefore, were proper 
 fubjec\s of circumcifion, but fuch as might imme- 
 diately receive the paflover. Is not this fine rea- 
 foniug 1 Every circumcifed child had a right to eat 
 the paflbver, as foon as he was capable of it ; but 
 
 can 
 
Letters en the Sinai Covenant. 223;- 
 
 can we from hence concludii that he was bound to 
 eat it when eight days old ? — Again, you add, 
 *' Baptlfm is the fign of the new birth, and the 
 Lord's Sapper of feeding upon Chriit the true 
 bread, and fo the connection between thefe 
 two ordinances, and the things fignified by them, 
 is as immediate and neceflary, as that betwixt 
 a perfon having life and his taking food to 
 preferve it." Hence you conclude it abfurd to 
 deny the Lord's Supper to fuch as are bap- 
 tifed, or born into the church. Let us fee, 
 now, where tins argument will lead us. — God 
 gave llefh to man for food, to fupport the animal 
 life in man. Now, when a child is born into the 
 world, he has the animal life j " and fo the con- 
 ne£lion betwixt his birth and eating fleih is as im- 
 mediate and iiecefl'ary, as betwixt a perfon having 
 life and liis taking food to preferve It." Is not 
 this an immediate and necefi'ary conclufion fram 
 the premifcs you have laid down ? What, then, 
 think you of your argument ? Paul tells us, milk 
 is for babes, but llrong meat for men of riper 
 years. In the fame manner, although the Lord's 
 Supper is a part of the food allotted to the chil- 
 dren of God, ye;t, as it is not the only vehicle for 
 conveying the fpiritual nounlhment, we cannot 
 conclude from hence, that every baptifed perfon 
 muft immediately eat the Lord's Supper. Every 
 circumciftd child had a right to eat the paflbver j 
 but this he v/as not bound to do, till arrived at a 
 certain age j alihough, in the mean time, he was 
 to be carefully intlrudLed in the nature, dcfign, 
 and obligation of this ordinance. So every bap- 
 tifed child has a right to eat the Lord's Supper ; 
 but, as it is required of every obferver of this in- 
 flitution, that he dilcern the Lord's body in its 
 obfervance, none are bound to keep it till capable 
 
 of 
 
224 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 of fuch, dlfGernment. There is a great difference 
 between a right to a privilege, and a capacity of 
 immediate enjoyment of that privilege. It is in- 
 cumbent, however, on fuch as have the charge of 
 the education of fuch infants to confider them as 
 in the Lord, and to train them in the knowledge 
 and difcipline of Chrilt, that from childhood they 
 may know the fcripcures, which are able to make 
 them wife to falvation. 
 
 In a note at the bottom of p. 1 6. yoa aim a 
 flroke at a certain preface writer, and through hinx 
 at all congregational churches, who admit mem- 
 bers to their communion, on the baptilm they re-^ 
 ceived in the national, or fuch as would be na- 
 tional churches ; and it muft be owned your argu- 
 ments againtl this pratlice feem fomewhat plau- 
 fible ; isti Minifbers of fuch churches have no 
 right from Chrift to baptife * j xdljy Infants in 
 
 thefe 
 
 * The Baptifts tlienr.felves have now furnlflied other 
 congregational churches with a fufficient anfwer to- 
 this objeftion. ,Of late a young man, excommunica- 
 ted by the Baptifts, and who never had been vefted 
 with oirice-power In any church, took, a fancy that be 
 had a divine right to baptife. Duped by his preten- 
 fions, three people in Nevvburgh, without calling for 
 his credentials, lubmitted to be plunged by him in the 
 water of Tay. Soon after, however, doubting the 
 validity of their baptifm, they applied for admiffion 
 to the Baptift church in Dundee, who agreed to fui- 
 tain their baptlfna.as valid, and admitted thefe three 
 candidates to their communion accordingly. Now, 
 as this fame young man is confidered by the Baptift 3 
 as a child of the devil, or at leaft as an heathen and 
 pubHcan, with whom they will not eat even a com- 
 mon meal, with what confidency can they exclaim 
 againll other congregational churches, for admitting 
 
 n;eaiLieiS 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 225 
 
 ihefe churches cannot be confidered as the ofFspring 
 of believing parents. — Perhaps, however, the lol- 
 lowing thoughts may fcrve to invaUdate the force 
 of thcfe objc6lions, and to vindicate the condudl 
 of congregational churches in this matter. 
 
 The twelve tribes of Ifrael had been feparated 
 from idols to maintain the knowledge vind worlhip 
 of the true God. But in the days of Rehoboam, 
 King of~"Judah, ten of thefe tribes, un^ier the 
 condu6l of Jeroboam the fori of Noibat, apoilati- 
 fed from the true faith and worHiip of Jehovah, 
 fctting up calf-gods at Dan and Bethel as objects 
 
 of 
 
 members to their fellowdnp on the baptifm received 
 in a nritionul church. Pvlinilki-s in our national church 
 have certainly as good a right to baptile as a man of 
 no chofch, an heathen and publican. They fcothng- 
 ly talk, indeed, of Antichrillian iprinkling j but I 
 humbly think, this is as good as heathen plunging. 
 But it feems, if the devil took a fancy to plunge mtii 
 in the name of Jeius, his baptiim mult be good Chri- 
 flian baptifm. He once plunged a herd of fwine m 
 the water ; and, alas ! many a fovv has been waflied 
 lince, which has foon returned to her wallov\ing in 
 the mire. 
 
 To give the devil his due, however, he feems to 
 pay a greater deference to church-order, and the name 
 of Jefus Chrin, than fome Chriftians do. In Paul's 
 time, we are told of certain vagabond Jews, who 
 claimed a right to cait out devils, and in performing 
 the ceremony, they did it exailly after Paul's mode, 
 i. e. in the name of Jt-fus. A£ls, xix. 13. — 16. 
 " 7 hen certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcilts, took 
 upon them to call over them which had evil fpirits, 
 the name of the Lord Jeius, faying. We adjure you 
 by Jefus, whom Paul preacheth." But was the devil 
 io we?.k as to admit their claim to fo facred an office ? 
 
 Noj 
 
"226 L:ttcrs on the Sinai Covenant, j 
 
 of worfliip, and making prlefts for facrifice, not 
 of the order of Aaron, — all in exprefs contradic- 
 tion to the law of God. Here was a very corrupt 
 church, fubje6b to a mere king of this world, pre- 
 tending a right to make laws for the better go- 
 vernment of the church of God, as many have 
 done fince his time. Yet, corrupt and Antichri- 
 ftian as this church was, (he feems fliU to have 
 praiStifed circumcifion, according to the law of 
 Mofes ; atling, in this refpecl, like other churches 
 of the kind, who retain as much of the divine 
 law as feems to fuit their political views. Now^ 
 when any perfon fo circumcifed returned from 
 the error of his ways, and joined himfelf to the 
 faithful tribes, worihipping the Lord of hofls at 
 Jerufalem, do we ever read that the validity of his 
 circumcifion was called in qur.it ion ? So far as his 
 parents had aQtd according to the divine law, fo 
 far their conduQ was lawful and commendable. 
 
 Hence- 
 
 No •, he called them fcoundrels to their face : *' Je- 
 fus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye ?^* 
 Nor did he Itay to difpute the cafe, but hilfanlly the- 
 man, in whom the evil fpirit was, " leapt on them, 
 and overcame them, and prevailed againft them, fo 
 that they Hed out of that houle naked and wounded." 
 Any Ion of Sceva now, howbeit, if he but dips in 
 the name of Jeias, may claim authority to wafli awsy 
 the tin of the world, and the validity of his claim be 
 fullained. 
 
 H hat one's being baptifed hirafelf entitles him to 
 baptile oth.ers, has no aathority from the fcripture. 
 John Bapclft was ntver baptifed bimfeifj nor had any 
 of the dilciples affembled on the day of Pentecoil ever 
 been bapiiied in the name of the Lord Jefus. Thefe 
 had a cummiflion to baptife others, but no crier to- 
 be baptifed themfelves. A divine commiflian alons 
 qualified them for this office. 
 
Letters cii the Sinai Covenant. 227 
 
 Hence we do not find them condemned for cir- 
 cumcifing their children j nor are the children 
 condemned as uncircumcifed, provided they kept 
 the law of God when they had arrived at maturer 
 age. Yea, even among that people, God raifed 
 up prophets, whom he honoured to vindicate his 
 truth, and that in times of the deepeft apoftacy. 
 Does he any where call thefe prophets uncircum- 
 cifed ? 
 
 This (late of things, I hope you will allow, was 
 a figure of the ftate of the church called ChrilHaii, 
 during the great apoftacy fo clearly predidled in 
 the New-Teilament writings. In this cafe, as 
 the conduct of the apoftate church is rtrongly mark- 
 ed, that we may avoid the communion of any 
 church we now fee of the fimecharatleiiilic; fo the 
 condu£l of the church of the faithful mult be aho 
 fet before us as a patters for our imitation : and 
 confequently, fince prufelytes from among the apof- 
 tate tribes were admitted to the feilowltiip of the 
 faithful at Jerufalem, witliout a qu^iiion about the 
 validity of their circumcifion, I own I cannot fee 
 the inconfifiency of admitting a man to the purefl 
 church on earth without qucltion anent Lie validi- 
 ty of the baptifm he received in an apo^fite church, 
 fuch as that of Ifrael. At lead 1 Ihali retain this 
 opinion, till 1 find it proved to be contrary tc the 
 dictates of infpiration. But if any man thinks 
 that he has not received the baptifm of Chr'ft, I 
 blame not your fociety, nor any other Chriitian 
 church, for recieving him iiito communion, bapti- 
 fmg him in the r-sme of the Lord Jeius. For my 
 own part, although I do not approve of national 
 eltablifhments of religion, yer as I know 1 was 
 baptifed under fuch eilablifliment, only in the way 
 Chrift has appointed bywafliing with water in the 
 ramcof the Father, Son, and Ho!v Gh^ft, without 
 
 the 
 
2 2 8 Letters on the Siiiai Covenant. 
 
 the addition of any uninflituted circumllances, I 
 feel the obligation of that ordinance on my con- 
 fcience, engaging me to walk with him innewnefs 
 of life. Had Jefus commanded his difciples to be 
 re-baptiled, I (hould chearfully fubmit to his ap- 
 pointment : but as I cannot find any fuch com- 
 mand in the facred records, I reft fatisiied with his 
 one baptifm. If my parent came under any un- 
 lawful obligations on that occafion, with thefe I 
 have no concern. 1 approve of the acSl perform- 
 ed on me, and am confcious of the obligations 
 Chrift has annexed to it ; and fince he has not ap- 
 pointed a fecond baptifm with water, I do not 
 fuppofe that I w^ouid feel the obligations to walk 
 in him more forcible on my heart, although I 
 fliould be rebaptifed a thoufand and a thoufand 
 times. The Donatists, the mod naughty, cruel, 
 and bigotted fe<St of antiquity, re-baptifed every 
 profelyte to their opinions from any other Chri- 
 ilian fe<9:. This taught the convert to raife com- 
 motions in the ftate, and to perfecute and anathe- 
 matifc his fellow Chriilians of other denomina- 
 tions. Like our more modern %Iunster Anabap- 
 tifm, it put the fword of fteel yi his hand, but 
 did not add a fingle grain-weight of godlinefs to 
 his heart. What Jefus has not appointed in reli- 
 gion, can only tend to more ungodlinefs. 
 
 Among the Donatitts only, you muft feek for 
 the firft precedent for your prefent practice. It 
 is Vain to fearch the New Teltament for any fuch 
 'example. There we find none re-baptifed, who 
 had once been baptifed in the name of Chritt. In 
 the third century we find a difpute in the church 
 of Rome about the validity of Novatian's baptifm, 
 who had been fprinkled or anointed, but not im- 
 merfed. Yet it merits obfervation, that it never 
 entered the minds of even the mofl zealous advo- 
 cates 
 
Letters on the Sinai Covmant. 229 
 
 cafes for immerfion to defirc l.Is re-baptlfm. SucK 
 an idea was left to be hatched by the Donatiils 
 and their offspring— the Anabaptifts of later 
 times. 
 
 The Grdfek church to this day is of the Baptift 
 kind ; flie pra6l;fes immerfion, and that of tb.e 
 triple kind. Take a voyage to Ruffia, and you 
 will find rr.iHIons of Ibptilts, all dipped with the 
 moft ceremonious exa£l:nefs. Yet they have not 
 the effrontery to tell us, that immernon is elTintial 
 to the baptifm of Chrill. Prcfclytes to their 
 faith from among the heathen are generally ad- 
 mitted by immerfion in a river. If, however, the 
 perfon fliould be of too v/eak a conflitution to un- 
 dergo fuch a violent initiation^ a barrel full of wa- 
 ter is poured over his head three times. Where, 
 then, fliall we look for an example of that furious 
 seal for immerfion which agitates the prefent 
 Baptifts ? Water is a raging element ; I fee few- 
 rife cut of it in the fpirit of the lamb. When 
 the winds of contention blow, how many a wild 
 bead has rlfen out of the fea ! — The difciples of 
 the Biptifl: ilill come up out of the waters with 
 his rough garment of hair. The garment of 
 Chrifl is humility, love, mecknefs, and gentlenefs ; 
 and " as many as have been baptifed into Chrift 
 hzv t p7/t on Christy 
 
 I lliall now add a remark on your criticifm 0:1 
 the word Baptisnin. This, you fay, denotes total 
 immerfion j and hence you boldly aver, that any 
 thing lefs than a total immerfion of the body ia 
 water is not an ordinance of Chrid, neither-, la 
 jianie nor thing, but a mere human ordinance. 
 Let us fee where this reafoning will Lad yoa. 
 The Chriflian ordinance of bread ^nd wine is ex- 
 prefled in Greek by the word dcipnon, which, in 
 i;li the didlionaries of that language, fignifies a 
 Vol. V. U full 
 
2^0 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 full meal, and often a feaft. In this fenfe the 
 church of Corinth underftood it, when they ate, 
 and drunk, and were drunken, in their religious 
 alTemblies ; and indeed, on your plan of argu- 
 ment, they were entirely in the righu-. Pity it is 
 you was not then born ! When Paul reproved the 
 Corinthians in fo fevere terms, telling them, 
 " This is not to eat the Lord's Supper, but their 
 own," as jefus only gave one piece of bread to be 
 diftributed in fmall morfels among his difciples, 
 and a cup In the fame manner, you would have 
 reafoned him down with critigifms on the Greek 
 deipnon. A thoufand times you would have told 
 him this word (ignifies a full meal, a feaft, and 
 confequently any eating fhort of a belly-full is not 
 the ordinance of Chrift, either in name or thing, 
 but a mere human invention. Thus you mult 
 have argued, or elfe you muft give up with that 
 idle gibberifh you have fo long deceived the fimple 
 "with, in cricicifing on the word baptism. If deip- 
 noHf denoting a religious ordinance, does not de- 
 note a full meal, but ufing a fmall portion of 
 bread and wine, I defy you, and all the Baptifts 
 in the univerfe, to prove, that baptisma, taken in 
 -a religious fenfe, fignifies total immerfion \ or that 
 a partial application of water to the body in the 
 name of Chrift, is not the baptifm which he ap^ 
 pointed. 
 
 I muft be allowed, alfo, to exprefs my abhor- 
 rence at your pradice, in writing and fpeakhig of 
 ihe action of fprinkling or pouring water upon 
 the iaitiated into the church of Jefus Chrift. 
 Thefe adlions you Baptifts treat with fcorn and 
 contempt — a practice I muft call blafphemy againft 
 the v/ords of the Holy Ghoft. Is not the bap- 
 tifm of the Spirit called exprefsly the pouring cut 
 of the Spirit.'' A6ls, x. 45. xi. 19. Speaking of 
 
 the 
 
Lciicrs en the Suiui Covenant. 23 I 
 
 the wafhing of legeneration, the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghoft, does not God fay, " Then will I 
 fprinkle clean water upon you, and ye {hall be 
 clean ?" Ezek. xxxvi. 25. What, then, fhall we 
 think of a fet of puny mortals, who can fet their 
 mouths againft Heaven in their blafphemous talk, 
 treating with fcorn and ridicule the language of 
 the divine Spirit. " How long, ye fools," will ye 
 love fcorning ! Furious for the baptifm of John, 
 may God grant you repentance unto life, and bap- 
 tife ycu vvith the Holy Ghoft, a baptifm which 
 you feldom feem to think of ! Then ye fhall no 
 more utter great fwelling words of vanity, but 
 fpeak forth the words of truth and fobernefs. 
 Then you will no more deceive the hearts of the 
 fimple, teaching them to truft in a ceremonious 
 immerfion In water, a fanftification which reaches 
 only to the purifying of the flefli. You will tell 
 them, that «« by one Spirit we are all baptifed into 
 one body ;" that they cannot be " buried with 
 Chrift," till they be " crucified with him •," for 
 «« as many as are baptifed into Chrift, are baptifed 
 into his death." I am, 
 
 SIR, 
 
 Your friendly Reprover, 
 
 ALEX. PIRIE. 
 
 Ncwburghf Nov, 20. 1787. 
 
 U 2 CON- 
 
!32 L (iters en the Sinai Ccvenant. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 A S a friend, on reading letter /\\.\\ and 5th of 
 •^^ the above performance, has propofed objec- 
 tions p,q;ain{l the dodrines therein ad%'ancex1 ; and 
 as (imilar diflicnicies mny occur to other readerf, 
 I have judged it proper to offer tlie following 
 thoughts, with a view to obviate thefe objecSlioii.s. 
 
 1. It is aficed, <* Was tlie e;-.rthly Canaan a H- 
 jrure of the heavenly inheritance or.'y as to be pof. 
 fciTed in a future (late \ and not alio as presently 
 entered into by believers under the gofpcl, as the 
 npoflle to the Hebrews, chap. iv. fecms to teach r" 
 I anfwer, Paul does not feem to mc to confidcr 
 Chriftians in this world as in any a£tual pofTefTion 
 of the heavenly Canaan at ail. He views them as 
 in a ftate fimilar to that of Ifrael in the wildernefs. 
 '« Here," fays he, " we have no abiding city ; 
 but we feek one to come." The reft he fpeaks of, 
 chap. iv. is only in the promife, ver. 1. of which 
 we may feem to come fliort. He does not fay we 
 have entered into it already, but " let us labour 
 to enter into that reft," ver. 1 1. He fays, indeed, 
 << We who believe do enter into reft ;" but this 
 only defcribes the chara£ler of fuch as fliall final- 
 ly obtain the promife. In the wildernefs, Ifrael 
 had the promife of reft ; yet only fuch as believed 
 the prcmife entered on the pcflt;inon of that reft. 
 In like manner, believers now enjoy the promife 
 in faith and hope, but not in a6lual poifeflion. — • 
 Canaan, then, was only a figure of our future in- 
 heritance. 
 
 2. " The infeparablc connection made between 
 the pofleiilon even of the earthly Canaan and faith 
 
'Letters on the Sinai- Covenant. 233 
 
 in Chrift, feems to be very objedionable." I an- 
 fwer, Paul exprefsly tells us, that fuch as fell in 
 the wildcrnefs '* could not enter in becaufe of un- 
 belief j" and that fuch as believed entered in j 
 confequently, nothing but unbelief could exclude 
 any Ifraelite from that reft. But here it muft be 
 obferved, that the objedl of that unbelief was not 
 only the promife of Chrift, but the promife of 
 the temporal inheritance, or any other Subordinate 
 promife conne£led with thefe two leading ones. 
 -Thus, when Ifrael murmured and rebelled againft 
 God in the wildcrnefs, it was becaufe " they de- 
 fpifed the pleafant land, — they believed not in 
 God, and trufted not in his falvation." Every 
 a<Sl of difobedience originates in unbelief. If- 
 rael's not believing the temporal promife was a 
 certain evidence of their not believing the promife 
 of the Mefliah. Had they believed the one, they 
 would alfo Jiave believed the other. As to the 
 cafe of Mofes and Aaron, it was of a frngular 
 kind. It would feem they fell in the wildernefc,, 
 chiefly to ferve fome typical purpofes, of which I 
 cannot now fpeak particularly; yet ftill they fell 
 on account of a particular a6l of unbelief, which 
 prevented their entering Canaan at that time, al- 
 though it will not hinder their entering on the pof- 
 fefiion of it in its heavenly ftate, Numb. xx. 12. 
 The truth is, we can infer nothing concerning the 
 eternal ftate of any Ifraelite from his falling in the 
 wildcrnefs. 
 
 Again, « If Ifrael held pofTeflion of Canaan by 
 faith, how came the believing remnant to be calt 
 out at laft with the unbelieving multitude ?" I an- 
 Iwer, The believers among Ifrael were not caft: 
 out of Canaan, but they went out at the call of 
 their Mafter. Hiftory informs us, that not a 
 Cliiiftian was found in Jerufaiem, when it \\':.% 
 U 3 taki^n . 
 
2 34 Letters on the Sinai Covenant. 
 
 taken and deftroyed by Titus. All of this de=. 
 icription had left it, in obedience to the words of 
 Jefus, " When ye (hall fee the abomination of de- 
 folation, fpoken of by Daniel the prophet, (land 
 in the holy place, then let them that be of Judea 
 ike into the mountains." 
 
 - But, to have juft views of this matter, we 
 muft obferve, that Canaan, as a country difl;in£i: 
 from all others, and feparated to be the refidence 
 of the holy feed, was never intended to be conti- 
 nued in that (late after Mefhah came. Canaan, 
 as poflefFed by Ifrael before Chrill came, was but 
 a figure, fpecimtn, or fample, of the Canaan 
 given to Chrift and the believing Ifrael under the 
 gofpel. The Canaan of Jofhua extended from 
 the Mediterranean Sea to Jordan v the Canaan of 
 Soloir.on from Jordan to the river Euphrates. 
 This was the Canaan promifed to Abraham in the 
 lirit covenant given to him and his feed after the 
 iiefii, Gen. xv. But this Canaan, in its utmolt 
 extent, was trifling when compared with Canaan 
 promifed to him in the fecond covenant for an 
 everlafting pofleflion. Gen. xvii. By this grant 
 he became •' heir of the world," and not of a 
 particular country only in it ; a promife to be ful- 
 filled only in his feed, even Chrill ; of him it is 
 faid, '' His dominions fliall extend from the river 
 Cliuphrates) to the utmoft ends cf the earth." 
 
 Canaan, then, in its firll flate, was only pro- 
 mifed as a pofleffion to Ifratl till Mefiiah fhould 
 come ; confequently, when that period arrived^ 
 neither the carnal nor believing feed of Abraham 
 had any more a ciuim to poll". Is it, as an holy or 
 feparated land. Chriflianity laid the ancient Ca- 
 naan on a level with every other country on the 
 earth -, all of which now belongs to Chrift, the 
 («ed of Abraham, who takes all the nations for 
 
 Ills 
 
Letters on tie Sinai Cavencjit. 235 
 
 his inhetitance, according to the promife, and pro- 
 pofcs to give all the believing feed a portion with 
 hirn therein. Thus the believing Jevv-s never were 
 call out of the Can:<an promifed to Abraham, as 
 to be pofleiled by his feed according to the ever- 
 laliing covenant. They were only called out from 
 Canaan as the Hgure of tlie true, as an exprefhoii 
 of tlieir faith in the feed's being come, to whom 
 was given the promife of Canaan in its full ex- 
 tent, and as an everlafting inheritance. 
 
 Here, however, it mult be carefully obferved, 
 that although the whole earth is givea to Chriil, 
 as well as heaven, yet he has not as yet brought 
 it into that Hate, in which he has promifed it as 
 an inheritance to his feed. The Cnnaanite and 
 the curfe flill dwell in the^ land. But Ifrael can- 
 not inherit it till there be no more the Canaanite 
 in the houfe of the Lord of hofts, and every curfe 
 fliall ceafe. This can only be in the new itate of 
 the heavens and the earth, whicii the gofpel 
 teaches us to expe6f, according to the promife. 
 
 In the mean time, Chriilians are on the earth, 
 as Ifrael were in the wildernefs. In the wilder- 
 nefs, the defarts of Arabia, Ifrael had the pro- 
 mife of an inheritance, the object of hope, not 
 of pofll-fllon. There tliey had no contiiming a- 
 bode ; they were but fojourners, feeking a place 
 of reit in a better country. In terms of like im- 
 port does Paul defcribe the (late of Chriilians in 
 the prefent world : " Here we have no abidmg 
 city ; but we (ctk one to come. — The Lord wiii 
 bring me to his lieavenly kingdom." 
 
 The fcriptuie lets our prefent flate in another 
 point of view, Abraham and his family were 
 long in the land of Canaan ; but he " fojourned 
 in the land of promife, as in a ftrange country," 
 and had not a foot of property in it, fave a burial- 
 place 
 
236 Letters on the Sinai Co'venant. 
 
 place he purchafed with his money. Such Is the 
 itate of his believing feed under the gofpel. Ca- 
 naan was firft to Abraham the land of fojournings, 
 aithoiigh he was af terv/ards to receive it for an in- 
 heritance ; and earth is fuch to his believing feed 
 in their prefent liate. The earth, as well as hea- 
 ven. is promifed to them : *« Ihe meek Ihall inhe- 
 rit the earth ;" yet it is only afterwards to be re- 
 ceived by tliem as an inheritance. At prefent, 
 they confefs with their fathers, that they arc 
 flrangers and pilgrims on the earth, feeking a bet- 
 ter country, even an heavenly, where God has 
 prepared for them a city — a Jerufalem, which 
 fhall in due time come down from God out of 
 heaven. Then fhall they have it in fure polTtfTion,- 
 and all fh*!' dwell therein who iove his blefled 
 name. 
 
 Lasilfy It has been thought that I lofe fight of 
 the conneclion between the temporal and fpiritual 
 promife, after the com lug of Chriil in the llefli ; 
 whereas Paul fays, that " godlinefs is profitable 
 for ail things, having the promife of this life, and 
 that v/hich is to come." In reply to this, I have 
 a'ready obferved, that Chriftians under the gofpel 
 are in the fame ftate with Abraham when a fo- 
 journer in Caiiaan, and Ifrael in the wildernefs. 
 Abraham had both promifes, although he died, 
 not having received the things promifed. Thefe 
 were the objefts of faith, not of immediate pof- 
 feffion. His faith, however, was a prefent good j 
 it gave a reliih to all the enjoyments, and iupported 
 ■him amidft ail the afHi£tions, of life. Moreover, 
 he had the promife of the divine prefence to be with 
 him in the mean time, to furnifti him with all the 
 nectffaries of life, to protedt him from dangers^ 
 and to comfort him in trials. This excited in his 
 heart fenfaticus of blifs, to which the Canaanites 
 
 were 
 
Letters en the Shiai Ccver.ant. 237 
 
 vere utter ftrnngers. This made the pilgrim far 
 more happy than the poflellors of the land. — The 
 ftme is true of Ifr?.el in the wildernefs. While 
 God was their Shepherd, they could not want ei- 
 ther aliment cr protedlion. Trufting in the pro- 
 mifc of the future inheritance, they were aflured 
 they {hould not lack any good thing for the pre- 
 fenr erjoyment. — This is the cafe of Chriflians i\lU' 
 •Seeking (irll the kingdom of heaven and its rlgh- 
 tccufnefs, their Lord has promifed to add to them 
 everything conducive to preftnt happinefs. Con- 
 fcious that their God will rot leave them, nor 
 forfake them, having food and raiment, they can 
 be therewith content. The bleliing of the Lord 
 makes happy, and adds no forrow. The affured 
 hope, too, of future glory, fills them with peace 
 and joy, and tegches them to rejoice, not only in 
 profperity, but in tribulations alfo. — It is thus 
 godlinefs has the promife of this life ; yet this is 
 not the promifed inheritance. Our faith flill looks 
 beyond the grave, and is the evidence of unfeen 
 things. Earth is now the fcene of our pilgrim^age ; 
 but the happy day approaches, when Chrid (liall 
 appear with his kingdom. Then the meek fhall 
 inherit the earth, and fliall delight themfelves in 
 an abundance of peace. 
 
 AN 
 
AN 
 
 I N Q^U I R Y 
 
 INTO 
 
 1' II E LAWFULNESS 
 
 OF 
 
 EATING BLOOD. 
 
w 
 
AW 
 
 I N QJJ I R Y 
 
 INTO 
 
 THE LAWFULNESS 
 
 OF 
 
 EATING BLOOD. 
 
 G^ 
 
 I^OD and men view things in very difFerent 
 lights. What appears important in our eye 
 is very often of no account in the edimation of in(i-> 
 nite wifdom ; and what appears trifling to us is 
 often of very great importance with God. It was 
 fo from the beginning. The difputer of this world 
 cannot fee any thing, worthy fo fevere a punilh- 
 ment, in eating the fruit of the forbidden tree : yet 
 through this ofFence, by the divine determination, 
 fin and death, with all their attendant woes, came 
 into the world. The next prohibition we read of,_ 
 with rtfpeCt to food, is found annexed to the grant 
 of animal food to man. Gen. ix. The Sovereign 
 Vol. V, X Proprietor, 
 
54 i •^•' I iqiilry into 
 
 Proprietor, when he gave us a grant to eat oif the 
 flefli of our fellow-animals, gave it with this re- 
 fervation or limitation — <* The flefli, with the blood 
 thereof, that is the life thereof, thou (halt not eat 
 of it." Againfl. this, alfo, as an unreafonable and 
 trifling prohibition, the wifdom of this world has 
 often declaimed, or, by fhameful evafions and idle 
 quibbles, has expfained away the fenfe of the divine 
 ir.aiidate, that the confcience of the creature might 
 be furnifhed with an apology for tranfgrefllng the 
 law of its Maflcr. Yet this fame precept was re- 
 tained and flirongly enforced in the law given to 
 Ifrael from Sinai ; while the breach of it was 
 guarded againd by the mod awful fan£l!ons. Yea, 
 even under the gofpel, it feemed meet to the Holy 
 Spirit fpeaking in the apoftles to enjoin the obfer- 
 vation of this law on all the difciples of Jefus 
 Chrifl:, A6ls, xv. It is allowed on all hands, that 
 this degree was in force at leaft to the time of the 
 iinal deftrudtiop. of Jerufalem by the Romans : but 
 if it fhall be found, by fcarching the fcriptures, 
 that it v/as intended by the Holy Spirit to continue 
 in force to the end of the world, how faulty fliall 
 the many be found, who confider the obfervance 
 or non-obfervance of it as a matter of indifference ? 
 Now, as difputes on this point have run high, and 
 many arguments have been offered on both fides of 
 the queflion, it mud concern every Chriftian to 
 examine what is offered in the fcriptures by both 
 parties, that he may either eat or forbear to eat 
 blood in faith, or from a convi6lion of Chrift's au- 
 thority for his condu£l ; fince Paul affures us, " he 
 that doubteth is condemned if he eat j fince what- 
 foever is not of faith is fm." 
 
 Entering on this fubje<2:, it is proper we (liouM 
 obferve, that as the Creator is the fovereign pro- 
 prietor and lord of all things, no creature can 
 Jtave uny independent right to any thing whatever. 
 
 Life, 
 
The Laiv/ui/iess of eaiing Blood, 24*3 
 
 Life, and conftque.ntlyall the means of fupporting iv 
 mufl be derived from the great Author of our be- 
 ing. Man, in particular, as a moral agent, amen- 
 able to his Maktr for every part of his conduct, 
 mud live by every word that proceeds out of the 
 mouth of God ; or by fucli means as God has 
 granted for fupporting his life •, and any attempts 
 to live in another way, or by other means than God 
 has revealed to him, is the higheft a£t of rebellion- 
 againft the univerfal Lord. 
 
 It will be alfo allowed, that when God gave 
 man a right, grant, or title to eat of any particular 
 fpecies of food, he might at the fame time give it 
 under refervation or limitation, retaining a part of 
 that fpecies of food in his own power, and pro- 
 hibiting man from eating of it under certain penal- 
 ties marked in the grant. In this cafe, abftinence 
 from the part prohibited is, on man's part, an ac- 
 knowledgement of his dependence on his Sovereign 
 for that part granted ; or that he has no original 
 independent claim either to life, or the means of its 
 fupport. 
 
 Having- thefe points in view, we mud look Into 
 the facred records, that we may fee what creature 
 God has granted us a right to eat, and with what 
 refervation the grant is given. 
 
 There are only two grants of this kind recorded 
 in fcripture j the firft is to be found in the firffc chap- 
 ter of Genefis, containing a right given to man to 
 eat of the vegetable creation, or of every green 
 herb : tlie fecond is recorded in the ninth chapter 
 of that book, and contains a title granted to man 
 to eat of the inferior animals. Of both tiieCe 
 kinds, then, it is lawful for man to eat, till his 
 .Sovereign be pieafed to reverfe the grant. Both 
 grants, however, contain a refervation with penal- 
 ties annexed 5 the firft, of a fpecies of vegetable, 
 X 2 callvxl 
 
'244 -^fi Inquiry into 
 
 called the tree of knowledge of good and evil ; the 
 iecond, of the blood, the life of the animal. This 
 laft grant contains a renewal of the former, Gen. 
 ix. 3. " Every moving thing that liveth fhall be 
 meat for you : even as the green herb have I given 
 you all things." This grant was given to all man- 
 kind then in being, by them to be conveyed down 
 to their pofterity, and confequently all nations are 
 interefted in this grant, which is made irreverfiblc 
 by the granter, as he has cftablifhcd it " to perpe- 
 tual generations," (Gen. ix. 12.), in token of 
 which, he has given us " the bow in the cloud." 
 
 One would be apt to conclude, from the avowed 
 irreverfibility of this charter or grant, that the re- 
 fcrvation it contains muft be equally irreverfible 
 withitfelf; or that, fo long as man partakes of 
 animal food, he fiiould eat it with the refervation 
 of the blood, fo exprefsly fpecified in the charter, 
 authorifing him to eat of the flefli. Particularly, 
 this would appear to be of vaft confequcnce to man, 
 lince it W9uld appear, that on this condition only, 
 God has promifed to have refpe£l to the blood of 
 man, by requiring it at the hand of the fhedder : 
 •< The blocd thou flialt not eat : and the blood oiyour 
 lives will I require *," &c. Gen. ix. 4. 5. 6. This 
 would feem to fay, that God would pay no regard 
 to the life of that man who does not forbear to 
 eat the blocd or life of the inferior animals. 
 
 This grant, with ifs refervation, was given to all 
 men, and has been conveyed down to all ages and 
 generations, both of Jew and Geiuile; to the for- 
 mer by a written, to the latter by an unwritten 
 tradition. So that no man whatfccver can law- 
 fully 
 
 * This certainly mrans, that if we eat blood, lie will 
 require the blood of our lives, 1 Tee not how it c?n read 
 
 oilierwil't. 
 
The Lawjuliicss of eating Blood. 245 
 
 fully eat bloo;1, or eat it at the expence of his own 
 life, or of forfeiting his right to the atonement for 
 his foul, unlefs he ftiall find in the facred oracles 
 a reverfal of his refervation by the; hand that gave 
 us the original charter ; or, in other words, thac 
 God has contradi'iled himfclf, by revetfing a deed 
 which he himfelf has declared to be eftabhlhed to 
 perpetual generations. 
 
 It. is admitted by all, that this grant, with its re- 
 fervation, was in full force during the Mofaic dif- 
 penfation, as it is taken into the Jewilli lavv •, where 
 it is renewed in the ftrongefl: terms, and forms an 
 cflenti-il part of that code, I.ev. xvii. Nor did it 
 bind the Jews only, as is generally imagined, but 
 extended its obligation to the Gentiles alfo. That 
 no ftranger, fojourning among the Jews, was 
 allowed to eat blood, is clear from L"v. xvii. 
 10. 12. 13. Nor was the obfcrvation of this law of 
 fmall importance. So far from it, the molt dread- 
 ful imprecation was pronounced again ft the tranf- 
 grefTor : " Whatfoever man there be of the houfe: 
 of Ifrael, or of the ftranger that fojourneth among : 
 you, that eateth any manner of blood, I will even 
 let my face againil that foul that eateth blood, and ■ 
 will cut liim olT from among liis people." Nor' 
 was it lefs crirninal for the Gentiles in other coun- 
 tries to eat blood. Hence D»v:d fpeaks of tht^i: 
 pratJilice with abhorrence, Pfal. xvi. 4. «' TuT^ir' 
 drink-offerings of blood will I not oiler." This 
 refers to the praiflice of the. Syrians, who made li- 
 bations of blood to their godi. ; and prophetically 
 to the anticljrittian idolaters, who ofr^;r t;r_ liter il 
 blood of our ficfifice in the cup of che m iis. Yet 
 the Gentiles feem in genera! to have made blood a 
 common meal : only, as thedo£lrine of atonement 
 by blood was among the things which God P, uved 
 to all mcHj it is eaiy for a vaiii im igination to 
 ^•3 Conclude, 
 
t-\6 'An Inquiry into 
 
 conclude, that the blood of a facrlfice was proper 
 to be otFereu in drink-offerings, as moll accept- 
 able to the gods. Thus their error was much more 
 excufcable than that of Chriftians, fince it origina- 
 ted in a religious veneration for the blood of atone- 
 ment. 
 
 Let us now fee how this grant {lands in the 
 New Teftament, that we may know whether rhe 
 granter, the Lord of life, has freed us from the ob- 
 ligation the grant lays us under, as the tenure or 
 holding by which we have a title to eat ficfli, and 
 to expe£l an atonement for our lives. And here it 
 is certainly of importance to obferve, that at the 
 fame time, when the Holy Ghofl by the apoflles 
 declares the (^entiles free from the yoke of circum- 
 cilion, and fo from the whole ritual law, he enforces 
 the obligation of the law, enjoining abftinence from 
 blcod-eating as a nectiTiry thing ; yea, no lefs fo 
 than abilaining from idolatry and fornication, Acls, 
 XV, Nor have we the lead hint of a reverfal of tliat 
 decifion any where in any after-part of New-Tcf- 
 timent fcripture. 
 
 If, then, man forfeited his title to life, or, what 
 is the fame thing, to the food which fupporis it, 
 by eating the fruit of the tree, referved in the pro- 
 prietor's hand by the fir.H: charter or grant of vege- 
 table food, one would be apt to conclude, that 
 ihc fauie c&nfequence rauft follow on his eating 
 blood, as abftaining from eating it is made the ex- 
 prefs tenure by which he holds his right to eat 
 llclh, and tb have an avenger of the blood of his 
 own life. The fcripture informs us, that the firft 
 forfeiture was owing to the fubtilty of Satan \ nor 
 can the fccond be afcribed to any other original. 
 The firlt Uratagem fucceeded by a mifinterpreta- 
 tion 6t the terms of the original grant ; and when 
 we examine the following arguments, produced in 
 favour of blood- eating, we may perhaps find that 
 
 mankind 
 
The Lavjfiunest of c citing Blood. 247 
 
 mankiiul have been deceived into the fecond for- 
 feiture by an artifice of the fame kuid. — Let us ex- 
 amine them and fee. 
 
 i.r#, It is argued, that the diftin£tion between 
 clean and unclean meats is abolifiied in Chrill: ; 
 therefore every kind is clean to the Chiiftian, Very 
 true, friend: But ere this argument can hold in 
 favour of blood- edting, you mull prove, firft, that 
 blood vi-as given to man for meat ; and, fecondly, 
 that it is claffed among the unclean meats in the 
 Mofaic fyftem. In Lev. j 2th, ■^n(^ Deut. 14th chap- 
 ters, we have a full lill of the unclean meats. There 
 the eagle, the vulture, the raVen, See. are called 
 unclean ; but not a fyllable concerning blood. A- 
 jrain, ■when blood is prohibited as meat, it is forbid- 
 den, not becaufe it is unclean, but becaufe it \% pre- 
 cious ^ being the life of all flcfli ; and becaufe it is ho' 
 //, being the atonementorranfom of the foul. Since, 
 then, blood never was given to man for meat j and 
 even when eating it is prohibited, it is not called un- 
 clean, but holy, it is plain, that a lawmaking unclean 
 meats clean, cannot effetl the law concerning blood, 
 which is not claffed among meats at all, much lefs 
 among the unclean. Thegofpel had no occafion to 
 make clean, what the law had already pronounced 
 
 holy Ho\v abfurd thy glofies on fcripture, O fer- 
 
 pent ! Yet how powerful their influence on the 
 mind of the fimple ! 
 
 Moreover, this argument goes on the fuppofition, 
 that tliere. is no meat called unclean under the go- 
 fpel ; whereas it is obvious, that Idolothytes, or 
 meats ofFered in the idol's temple, are as unclean as 
 ever, as by eating them Chrillians incur the moft 
 awful punifliments, Rev. ii. 14. 16. 20. — it^. 
 
 idly^ Blood under the law was a figure of the 
 blood of Chri(\ ; therefore, fay the advocates for 
 blood- eating, the precept goBcerning it was not 
 
 moral, 
 
^'4^ An Inquiry into 
 
 tnoral, but ceremonial, and fo ceafed with other 
 ibadows when Chrlft the fubllance came. This 
 argument is founded upon a double miftake : j//, 
 It fuppofes, that no precept of a moral or lading 
 obligation can be a figure cr fhadow of Clirifl and 
 his church. This is falfe in fad. The law o£ 
 God enjoining marriage, Gen 2d and 9th chapters, 
 is undoubtedly moral, given to all men at all ages ; 
 yet Paul affures us, Eph. v. that it was a type of the 
 union between ChriO. and his churcii. Will any 3- 
 ver, that now Chrilt has come and married his church,, 
 and had children begotten by the word of truth, 
 therefore marriage is no more a duty .'* id'y, But 
 the principal mi (lake this argument is built on, and 
 which all writers on this fubjecV have inadvertent- 
 ly gone into, is, that the blood of bealls in general 
 was a figure of the blood of Chrift. No idea can 
 be more wide of the truth. Only the blood of the 
 facrifical animals was fo ; whereas the blood of 
 beads flain for common ufe is no where faid to be 
 typical. Hence, when God prohibits the ufe of the 
 blood of the beads offered in facrifice, he gives this 
 reafon for it, " becaufe the blood is the atonement :" 
 but when he forbids the ufe of the blood of the 
 fame kind of beads, when flain at home for com- 
 mon ufe, he founds the prohibition on a lading 
 reafon, Deut. xii. 20. — 24. " for the blood is the 
 life, and thou mayed not eat the life with the flelh. 
 Tliou dialt not eat of it : thou fhalt pour it on the 
 ground like water." Had Ifrael been allowed to 
 eat the blood of beads flain for common ufe, or 
 had the ufe of fuch blood been prohibited becaufe; 
 it was the atonement, then foon as the blood of 
 beails ceafed to be the atonement, the reafon for ab- 
 ifaining from it would have ceafed, and fo i.he law 
 itfelf requiring fuch abdinence. But Ifrael was 
 not allowed to eat the blood of any kind of bead, 
 for a reafon of a moral cr perpetual nature ; there- 
 
 fcre. 
 
The Laivfulness of eating Blood. 249 
 
 fore, till the blood ceafe to be the life of the animal, 
 no man can eat it, without forfeiting all title to his 
 own life, or right to the blefling annexed to abfli- 
 nence from blood. This blefling is very important, 
 Deut. xii, 25 , " Thou {halt not eat it, that it may go 
 well with thee, and with thy children after thee, 
 when thou {halt do that which is right in the fight 
 of the Lord." 
 
 The fum of v/hat has been faid on this argu- 
 ment is, — The blood of beafts flain in facrifice was 
 forbid to be eaten, becaufe, for the time then prc- 
 fent, it was the atpnement. This reafon was of a 
 temporary and figurative nature, and mull neceffari- 
 ly ceafc when beafts ceafed to be facrificed. It is 
 impoffible for us to break this law now, as no bea{l 
 can be offered in facrifice, according to the gofpel. 
 But as the law enjoining abilinence from the blood 
 of common animals, or beafts (lain at home for or- 
 dinary ufe, is founded on a reafon which is lafting 
 as the earch itfelf, the law founded on that reafoa 
 muft be obligatory to the end of the world, and ob- 
 ligatory on all mankind. For this is the law given 
 to Noah, the father of all nations, in the everlaft- 
 ing covenant for all tlie eartii j in which Je\^' and 
 Greek, Chriilian and Heathen, are all equally in- 
 terefted. 
 
 3^//^, It is argued, that as the fat was forbidden 
 to be eaten under the law, the argument is equally 
 (tvong againft eating the fat as the blood. Let us 
 examine and fee. \st^ The fat was not prohibited 
 in the gran^of animal food given to N'oah, and in 
 him to all mankind ; neither is any fuch prohibi- 
 tion to be fuund in t-'.e New Tcllamtnt. and confe- 
 qutntiy it caiinot bind the confciences of Chrif- 
 tians, who are under the law to Chriit, aud not to 
 Mofes. No law of I^Iofes can bind ik, but whar 
 is taken into the code oi laws ellabUihud in the 
 
 New 
 
55© An Inquiry into 
 
 New Teftament by Jefus Chrift. 2c//^, JlracI wcni ■ 
 only forbid to eat the fat of the facrifices, but were 
 allowed to eat that of the beads flain for common 
 ufe. We find full directions given with regard to 
 the latter in Deut. xii. 2c — 26 ; but not a fyllable 
 there prohibiting fat, nor any refervation made of 
 any part of the flaughtered animal, fave the blood 
 only : ver. 23. '* Only be fure," in the Hebrew, 
 " be ftrong that thou eat not the blood." ^dlj'. 
 Strangers among Ifrael were not forbid to eat tha 
 fat, but no toleration was given for them to eat 
 blood — So deilitute of foundation is this fpecious 
 argument. Fat in general was not forbid to be 
 eatsn in Mofes' law, but none co'^ld tafte " any 
 manner cf blood" under the higheit penalties. Pro- 
 ceed we now to the 
 
 ^th Argument in favour cf blood- eating, de- 
 rived from what our Lord fays, Matth. xv. i 1. 
 *' Not that which goeth into the mouth defi eth a 
 man." It is amazing what influence this weak 
 and wicked argument has had on the minds of 
 men ; though evidently framed by the old ftrpent. 
 For, I sty The diRinclion between clean and unclean 
 meats was rtill in full force when our Lord fpoke 
 thefe words, fo that no Jew could eat any fpecies 
 of food which the law pronounced unclean, but he 
 mull have been defiled, tlad Jefus himfelf eaten 
 but a bit of fwines-flefli, lor inftance, he could 
 riot have been our Saviour. How wicked, then, to 
 put a Itnft on our Loid's words, which even his 
 greateil enemies never pretended to find in them 1 
 2://;', He explains his meaning in ver. 2C. " To eat 
 with unwaflien hands defileth not a man." He is 
 not fpeaking of any particular kind of lood, but of 
 accidental pollution adhermg to food by touching 
 it with foul Innds, or the like. This cannot defile 
 a man, becaufe " the draught purgeth all meats." 
 
 3'% 
 
The Lawfulness of eating Blood, 25 I 
 
 2'l'}'i He means, that eating any kind of food as fuch 
 cannot defile a foul : but wlien the heart is con- 
 fcious that any kind of food is prohibited by God, 
 the wickednefs of the heart in breaking a law of 
 God defiles the man in eating the food. Thus, not 
 the food, but the breach of the law of God in eat- 
 ing it, defiles the man. This interpretation con- 
 filts with fcripture and common fenfe ; whereas 
 the other makes our Redeemer fpeak contrary both 
 to law and gofpel ; as rhe gofpel itfelf makes meats 
 offered to idols unclean, when eaten from reverence 
 for the idols. 
 
 Sthljf It is pled, that " commanding to abflain 
 from meats, which God has created to be received 
 with thankfgiving," is a part of the chara6ler of 
 Antlchrift, as delcribed by Paul, i Tim. iv. i. — 5. 
 This muit be Antichrillian, fince " every creature 
 of God is good, and nothing to be refufed if it be 
 received with thankfgiving."— To this I reply, isty 
 The " every creature of God," in ver. 4 cannot 
 mean every cieature God has made ; fince ftones, 
 iron, yea poifonous herbs and animals, are certainly 
 to be refufed if offered as food. The very creature 
 m this verfe, then, muft only comprehend the 
 me:Us in ver. 3 . or the " m.eats which God has 
 created to be received." But this cannot include 
 blood, as it never was crcat^rd to be recf;ivtd by 
 man, but exprtfsly forbidden to be received at all. 
 id/j'y Ihe nieais here meant are the meats which 
 Antichrid commands mentoabftain from; butthefe 
 do r^ot include blood, fince the eating of blood was 
 firll, and is liil! authoriled in the world called Chri- 
 ftian, by the Papal power alone. .Thus the Pope 
 has proved himfelf to be Antichrift, by forbidding 
 men to cat meats which God created to be received, 
 and commanding them to cat what God never 
 created lor that purpofe, but has exprefsly prohi- 
 bited 
 
2^1 An liiquity into 
 
 bitcd ever fince the firft grant of animal food to 
 man. 
 
 6thlyf An argument is taken from what Paul 
 fays, Rom. xiv. 2. 3. 4. ** One believeth that he 
 may eat all things ; another who is weak, eateth 
 herbs. Let not him that eateth, defpife him that 
 eateth not," &c. Hence, it is pled, that blood 
 may be eaten, fince Paul does not condemn him 
 who believeth that he may eat all things, and fo 
 blood. But little dofl thou think, O.vain man ! 
 where this reafoning will lead thee. In the 5th 
 verfe, Paul fays, «' One man efteemeth one day a- 
 bove another ; another efteemeth every day alike : 
 let every man be perfuaded in his own mind." 
 Hence, it is inferred, that there is no fabbatifm 
 left to the people of God j or that no regard is 
 due to the firft day of the week above any other 
 day. And doubtlefs this inference is as juftly 
 drawn as the former. But, the truth is, we can- 
 not get at Paul's meaning, unlefs we attend care- 
 fully to the defign he has in view in this chapter. 
 Some of the believing Jews, who had been educa- 
 ted among a itOty who reckoned it unlawful to eat 
 flefli, lived on herbs only, as Adam did ; others, of 
 more enlarged ideas, judged it lawful to cat flefh 
 alfo, in virtue of the grant of animal food given to 
 Noah. The all things, then, this latter clafs be- 
 lieve they might eat, evidently mean animal as 
 well as vegetable food. But that blood cannot 
 poflibly be here intended, is clear from ver. 6. 
 where Paul fays, " He that eatech, eateth to the 
 Lord j for he giveth God thanks." Now, it muft 
 be allowed, that all the churches had received a 
 copy of the decree of the apoftles made at Jerufa- 
 lem, wherein abftinence from blood-eating is made 
 an exprefs term of dilcipleftiip among Chriitians ; 
 and confcquently every Chriftian knew that blood- 
 eating 
 
The Lawfulness of Eating Blood. 2j3 
 
 eating was totally inconfiftent with Iiis profefTion. 
 This muil be admitted even by our blood-eaters, 
 as they allow that this edi6t of the apoitles was 
 binding at lead till the time of the deftru£lion of 
 Jerufalem, and fo long after tlvedate of this epillle 
 to the Romans. In this cafe it is abfurd to fay, 
 that a Chriftian could eat to the Lord, or give God 
 thanks for what he well knew the Lord had for- 
 bidden him to eat. If he could eat blood to the 
 Lord, he might alfo commit fornication to the 
 Lord, fince both arc forbidden by the fame authori- 
 ty, and in the fame edi<Sl. How brutifa is the rea- 
 foning of error ! 
 
 As to the inference deduced from ver. 14. ; *' I 
 am perfuaded that there is nothing unclean of it- 
 feif," &c. it is of no force ; blood never was 
 called unclean by the law of God, as I have proved 
 before ; yet it wp.s never allowed to be eaten. 
 Confequetuly it cannot follow from this alTertion, 
 that it is lawful to eat blood. 
 
 But it is argued farther in fuppcvt of blood-eat- 
 ing, that it is faid in Rom. xiv. 17. ♦' The king- 
 dom of God is not meat and drink." yl/is. isi., 
 The fenfe is, the Mofaic diflinclion of meats is a- 
 bolilhed in the kingdom of God. But how can 
 this afFe6l the law prohibiting blood, which was 
 not clall'ed among meats either clean or unclean ? 
 2dly, According to this ^reafoning, there is no meat 
 and drink in the kingdom of God. But is it pof- 
 fible that Paul can intend to fay Co, when he had re- 
 ceived of the Lord an inflitution to be delivered' to 
 the churches, and by them to be obferved till Chriib 
 fliall come again, in which meat and drink, bread 
 and wine, are eflential parts ? Or how is it polTi- 
 bie that Paul could fay thnt blood is not forbidden 
 in the kingdom of God, when he himfelf had join- 
 ed in framing the decree forbidding it, but a fe%v 
 
 Vol. V. Y • years 
 
£"54 -^'i 'nquiry info 
 
 years before? This would make Paul either a fool 
 or a knave ; as does the argument taken from, 
 
 7//'//, I Cor. X. 25. <' Whatevtr is fold in the 
 Tnambles eat ye, making no queflion for confcience' 
 fake." To this it is replied, Mi, That we have no 
 evidence that blood was fold in the fliambles of 
 antiquity •, nor does it appear poflible that it could 
 be fo in warm climes, where it miift have putrified 
 in a few miimres after its extravafation. 2dlyy 
 Paul is fpeaking here concerning flefh flain 
 in facrifice in the idol-temple, and afterwards 
 expoftd to fale in the fhambles, as is clear from 
 the context. But what has this to do with 
 blood ? 3J/)', Suppofing blood to have been fold 
 in the fhambles, if the " whatfoever" in ver. 25. in- 
 cludes blood, then the " all things" in ver. 23. 
 v/hich Paul fays are lawful for him, muft include 
 every action, even the moft wicked. ^thly^ He 
 cannot here mean to reverfe the apoftolic decree 
 prohibiting blood, as even blood- eaters admit the 
 obligation of this edi<Sl: while Jcrufalem. flood. 
 
 8//;/)i, As the apoftolic decree recorded A6ls xv, 
 fo exprelsly -forbids blood-eating, the abettors of 
 that practice have ftrained every nerve to explain 
 it away, and turn it into a temporary expedient, in- 
 tended only to continue in force till ihe deftrutlion 
 of Jerufalem. In fupport of this opinion, it is 
 pretended, that this decree was only made with a 
 view to reconcile the Jews to hold communion 
 with the Gentiles; for fo, fay they, James infi- 
 ruates in ver. 21. where he founds the necelTuy of 
 the decree upon this reafon, " Moles of old time 
 hath in every city them that preach him, being 
 read in the fynagogues every Sabbath-day." This 
 is a gtofs mifiuterpretatlon of James's words ; and 
 it is aftonifliing to find writers of fo great and fhi- 
 i:inB talents eravelv fupporting fo abfurd a fiction. 
 
Ihe La-Kjulness of Eatirg Blocd. 2S^< 
 
 Had they but glanced at the foregoing verfe, 
 it is fcarcely poflible that a candid mind could 
 have miflcd the (tnk of this. " My fentence is, 
 that we trouble not them who from among tha 
 Gentiles are turned to God : but that we lurite to 
 them, that they abftain from pollutions of idols," 
 &c. Here it is evident, that James is not giving 
 the rCdlbn of the decree, but the reafon for putting 
 it in writing. Let us write the mind of the Holy 
 Spirit concerning the freedom of the Gentiles from 
 the law of Mofes, and their obligation to abftaia 
 from fome moral vices, which they reckon indif- 
 ferent, fuch as, eating things offered to idols, 
 things ftrangled, and blood, with fornication. Ic 
 is ncceflary to commit the decifion to writing, be> 
 eaufe, as the law of Mofes is read in the I'yna-. 
 gogue every Sabbath, and many Gentile believers 
 attend there j thefe believers among the Gentiles 
 might not know whether they are bound to keep 
 the law of Mofes or not, unlefs we write this de- 
 cree, and give a copy of it to all the churches, that 
 fo all may know upon what foot Gentiles are to be 
 received into the church of Chnft, and none may 
 impofe on thern again by telling them, that they 
 cannot be faved, extept they be ciicumcifed and 
 keep the law of Molca. 
 
 But fi!ice this idea of the temporary nature of 
 this decree is fo warmly fupported, and lo generally 
 received, it-^is neccllary we ihould expofe its weak- 
 nefs and abfurdity a little farther. 
 
 isi^ if the prohibitions in this edi£l were to 
 ceafe with the Jtwifli flate, the things or adions 
 prohibited by them mult be of an indifferent na- 
 ture, oiherwile ihey could not become law/ul after 
 the deitructioa cf Jerufalem. Moral evils are fucii 
 'It all times and in all pUices. Yet it is impolFible 
 te^caiL thefe things ■ indifferent, without differing 
 Y 2 - from 
 
2 5<'> ^n Inquiry into 
 
 from tlie Spirit of truth, wlio exprefsly calls then; 
 r:ecessary things^ ver. a8. 2). And we mud be 
 hard put to it in fupporting an hypothefis, when 
 it .cannot be^done but at the expence of calling in 
 queliion thf judgement of the unerring Spirit. 
 •Kefidcs, this idea is inconfiflent w.th the very na- 
 ture of fome of the things forbidden, fince idolatry 
 
 and fornicat'.on are allowed to be moral evils If 
 
 it be faidj fome of them are moral and others in- 
 difllrent, tr.is.is a mere aflertion unfupported by 
 evidence. The Holy Spirit makes no fuchdiftinc- 
 tion, bat prohibits them all undeY the fame idea as 
 tiecessaiy things, and who taught us, then, to call 
 tijein indiffercfit ?■ Sure none but he who taught 
 r.ve to coiifider the eating cf the tree of ktiowledge 
 iis an indiuerent thing. — Again, if it be fald, that 
 this decree is called " a burden," and therefore, can- 
 iiot be intended to continue in the Chriftian church, 
 then by the fame rule the whole law or yoke of Chrift 
 mud have alfo ceafed with this decree, fince the 
 ■whole is called a burden, Matth. xi. 30. idlyy Tins 
 hypothefiS Hands on the ablurd idea, that thefe 
 conceflions on the part of the Gentiles would have 
 reconciled the Judaizers to hold communion with 
 ihem ; whereas fun-fhine cannot be more evident 
 than this, that nothing would fatisfy the zealots for 
 the Mofaic fyftt^m but the entire fubjcdion of the 
 Gentiles to the whole law. For we are expreftly 
 told in this very chapter, (ver. i. 24.)? tl»at the 
 tenet they every where inculcated was, *' Except a 
 inan be circumcifed, and keep the law of Moles, 
 he cannot be favcd." How abfurd, then, is it to 
 imagine, that the apoflles intended to patch up a- 
 peace between tl)efe furious zealots and tlie Gen- 
 tile Chriflians, while nothing lefs than a pcrftct 
 conformity to the law of Mofes, on the part of the 
 Gentiks. could have anfwered that purpofe ! Nor 
 
 did 
 
^h^ La^iLJ'uhtcss cf Easing Blood. 157 
 
 Aid this decree in the leaH; abate the rigour of the 
 terms infjfted on by ihe Judaizers, as, long after 
 the date of this decree, we find them as llifF in op- 
 pDling the liberty of the Gentiles as before, as is 
 evident from the epitlles of Paul to the Romans 
 and Galatians : and, indeed, how could fo trilTing 
 a- concelRon as this be fuppofed to tiFc£luate this 
 purpofe ? He mull be a ftranger to that uncom- 
 plying zeal of religious bigotry, who imagines thvit 
 the Gentiles, bv yielding to one part of the law 
 enjoining abllinence from things ihangled and 
 blood, could obtain fellowlhip with men who con- 
 fidered -the whole law of Moles as of eternal obli- 
 gation. Had -the apollles conceivfd any fuch idea, 
 they were truly bunglers in the art of peace- ma- 
 king : particularly when at the fame time they con* 
 demn the favourite dogma of the Judaizing party 
 in the moll full and exprefs terms, and load the 
 zealots ihemfelves with the odious epithets of 
 troublers of the Gentiles, and fubverrers of fou'i. 
 A. bad plan for moderating their zeal I The truth 
 is, no fuch idea was- entertained by the apolt!et;« 
 They exprefsiy loofe the Geiitiles from any obliga- 
 tion to keep the law of Moles; and only enjoin 
 them to obferve laws which were in force long be-*- 
 fore ths Sinai fyftem had an exiftence, 
 
 3^//)', S-uppoling what- James f.iys in ver. 2f. to 
 bfe the reafon for making this decree, it will I •''"i-!.; 
 means follow, that the obligation of the decree wa^; 
 temporar^r, or only intended to cor.tinue in foj-ee 
 till Jerxilalem was deftroyeJ, Had this been in- 
 tended, James would have faid, Let us Gblii^e the 
 Gentile converts to abitain from things (iTa-ugled. 
 and from blood, becaufe Moles is preached, and 
 read in tlie temple everySabbath-day. In this cafe, 
 iffow as tlie temple was deltroyed, the reafon of 
 this prolubiticn vvould-have ceaf^d; aad the Gci;^ 
 ^ 3 tiles 
 
*jS All Inquiry iiito 
 
 tiles miglit have eaten blood, wiien Mofes had 
 jione to read hrn in the temple. But fince James 
 f.'.ys, that the decree is obligatory while Mofes has 
 m every city then) that preach Jiirn,' being read in 
 the ^yiiag'guis every Sabbath-day ; it is clear, that 
 this decree is m as much force as e^er, fince Mofts 
 in every city where the Jews refidc, has them that 
 preach and read him in the fynagogues, with the 
 iJtmoll puiicluality, every Sabbath-day : and furcly 
 we have as much reafon to abrtain from giving 
 
 efFence to the Jews as ever Thus, if we ihould 
 
 tven admit the hlood-eaters' fenfe of this text, the 
 inference they deduce from it in favour of blood- 
 eating is wild, abfurd, and inconclufive. 
 
 It is argued farther, That 'Paul himfelf makfs 
 eating meats oilcted to idols a matter of indifferen- 
 cy, I Cor. X. Qj. 26, 27. as he allo«vs Chri(tians 
 to eat iTiCats cfFered to idols, when invited to a 
 iead in an unbeliever's houfe, making no queftion 
 for confcience' fake ; only in cafe he was informed 
 that the meat fet before him had been offered to 
 idols, he is advii'ed to abllain from it, led he fhould 
 ciTend a weak brother. But this whole argument 
 is'founded on a mif-tranilation of the word Id'Ao- 
 ibpes, which does not mean meats that has been 
 ofFered to idols, and afterwards fold in the fliam- 
 bles as common fleffi, but idol-facrihces, all of 
 v,'hich were eaten in the temple of the idol : in 
 which cafe eating Idolotbytes was an ?.6l: of wor- 
 iiiip performed to the idol in his temple ; whereas 
 eating the fame fiefli when it had been expofed in 
 the flianibles as common flefli, could not infer the 
 ]eali veneration for the idol, being eaten as a com- 
 mon thing. Thus Paul condemns eating Idolo- 
 rhytes in the (Irotigeft terms, calling it idolatry, and 
 •a partaking of the table of devil?., vcr. 14. 21. of 
 this chapter, becaufe'it was an explicit atl of idol- 
 
 worfliip i 
 
Tfjc L'uv.'fulitess of Eating. Blood, 1^^ 
 
 worfhip ; while he permits the believers to eat the 
 fame fie Hi, if fold in the ihambles, provided they 
 did r.ot give ofTence thereby to the weaker bre- 
 thren. How wicked is it, then, to mike Paul con- 
 tradi£t himfelf, while he fpeaks in the moft clear, . 
 accurate, and conGilent manner ! 
 
 That eating Idolothpe^ \^ an adt of everlading : 
 criminaliry, is cler^r from Rev. ii. 14 — 24. There 
 we find the Lord of the churches cxprenin^:^ the 
 highell indignation againlt the churches of Perg-ir 
 mos and Thyatira, becaufe they fuffered fome falfe 
 brethren among, them to teach the lawfulnefs of 
 eating ^ Iddothytes and of commitcing fornication, . 
 Suie n->atters of indifferency could not merit fuch 
 dreadful punifliment. 
 
 I kiiow that it is pleaded," that the prohibition 
 of eating, meats offered to idols, whether in the 
 idol-templesy or in private houfes after the meat 
 had been fold in the fliambles, goes upon the fame 
 foot, even fcandal and oft'ence. In fupport of this 
 opinion, it is alledged, that the apoflle (1 Cor viii. 
 4 — end) feems to fuppofe, that thofe who have 
 knowledge " th?.t an idol is nothing in the world, 
 and that there is no other God but one," and fo can 
 eat without any religious rcfpedl to, or veneration 
 for the idol, might wiihout criminality fit at meat 
 even in the idol's temple, were it not for fear of en fna- 
 ring or offending the confcience of weaker Chrl- 
 llians, who have not fuch enlarged degrees of know- 
 ledge. — To fet this matter in a clear light, it is 
 neccfury to obferve, that Paul is here replying to 
 the .arguments of a fet of philofophizing Chriftians 
 in the church of Corinth, pretenders to fuperior 
 refmemenr in idea and fentiment. Of this tlieir 
 hberal knowledge they boaft, ver. i. " We know 
 that we all have knowledge." Very well, fays 
 Paul, but what avails knowledge without love .-' It 
 
 only 
 
iti-D An Inqu'ii y into 
 
 only puTs up the pofirilbr with a vain conceitof ' 
 himfclf, while only he who loves God is approved- 
 of him, ver. i. 2. 3. But with rcfpedl to iilo!-» 
 facrifices, what do you know ? V/hy, fay they, we 
 know that z\\ idol is nothing, or is no divinity at 
 all ; and confequently in eating meats offered ta 
 idols, we eat not with any religious refpect to the " 
 idol, but view it as common food provided for us by 
 the one God and Father of all. In this cjfe we are 
 not guilty of idol-worlhip. To this Paul replies, — 
 iivery man has not this knowledge ; but fome 
 weaker Chriftians^ imagining that there is fome in- 
 vifible fpirit prefent in the idol, eat it as a facrifice 
 offered to that fpirit, and fo defile their confciences 
 with the guilt of idolatry. — But, reply thefe uhi!o- 
 fophers, meats in themfelvescan never recommend us 
 to God, neither by eating them, nor by abllainiiig 
 from eating. True, fays Paul, but the circumllan- 
 ces of an a<5lion are to be taken into the account. 
 Without entering, then, at prefent into the merits 
 of the queftion, whether it be lawful for men ot 
 your liberal ideas to eat the facrifice of the idol 
 even in his temple, I il;all only fay. Take heed left, 
 by this liberty of yours, you lead a weak brother 
 into idolatry, by emboldening irnn to partake of tha 
 idol-facrifice, while he is confcious of fome ve- 
 fpe(Sb to the idol as the vehicle of fonie fpirit. -Thi!» 
 by finning againft the brethren, ye fin againit 
 Ghrift. 
 
 In this eighth chapter, then, it is evident that 
 Paul reafons againd eating Uolothytes only on the 
 foot of fcandal and offence, and iliews that even 
 in this view no Chiillian could eat them without 
 'fill. But this docs not fay that fuch a pra6lice 
 was not unlawful in itfeif, or that Paul could pro- 
 duce no other argument again-d it. So far from 
 this, he refumes the fubje-tl in the tenth chap- 
 ter, where he enters fully into ihe merits of the 
 
 caufe, 
 
The Lcnvfiilnas of Eat if ^-g Blood, iCl 
 
 cnufe, and demonflrates the fallacy of the fpeclous 
 argumenrsproducedby the philofophizers in the 8th 
 chapter. There lie proves in the llrongell light, that 
 eating the facriiiceof any god, whether real or pre- 
 tended, is an exprefhcn of fellowfliip with that 
 god, and an acknowlegement of his divinity, 
 i'hus, ver. 7. Ifratl were guilty of idolotry by eat- 
 ing the facrinces of Baal-peor, even while they did 
 jiot otl'or thefe facrinces. Again, in ver. 16. 17. 
 he fliews that we exprcfs our communion or fel- 
 lowfliip with Jefus Chrift by eating the bread and 
 drinking the cup, which are to our faith the body 
 and blood of Cnrill our facrilice. Eating the fup- 
 per is fea:ling on the facjitice of Calvary •, and to 
 16 the liighsll exprelTion of cur fellowlliip with the 
 t!-i£ God. In the fame manner, ver. i3. ifrael 
 after the fiefti, by eating the facriiice, were par- 
 takers of the altar. Hence, he conclude? from 
 the cleared premifes, that eating the idol-facriiices 
 is the itrongeft .expreflion of holding communion 
 with the idol, and confequently mutt be idolatry. 
 •' Wherefore, my dearly beloved, fl^e from idola- 
 tiy." Then he proceeds to demonitrate the falla- 
 cy of the ailcition, that an idol is nothing, and that 
 what is offered to it is no facrifice, ver. 19. 20. 
 True, fays he, the flatue of wood, (lone, &c. is no 
 animated being of any kind in itfcU, but the Gentiles 
 imagine that fome invifible fpirit or demon inhabits 
 tiie itatue, and io when thsy ofFtr facrifices before 
 tlie itatue or ihrine, they facrifice to ikmons, and 
 not to the true God. in this cafe, by eating the 
 facrlf.ce with them, which was always done in the 
 temple, you have feliowfnip., with tkmons or de- 
 vils J. a practice totally f abverfive of the profeflion . 
 of Chrilti.inity, being the aioft expreis atl of idola- 
 try. " Ye cannot be partakero of the Lord's table^ 
 i-ud liie table of devils." 
 
 From 
 
^^* /^« Inquiry into' 
 
 From the 2,^d verfe to the end of the chapter, 
 he proceeds to ihew two cafes in which it islawfu 
 to eat things that have been facrificed to idols ; 
 firft, when fold in the public market as cc 
 meat; fecondly, when prefented at a comm 
 
 firft when fold in the public market as commou 
 nieat i fecondly, when prefented at a common en. 
 tcrtainment in a private houfe, provided the Chri- 
 
 ftian guc t be not informed that it has been offer- 
 ed to Idols. In cafe he has been informed o? th 3 
 
 brorr'.'"'''r^-' ""^^ '"^ '^'> ^'' ^^- ^^^^ °f J"^ 
 Drotncr s confcience. 
 
 In the above view of Paul's reafonin.., it is eafy 
 to fee in^what fenfe eating My.-^,,,, i? condemn! 
 ed in tne apoftlic decree, and why fuch tremen. 
 dous juugemcntsarc threatened ag.inlt the churches 
 of Pcrgamos and i nyatira for fuffering any among 
 them to teach the lawfulnefs of eati.fg fuch facri? 
 f'nl'^ eat them in the temple of the idol is 
 icolatl^, and fo merits the higheft punifliment •, 
 uhereas no luch charge can be laid againd eatin-^ 
 nem at a common meal, or when bought in ,hS 
 lnamb.es. _ 1 hus Paul fpeaks conhflently with him- 
 feif, and with other fcriptures ; whereas the com- 
 mon Interpretation, making it lawful to partake of 
 tne tabie of devils, provided it give no offence to 
 the brethreii, renders Paul's reafoning nugatory, 
 and mconfiftent with other parts of fcrmtur?, yei 
 with common fenfe. On this plan, a Ctinitian 
 may confc.emiouily join in idolatrous rites of the 
 Papdts and Pagans, provided he has fenfe to know 
 tiiat the whole is a iarce ! 
 
 Thefe free-thinkers in the church of Corinth 
 leem to have been much devoted to ienlual gratiii-- 
 cations. Educated in the Ichool cf Venus, who had 
 a tempic in- that city, the common .refort for vene- 
 real pui-pofes. they confidered whoredom as a mat- 
 ter ot mdillerency, as well as eating iacrinces m 
 thq temple of that idol. Thoufand; of loofe wo-- 
 
 Uicn 
 
^he Lawful ness of Eating Blood. 263 
 
 men were maintained in the purlieus of the tem- 
 ple for the ufe of her adorers, who having ate the 
 facrifice and fung hymns in honour of the goddefs, 
 proceeded to the moft diredl a6l of her worfliip. 
 Thefe practices, fo agreeable to the appetite, and 
 fan£tified by cuftom, were not eafily abandoned. 
 Thefe, however, were the chief objecVs of the a- 
 poltolic decree at Jerufalem ; hence it became 
 difficult to recor:cile thefe practices with the Chri- 
 flian profeflion. Such Chriftians as determined 
 to continue in fuch ufages applied to philofophy, 
 which furniflied them with feme maxims very con- 
 venient for their purpofe. " Meats are for the 
 belly, and the belly for meats ;" that is, God has 
 fuited the appetite to the enjoyment, and the en- 
 joyment to the appetite ; confcquently there cnn 
 be no harm in gratifying any natural appetite, fince 
 God has made the one for the other. JSuch is. the 
 maxim refuted by Paul, i Cor. vi. x2. 13. &.c. A 
 maxim which they extended not only to Idoloth^^ 
 pes, but to whoredom. Thefe are the " all tbincs" 
 which they faid were lawful ; all gratifications of 
 the natural appetite, as is evident from the con- 
 iie£tion. In the tenth chapter, they apply this max- 
 im to vindicate their eating IJolothytes ; and in this 
 fixth chapter, to alFert their liberty to commit for- 
 nication. The common interpretation puts this 
 maxim, »' all things are lawful for me," in the 
 mouth of Paul, to vindicate his right to eat LJok- 
 thytcs even in the temple of the idol, as an a<fb not 
 criminal in itfel!", but only (o in cafe of its giving 
 offence to others. It fo, by a parity of reafoning, 
 be adopts it in chapter 6ch, that he may aflert his 
 liberty to commit whoredom, as he is Ipeaicmg of 
 tliat fuhjedi ordy in that chapter.* 
 
 The \\x€t is, Paul only takes up thefe libertine 
 principles -that he may confute thenn. I'hia he 
 
 docs. 
 
2(^4 An Inquiry into 
 
 does, not by oppofing authority to them, but reafon- 
 ing and exhortation. " I fpeak as to wife men ; 
 judge ye what I fay." Thus he oppofes them, 
 when employed to vindicate eating idol-facrifices 
 in the tenth chapter : thus alfo when ufed to fub- 
 ferve the purpofes of fornication, in chapter vi. 
 Taking it for granted, fays he, for the fake of argu- 
 ment, that all things are lawful, yet it is evident 
 that things lawful to be done are not in every cafe 
 expedient : and with refpedl to your favourite 
 maxim, " meats for the belly, and the belly for 
 meats," this cannot extend to vindicate whoredom. 
 The body is purchafed by the Lord, and fo ought 
 to be fubje([l to the rules he prefcribes for it. Our 
 fpirit is already joined to the Lord, fo as to be one 
 with him : and although the belly, the feat of ap- 
 petite, mult be deftroyed in the grave, with the 
 meats which fupport it, yet the radical prin- 
 ciples of the body Ihall be raifed up in fliape and 
 qualities like Chrifi's mofl: glorious body. Thus the 
 body in all its members is made for the Lord, or 
 defiined for his fervice here, as inftruments of righ- 
 teoufnefs, and to be conformed to his own body in 
 a coming ftate. The Lord is alfo for the body, as 
 the pattern or model is formed for the thing to be 
 formed upon it. He will raife up the body, ftiape 
 it, and fupport it, by that energy whereby he is 
 able to fubdue all things to himfelf. 
 
 But it is farther argued. That this decree of the 
 apoilles is of the fame kind with the advice given 
 by James to Paul, recorded in A£ls, xxi. 2c. 26. 
 viz. that he Ihould take a vow on him, purify him- 
 felf, and (have his head, according to the law ; that 
 the believing Jews might fee that he walked order- 
 ly and kept the law. — Let us compare thefe two 
 cafes, and fee whether they have any analogy to 
 one another. The spoftolic decree was written, and 
 
 a 
 
The Lavof Illness of Eating Blood. 26^ 
 
 a copy of it given to every church, as obligatory 
 upon all : wliereas this advice of James to Paul was 
 only given to one man, and he a Jew, while nt the 
 lame time it is declared not to be binding on the 
 Gentiles at all, ver. 25. *' As touching the Gen- 
 tiles who believe, we have written and concluded, 
 that they fhould obferve no fuch thing." By this 
 we are certain it is not a law of Chrill, elfe the be- 
 lieving Gentile muft have obferved it as well as the 
 Jew. Again, this advice was only to be ob- 
 ferved on a particular occafion, and that in Jerufa- 
 lem only ; whereas the decree is declared binding 
 on all Chrillians in every place, and on every occa- 
 fion. So that it is impofiible to find the mod dif- 
 tant analogy between the apouolic decree and the 
 advice under review. 
 
 It is argued, again, that this decree is not a law, 
 as it is given in the form of advice, and not enforced 
 by threatening in cafe of difobedience. But, if this 
 argument be conclulive, we ihall fcarce find a law 
 of Chriil in all the New Te{cameiit, as by far the 
 greater part of his laws are delivered in the form 
 of exhortations. He fays, for inftance, to the 
 church in Laodicea, " I counfcl thee to buy of me 
 gold tried in the fire, that thou mayefl; be rich." 
 This is an advice ; but will any perfon fay that it is 
 not a law, or that we may reject it with impunity ? 
 The truth is, the exhortatory form bell fuits the 
 genius of the laws of Jefus. Love only can obey 
 them ; and love needs no threatenings to terrify it 
 into obedience. 
 
 Lastly^ The advocates for blood-eating boaft, that 
 their caufe derives a very llrong fupport from the 
 epiftles to the churches in Perg:imos and Thyatira, 
 Rev. ii. 14 — 24. Thefe churches, fdy they, are 
 condemned for fufFering fome members to teach 
 the lawfulnefs of committing fornication, and eat- 
 
 VoL. V. Z ing 
 
i^6 An h'.qitlry Into 
 
 rng Iddothytes ; but they are not condemned ^or 
 teaching that things ftrangled and blood may be 
 lawfully eaten. Whence they conclude, that the 
 obligation of this lafl part of the apoftolic decree 
 had ceafed before the date of thefe epiftles, elfe it 
 would have been mentioned on this occafion. To 
 this I reply, No part of this decree would have been 
 mentioned on this occafion, had not thefe churches 
 aifled contrary to it ; nor could thefe churches be 
 blamed, but in fo far as they difobeyed the law. 
 Ere this argument, then, can be of ufe to the blood- 
 eaters, they muft prove that thefe churches taught 
 the fervants of Chrift to eat things ftrangled and 
 Llood. Could they prove this, their argument 
 vould be invincible, as we do not find thefe 
 churches reproved for thefe praiSlIces. Bur, as we 
 have not the leaft hint that any in thefe churches 
 either taugJit or praclifed blood-eating, how could 
 the Holy bp-.rit charge theni with crimes of which 
 they were not guilty ? The truth is, motives of 
 nnimal pleafure might eafily feduce men to eat Ido- 
 lothytes^ and commit fornication ; but it does not 
 appear from any part of the hillory of the Cbri- 
 llian church, that in fo early a period, or even 
 long after, any perfon profeQing -Ghriftianity had 
 got it into his head to lay himfeif on a level with 
 dogs, wolves, and cannibals, by eating blood. 
 
 But what puts the matter beyond difpute is, the 
 •whole of this decree is reinjained in the moft ex- 
 prefs terms, and declared to .be binding on the 
 dmrches to the end of the world, in the epiitle to 
 the church in Thyatira, Rev. ii. 24. 25. The a- 
 pollolic decree was called a burden when firft 
 made. Alluding to this, Chi id fays, " I put upon 
 .you no other burden. But that which you have 
 .already, hold faft till I come." Now, it will be 
 .allowed, that this church muft have been polTeiTcri 
 
 of 
 
The Zawfy'lncss of Ending Blood, 26 f 
 
 of a copy of the decree under review, as a copy of 
 it was lent to every church j nor is their one 
 fuigle article in that decree rtverfed here, but 
 the whole declared to be in force till Jtfus come 
 again. 
 
 Thus, I have weighed all the arguments, and 
 even the Ihadows of argument, produced in favour 
 of blood-eating, in the balance of the faniStaary, and 
 have found them wanting. I fhall only add on 
 this head, that it appears furprifing, that men thould 
 have taken fo much pains in wrelling the fcrip- 
 ture to fupport a prailice, fo beallly in icfelf, and 
 {o exprefsly prohibited in the word of the living 
 God. In the facred records, we no where read o£ 
 blood being given to any but as a punifhment. 
 The blood uf Ji2:bcl was given to the dogs as a 
 paniflament upon her for lier wickednefs i and 
 blood is faid to be given to the mother of harlot* 
 for the famereafon, Rev, xvi. 6. " Give her blood 
 to drink, becaufe (he is worthy," — worthy, as 
 file fird taught Chriftians to drink the blood 
 of bcaifs, and then drunk the blood of faints. 
 Ti)e blood-eaters may prove, if they can, that 
 iti any inftance blood was given for food to any a$- 
 3 bleiiing. 
 
 Wc liiall now take a view of the ideas, concern- 
 ing blood-eating, entertained by the heathens and 
 primitive Chrillians, downward to the ninth cen- 
 tury; and then fee on what occafion, and by what 
 authority, blood- eating came to be introduced a»- 
 niong Ciiriilians fo called. 
 
 As to the heathens, we have obferved already, 
 they viewed the facrifical blood as facred, and fb 
 proper only to be ufed in drink offerings to their- 
 gods. With refpc<ft to co.mmon blood, they never 
 teem to have conlidered it as food, at lead during. 
 the period of facred hiliory. The tradition from 
 Z-2, Noah, 
 
268 An Inquiry into 
 
 Koah, their common anceftor, feems in general ta 
 have been religioufly obferved in this refpe<fi ; and^ 
 what is noticeable, according to th? fcripture-idea, 
 they gave blood to criminals, chiefly bull's blood, 
 to drink, by which they died. In Prideaux's Ccn- 
 i7enhf2s, we have a variety of inflances of that kind. 
 Some fuicides, alfo, put an end to their life by the 
 fame means. Sometimes they drunk the blood of 
 their enctriies, not as food, but as an exprcfton of 
 their higheft indignation againll them, and with a 
 view to pierce the hearts of tlieir_furviving friends 
 with the mofi; poignant fenfations of grief and rage. 
 This was only done, howbeit, on fome very parti- 
 cuhir occaiions. 
 
 But it imports us more to know what ideas 
 GhrirLiai.s entertained on this point, during the fivil 
 ages of Chriliianity. Nor are we at any lofs to 
 cbtain full information on this head. 
 
 Justin Moriyr, who became a Chriftian a little 
 anore than thirty years after the death of the a- 
 poftle John, and wrote his dialogue with Trypho^ 
 A. D. 351. has tliefe words ; " For that righteous 
 Noah was permitted by God to eat of every ani- 
 inal, excepting fleih, unih the blood, which is fuftb- 
 caled or flrangled, you have an account given you 
 by Mofes, in the book of Genefis." 
 
 Clemens Alexaridrinusy in his Pedagogue, AD. 
 193. fays " It is not lawfi'l for men to touch 
 blood." And again, ** It is lidiculous to fuppofe 
 that the faying of St Paul, about what is fold in the 
 market, is a repeal of the apoftolical canon." 
 
 Again, the apostolical canons were written before 
 A. D. 200. and in that book we find it decreed, 
 that «« If any bifliop, or prefbyter, or deacon, fhall 
 cat flefli, with the blood of its life, or that is torn 
 by beads, or which died of itlelf, let him be de- 
 prived : 
 
The LawfuLicss Of Eatbiiy BIo'jJ. 269 
 
 prived : but if it be one of tlie laity, let him bc 
 fufpcnded from communion." 
 
 Aliiiuciux IKiix, in his Odavii/s, written A. D. 
 213. fays, *' But for us Chrillians, as we think^it 
 unlawful to be fpeclators of your bloody fights, fo 
 cannot we endure to hear of them ; and we have 
 io much averfion to human blood, that we do not 
 fo much as tafte of the llclli of beails, 'if we know 
 there is any thini^ of blood in it." 
 
 Moreover, hi/fehius (Ecclef. liitt. B. 5. c. i.l re- 
 cites a faying of Biblias tiie martyr thus: " How 
 (hould perfons eat little children, for whom it is 
 unlawful ro eat the blood even of irrational cre<^- 
 tures ?" 
 
 Tertii liaii wrote his ApJogeiic before A. D. 20c» 
 and irom him we have thtle words : " For ihame, 
 therefore, bluih when you miret a Chrillian, who 
 will not endure a drop of the blood of any animal 
 among his vi6tuals, and therefore, for fear any. 
 (hould be lodged among .the -entrails, we abllaiii- 
 from things itrangled, and fuch as die of them- 
 ftlvts. — Among other experiments for the difcove- 
 ry of-Chri.lians, this is one, .to prefcnt tliem with 
 blood-puddings, asvery well knowing, our opinion 
 about the unlawfulnefs of eating .blood.- This, i' ■ 
 fay, is a flumbiing-iblock and cffc-nce you lav in 
 the way of Chrillians j and what a llrange thing 
 is it, that you,' who know well that ihe Ciiri- 
 Itians are ia religioully averfc to the blood of be>:flt, 
 lliould imagine them fo iharp ftt upon the biooii 
 of men !'^ 
 
 From thefe teflimonles of the above-quoted vcne- • 
 rable writers, we find not only what was the view ■ 
 they themfelves had of blood-eating, but the uni- 
 verfal opinion of all Ciiriilians ; among whom the - 
 perpetual obligation of the apoiloilc decree againih 
 Wood-eating was held as aa i:idifput.ible article 
 ^3 * oi' 
 
2/0 yiii I iquiry into 
 
 r,f faith, A religious averfion to blood v/as con- 
 fidered by the heathen as charadlerifticai of a Chri- 
 ftian. 
 
 I migiit have adduced a number of other tefli- 
 monies equally lefpcdtabJe ; fuch as that of Ori- 
 i:en^ in his book againft Cdfusy written A. D, 2:19. 
 of the council of Gcingrena^ and that of Orleans^ 
 A. D. 538. The fixth general couiicil in ^rulloy 
 A. D. 6S3. Nay, even one down in the dark nge 
 of Louis the Pious, A. D. 816 *. All of thefe 
 concur in eflabliflnng the*idea of the perpetual obii- 
 .eation of the law acainfl blood-eatiiiii. 
 
 Thefe things confidered, it may be afked with 
 r.fLor.ifiimeiit, By what authority do Chriftians eat 
 blood, and wj-.o gave tliem fuch authority ? To this 
 I reply, by the fole authority of the church of 
 Rome, the mother of harlots, and of all the abomi- 
 nations of of the earth, — an authority, which, for 
 many long and dark ages, challenged the obedience 
 of all Chriilendom, and which lliil, by a fecret but 
 powerful influence, enthralls the minds of Protcl- 
 tants themfclves.' Tranfubrtantiation, the mon- 
 flrous produilion of the eighth century, nurtured 
 by the care, and fupported by the authority of the 
 all -deceiving fee, came by degrees to be received in- 
 to the creed of mankind as i.t\ article of divine faith. 
 I\ieantinie, v^hile the many worihippedthis unfigiit- 
 ly idol, fome doubted, calling jnquellion his divine 
 original. Thefe, among other arguments, produced 
 that of the law againll eating animal blood. If, faid 
 they, the cup in the Lord's Supper be filled with 
 the literal or real blood of Jet us Chrift, we are 
 forbidden to drink of it, by the law of God prc^ 
 hibiting blood. To get rid of this troublefome ar- 
 gument, the Pope was obliged to change a (land- 
 ing 
 
 * So late as A D 970. a body of EngliHi canons contains 
 flrong injunJliohs upon all Chriftians to iibilain from eating 
 blooa. 
 
1 1 1 Lawfulness of Eating Blood. 2/1 
 
 ing law of God into a temporary expedient ; antt' 
 thus exalting himfcif above all that is calkd God, 
 pronounced that lawful, which God has in all ages- 
 declared unlawful, and againft which he has de- 
 nounced the mod tremendous threatenings. — Thus 
 blood eating came into fafiiion among Chriftians, 
 or rather Anrichrillians. The fame authority, 
 which forbade men to eat meats which God crea- 
 ted to be received, commanded them to eat what 
 God has not created to be received at all. This 
 is the fole authority any one has for eating blood. 
 M aTiy man think it a good one, let him obey it,. 
 Chriflians know no fuch authority. 
 
 But, as God has poured wifdom, goodnefs, and 
 beauty, over all his works, I have no idea of a di- 
 vine law dictated by pure fov^ereignty or arbitrary 
 power. The univerfal Lord is wife and good ; and 
 every thing that conies forth from the Lord of 
 Holts wears obvious traces of wifdom and love. 
 Let us apply tliis ol^fervaiion to the law before us, 
 that wc may fee how far it can prove itfelf the ofl- 
 fpring of a wife and benevolent principle. 
 
 Kf, When love dictates a law, the law mufl be 
 calculated to promote the happinefs of the fubje6l, 
 fmce lovefeeketh not her own, but her neighbour's 
 good. Such is the law prohibiting blood. Themore 
 minutely philofophy has examined the conftituent 
 principles of blood, the more fully is (lis convinced 
 that it is not only improper, but a dangerous food 
 for man. It is allowed to contain very little nou- 
 rifliment — it is exceedingly fubject to putrefcency, 
 as daily experience proves. Scarcely is it extra- 
 vafated and expofed to the air, but it aflumes ob- 
 vious fymptoms of putridity. Hence, wolves, foxes, 
 &CC. more fagacious than human blood-eaters, fuck 
 it from the veins of the animals. Expofe it a fhort 
 time to the influence of the air, and the mod vo- 
 racious 
 
S-7'^ -^h I.iquiry into ' 
 
 racious -brute will refiife to tafle it.— Finallyi LIuCj' 
 13 the feat and orcraii of almoft every fpecics of ani- 
 inal-difcafe. Inflammation and putriiity are the- 
 feeds of difeafe : and thefe have not only- their ori- 
 gin in the blood, but are often concealed and fe- 
 cretly working in that flaid, long ere the difcafti 
 itffclf gives vifible fymptoms of its esiilence in th& 
 fyllem. Had we juft views of the matter, then, 
 we would not only forbear to eat blood, but we- 
 would give God thanks for manifcftixig his love to- 
 us in prohibiting a morfel fo dangerous to the 
 health of man. 
 
 idly^ This law is alfo the refult of that wifdoni'- 
 which lhin.es in every part of the divine plan, fra- 
 ming the whole in perfe6l harmony ; adapting everf 
 thing to every thing. None of the milder animals 
 cat blood J none but "the mod ferocious, favage, . 
 and artful brutes, ks wolves, foxes, dogs, live on 
 this aliment. Humanity is the chara^leririic of 
 inan. How improper, then, would it have been 
 to have commanded or even permitted man to zOl' 
 as a brother to lions, foxes, dogs, and wolves, the- 
 molt ferocious of the brutal world ! Such a law, 
 indeed, becomes the Papal power, the monfter- 
 " drunk with the blood of the faints ;" but it can- 
 Hot " come forth from the Lord of hofts, who is 
 wonderful in council, and good to all " — Again, 
 God alone is Lord of life; the bellov/al and fup- 
 port of it is 'wholly in his hand. It was cert.iinly 
 proper, then, that this, idea fliould be kept alive 
 in the mind of man, by forbidding him the ufe of 
 blood, which is the- life, left he Ihould forget his 
 dependence on God for fo important a blelling.. 
 Life is the foundation of all enjoyment. Hence, 
 to acknowledge God as the abfolute proprietor of 
 life, is to own him as the authorof all that either 
 fullains cr makes it happy.— Finally, the propriety 
 
 of 
 
The Lawfulness of Eating Blood. 273 
 
 of this law will appear, if we confider, that to par- 
 take of the blood is a fymbol of our onenefs with 
 the creature, of whofe blood we partake. We arc 
 commanded now to drink the blood of the Son of 
 God. Why ? Becaufe we are one body with him, 
 living in his life, united to him as members of his 
 body. Now, all the members of the fame body 
 mult have a right to partake of the blood, /. f. the 
 life of that bocty. This is finely exprefl'ed in the 
 fupper of our Lord. There we drink the blood of 
 the Son of God, as an expreflion of our living in his 
 life, and our being members of his body, in this 
 view, to eat the blood of a brute is a fymbol of our 
 union with that brute j ati expreflion of our living 
 its life, as of the fame fpirit and temper with it. 
 The life, difpofition, and temper of the animal, is not 
 in the flefli, but in the blood. Hence there is no 
 impropriety in the law allowing us to eat flefl), 
 which we poflefs in common wiih every other 
 animal; but till we be one body and one fpirit with 
 the brute, it muft be the higheit abfurdity to live 
 on the brute's life, by participating of its blood. 
 
 Thus we have feen, that the law againft blood- 
 eating, founded upon an eternal reafon, ftands 
 immoveable as the covenant of the day and night, 
 of which it is a pRvt- It is a law of gratitude, 
 founded upon a free grant or promife of benefits, 
 which stands firm whiie the fun and moon endure. 
 None of tliefe promifes given in the charter to 
 Noah have failed. The feafons regularly inter- 
 change; mankind increafe and multiply; vege- 
 table [and animal food are (liil provided ; the bow 
 is still fexn in the cloud ; nor has the earth been 
 agam delugtd with waier, although the' imagina- 
 tion of man's h^rt be evil continually. Nor has 
 Cod failed to require the blood'of our lives at the 
 hand of the ihcdder ; at the hand of every beaft, 
 
 £xod. 
 
274 ^/i Liquiry into 
 
 Exod. xxl. 2S. -, at the hand of every man, D'eut"* 
 xix. 11.12. In all ages, the blood of the flayer 
 is the raiifom of the life or b;6jd of the (lain. 
 Thus the promife has been literally fulfilled. It- 
 li alfo myitioaliy accompliihed, in all the facrifices 
 of divine appointment. While the law stood, the 
 bl ;od of bealls mult make atonement for oar 
 fouls ; at the hand of every facriucal beaft he re- 
 quired it ; till he, who is " every man's brother" 
 appeared, even Jefus Chrift, at v/hofe hands the 
 full lanfom of our fouls lias been required. By 
 him, too, the firil Ihcddtr of aian's blood, even 
 the devil, the murderer from the begiiuiing, has- 
 bad his b'ood flied. This author of murder ihall 
 be deftioyed out of the kingdom of God, by the 
 power of the crofs of Ciirill, who can^ to dcftroy 
 him that had the power of death, even the devil. 
 Thus all the grace, and all the promifes conveyed 
 by this charter, Hand for ever ; wlio, then, ihall 
 leverfe the law of gratitude founded upon thern ?. 
 I have already obferved, that facrilical blood was 
 forbidden to men, becaufe it is the atonement. 
 This law ceafcd of itfelf with the Mofaic difpen- 
 fation, for a very obvious reafon, .as the blood o£ 
 beufls then ceafcd to be the atonement. So far, 
 then, as this law refpcdied the blood of bealls, it 
 muft have ceafed with the reafon on which it wasf 
 founded. The blood of bealls now is wlioHy com- 
 mon; and is to be abilaiued frcm cnly becaufe it 
 is the life. Yet it mull be carefully obftrvcd here, 
 that we have ftill our atonement by the blood of. 
 .Tefus ; and the law prohibiting facrilical blood, io 
 far as it refpects that of Jeluf, is ilill in force. 
 Blood is ftnl the atonement, and therefore muit be 
 abllained from fi.i!l. 
 
 This aflertion may feem liable to obje£lion, fmce 
 Jefiis our.aiuiicmcnt Lys exprefsly, " Exc£pt yc 
 
The L'aivfulness of Eating Blood. 275 
 
 «t the flefli of the Son of man, and drink his 
 blood, ye have no life in you." Here he enjoins 
 the drinking of his blood, as efi't^ntially necellary 
 to our eternal life. Is not this a reverfal of the 
 law prohibiting the ufe of the atoning blood ?— 
 This objetlion merits particular attention. 
 
 To have jufl: ideas of this matter, it is neceflary 
 to obfcrve, that in the coiiftitution of grace, re- 
 vealed at the introdu6lton of fin, two kinds of 
 blood were appointed as fymbols of the blood of 
 Jefus; namely, the blood of the facrifical animals, 
 ?.s of bulls and goats, and the blood of the gfape. 
 Yet, though boih thtfe were types of the fame " 
 thing at the bottom, a lifrle clofer attention wiH 
 convince us that they did not prefigure the blood 
 of our facrifice in the fame refpedl. The former 
 was a figure of that blood which Jefus (bed on 
 Calvary to make atonement for fin ; the blood or 
 Ufe which he received, from old Adam, even ani- 
 mal blood, or what we may call the blood of his 
 mortality. 7 his was a blood which he had in 
 common with his brethren of mankind j a life 
 which he could lay down or lofe for cur fakes. 
 Of this blood, that of the facrificp.l animals was a 
 juft figure; as, \st^ It was flied for the reniiflioii 
 of fin ; zdly^ Shed by the f*r:eft ; 3.-^/;/, Atonement 
 was made by it ; 4,'^/y, It rras poured at the bot- 
 tom of the altar, as "Chrift's at the foot of the 
 ,crofs ', and, Jitmliy, was not to be eaten as if it 
 liad been a common thing. From this laft circum- 
 ilance, it is eafy to fee, that if it be lawful for us 
 now. to drink the blood of .k(us, then the facrifi- 
 .cal blood under the law was not a type of the 
 blood of Jefus at all, as it was exprefsly iorbid to 
 be eaten. Nor is there any way of getting rid of 
 this difliculty, but by obfcvving, that wtr are "no 
 where commanded to drink the animal blood of 
 
 Jefus 
 
2'] 6 An Inquiry into 
 
 Jefus at all. The law of God has prohibited the 
 drinking of any animal blood whatever, and to 
 drink the blood of Jefus literally, or that blood 
 which run in his animal veins, were it polhbie, 
 would be as unlawful and hurtful as to drink the - 
 blood of any other animal. We have no occafion 
 for his mortal life ; we have it^already. He par- 
 took of our flefh and blood, that we might partake 
 with him in a far higher fpecies of life ; that we 
 might imbibe the life of his immortality. 
 
 We may then let them keep the animal blood of 
 our facrifice, who have it already. The Jews 
 faid, " Let his blood be upon us and our children j" 
 and it is on them, according to their wifli. The 
 Papifts drink it In the cup oi the mafs, and drink** 
 judgement to themfelves, by trefpalling againft the 
 exprefs commandment of the Holy Ghoft, prohi- 
 biting the ufe of animal blood, in this fenfe of the 
 blood of our facrihce, no man can nor dare drink 
 it, but he Ihall be cut off from among the people 
 of God. 
 
 But the cafe was, and ftill is, very different 
 with refpe£l: to the blood of the grape. That it 
 was a fymbol of the blood of Jefus, is clear from 
 John, XV. I. *< I am the true vine," or the truth, 
 of which the vine in its blood was but a fliadow. 
 It is fo ftill ; as is evident from its ufe in the fup- 
 per of our Lord ; wherein the wine in the cup is 
 called fymbolically, The New Teflament in his 
 blood, or the blood of the New Teftament. The 
 blood of the grape, however, is not a figure of 
 the mortal life or animal blood of Chrift, but of 
 his refuriection-life, or of that life he was pofTefT- 
 ed of when quickened by the Spirit, after he had 
 been put to death in the flefh. This is a blood or 
 life of immortality, altogether different from the 
 life he derived from the old Adam, as it is not 
 
 fubjea 
 
'J. he Lanvftilness of Eating Blood. 2) 7 
 
 fubjccl to mortality, communicating immortality^ 
 even to his very body. Now he dieth no more j 
 tleath hath no more dominion over him. 
 
 This is the blood of Jefus, which we drink ijv 
 the facred cup of the Supper •, for it is the blood 
 or cup which he faid (Match, xxvi. 2g.J he 
 ^'ould "drink new with his difciples in his Father's 
 kingdom." That the blood of the vine was a 
 l^mbol of it, or the vehicle for conveying it, ha 
 intimated at the fame time, when he calls the life 
 or happlnefs he now enjoys at the Father's right- 
 hand the fiuit of the ♦• vine." The cup, expref- 
 five of his refurrect ion -life and joy, was not hlled 
 with the blood of bulls or goats, but with the 
 blood of the grape. 
 
 This blood of the grape has honours fuperior to 
 thofe of the blood of animals. It was given to. 
 man even in paradife itfelf, before fin entered, 
 where it flood as a type of the tree of eternal life, 
 in the midlt of the paradife of God. This ho- 
 nour it had before facrifical blood was a type at all. 
 It was alfo drunk in all the drink-offerings of be- 
 lievers, from the time of the inftltution of facrifi- 
 cature, and will continue to be fo tiil .lefas come, 
 the fecond time j whereas the facrifical blood wa^i 
 never allowed to be drunk at all, bccaufe it was 
 the fymbol of the mortal life, which had the cuvle 
 of the law upon it ; of. which curfe the new nian, 
 the believer, Ihall never tafte. 
 
 The propriety of appointing the blood of tlia 
 grape, as the fj-rabol of the refurreclion-life of 
 Jefus, is very ftriking. Unlike the blood of ani- 
 mals, of all fluids the moft fubjetl to putrefcer.cy, 
 the blood of the grape is capable of being lorip; 
 preferved from corruption, and is the belt antidoie 
 to putridity in all tlie vegetable kingdom. Befides, 
 it coiiveys life, Ipirit, vigour, joy, and exhilara- 
 
 Voi.. V. A a tioa 
 
27^ An Inquiry int» 
 
 fion to man, or, in the facred language, *' wine 
 cheers the heart of man," yea, of God himfclf. 
 Judges, ix. 13. being ufed in the drink-offerings of 
 God ; whereas, every creature fed by animal 
 blood is gloomy, malignant, and joylefs. How- 
 fine a figure, then, is the blood of the grape of 
 the blood of Chrift, as raifed from the dead to in- 
 corruption, light, vigour, joy, and immortality ! 
 
 Of this blood we drink literally in the facred 
 fervice of the Lord's Supper. There we really 
 drink the blood of the grape with our mouth, and 
 our faith no lefs really drinks or imbibes the refur- 
 re£lion-life, joy, ftrength, and immortality of the 
 Son of God, through its inftituted fymbol and 
 vehicle of conveyance. This is the wine we drink 
 new with him in his Father's kingdom. He who 
 drinketh not this blood of the Son of God has no 
 life in him. 
 
 This blood of the grape has been ufed in the 
 fame manner, in the facred fervices of the church 
 of God, in all ages. It was ufed in the drink-of- 
 ferings of the law, and that always after the atone- 
 ment had been made, by the facrifice of the barnt- 
 ofFering or fm-offering ; and it is ufed in the cup 
 of the gofpel, after the atoning facrifice of Jefus, 
 in commemoration of that great event. The 
 drink-offerings of old were always offered in the 
 faith of remiflxon of fin, and a right to life, ob- 
 tained by the atonement previoufly made ; and do 
 ■we not ftill drink the cup of the New Teftament 
 in the faith of the remiflxon of our fins, and of 
 our title to life eternal, through the atonement in 
 the facrifice of Jefus ? This is truly the cup of 
 blefling ; it is to believers the communion of the 
 blood of Chrift ! This is the blood of which 
 Chriftians partake by divine authority j while they 
 
 leave 
 
^he Lawfulness f Fluting Blood, 2^^ 
 
 leave the blood of hearts to beads, and the " wor- 
 fljippers of the beaft ;" that beaft who has totally 
 changed the law of God concerning blood, com- 
 manding Chriftians to eat the blood of beads, 
 which God prohibited ; and forbidding them the 
 cup of the blood of the New Teftament, of which 
 Chrift faid to his difciples, " Drink ye all of it," 
 
 END OF VOLUxME V. 
 
 J. Pillans & Sons, Printers, Edinburgh.