I PRINCETON, N. J. "A Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agicw Coll. on Bnp'isni, No. scB MISCELLANEOUS "WORKS MR AECHIBALD M'LEAN, ONE OF THE PASTOES OP THE BAPTIST CHURCH, EDINBURGH. VOL. vir. REVIEW DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES ABRAHAMIC COVENANT AND INFANT BAPTISM, &C., &C. / By ARCHIBALD M'LEAN, ONE OF THE PASTORS OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH, EDINBUBGH. WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY, BY THE EBV. ALEXANDER ANDERSON, ELGIN: PETER MACDONALD. LONGMAN & CO., AND HOULSTON & STONEMAN, LONDON OLIVER & BOYD, AND FULLARTON & CO., EDINBURGH ; BANKS, NEWCASTLE; AND COLLINS, GLASGOW. M.DCCC.LII. Elgin : Printed by Robert Jeans, at the " Courier "' Office. CONTENTS. ^,.<^ » Pkge Introduction, • . . . . . ix. A Review of Dr Wardlaw's Lectures on the Alu-ahamic "^ Covenant, and its supposed connection with Infant Baptism, I Letters Addressed to Mr John Glas, in Answer to his Disser- tation on Infant Baptism, . . . .107 A Defence of Believer's Baptism as Opposed to Infant Sprinkling, &c., . . , . . . 20 1 Strictures on Mr Carter's Remarks. In a letter to Mr Richards of Lynn, . . . . .281 A Letter to a Correspondent ; shewing that all the Arguments for Infant Baptism are rendered null and void by Pcedo- baptists themselves, &c., .... 293 Baptism must precede Visible Church Fellowship, . 317 An Illustration of the Prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the Seed of Abraham, &c., . . .331 A Reply to Mr Fuller's Appendix to his Book on the " Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation," , . 367 ADVERTISEMENT. The Publisher of Mr M'Lean's Miscellaneous Works begs leave to say, that he has now given to the Public, in the present cheap form, the whole of the Author's Valuable Writings, formerly Published by Mr William Jones, in Six Volumes 8vo, at £3, 12s, with exception of the following Controversial Pieces, which some of his Subscribers objected to : — Dialogue between a Seceder and a Baptist. Essay on the Divinity and Sousliip of Christ. Paraphrase and Notes on Romans v. 12 — to the end. Strictures on the Writings of Dr James Watt, and others. However, as the Publisher has in his possession several Manu- script Writings of Mr M'Lean, which have never appeared in Print (and which, with the above pieces, would make another small volume of about 350 pages), he is still willing to Publish that Volume, provided a sufficient number of Subscribers come forward to encourage him to do so. INTRODUCTION EEV. ALEXANDER Aj^DEESOK, ABERDEEN. §^-:^%^ INTRODUCTI 0>S^^4;ww«*^ It is now three quarters of a century and upwards since the attention of Christians in Scotland was called to the question of Infant Baptism by Mr Archibald Maclean. Previously to that time the doctrine of the spirituality of the New Testament Church had been asserted by Mr John Grlas, minister of Tealing. Mr Maclean received his first saving acquaintance with the truth under the pi'eaching of the famous Mr John Maclaurin, one of the ministers of the Established Church in Glasgow. Having been led by the reading of Mr Glas's " Testimony of the King of Martyrs," to embrace the views advocated in that work of the spiritual constitution of the Church of Christ, and to separate himself from the Established communion, he was soon enabled to perceive that his principles inevitably conducted him to the renunciation of infant baptism as a chief part of that fleshly system of administration against . which he had entered his protest. The present volume contains a series of lettei-s addressed to Mr Cllas on this subject, dated in 1766. In these he expounds his views as opposed to the inconsistencies in which Mr Glas's continued maintenance of infant baptism necessarily in- volved him. a XII INTRODUCTION. down to the present time, been receding from the idea of an identity of principle in the administration of the Jewish and Christian Churches ; and have been gradually approaching nearer to a consistent practical application of the true law of Church membership, as they fully acknow- ledge it in respect of its obligation upon the conscience of the individual, by discouraging, and, in some instances, by repelling the applications of persons possessing a fair cha- racter in the eye of the world, and a competent amount of religious knowledge, but visibly destitute of the marks of a gracious state of heart. Few now are found to main- tain the desperate position that the ordinances of the Christian Church are to be administered on no more dis- criminating 'jDrinciple than that exhibited in the history of ancient Israel, when as one man they observed the Passover and the sprinkling of blood at their coming out of Egypt ; or again, when all the generation which were born in the wilderness were circumcised by Joshua at Gilgal. Fewer still would now seek, in their own prac- tice, to impose the responsibilities of a Christian profes- sion as a yoke, and on a principle of law, upon a whole nation indiscriminately, as in the days of Asa, King of Judah, Israel "entered into a covenant to seek the Lord Grod of their fathers with all their heart, and with all their soul, that luhosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." It may be assumed then that the larger ground of argu- ment for infant baptism formerly occupied by Scottish divines, as supporting an identity of principle in the ad- ministration of the Jewish and Christian Churches, has INTRODUCTIOIf. XIH now been generally abandoned, and that the controversy is narrowed to the discussion of the question whether, allowing the contrast between the spiritual Church of the New Testament and the legal and carnal Church of the Sinai dispensation, the circumcision of the infants of tlie Abrahamic family, in the period intervening between Abraham and Moses, may be regarded as an evangelical administration, available as an example for determining the subjects of Christian baptism ? The Westminster Standards, avoiding any formal deliverance on the question of the general identity of principle in Old and New Testament administration, rest the argument for infant baptism specifically upon the example of circumcision in the family of Abraham. Although even this restricted ground has been generally abandoned in England — being exchanged for a latitudi- narian theory of baptism — it now furnishes the one standard argument for baptizing infants among Scottish Divines — by whom indeed Dr Wardlaw's treatise aj)pears to have been universally adopted as an accurate exposition of their views. It is true that there is no such clear as- sertion of the distinction between a legal and evangelical administration of ordinances among Presbyterians as would warrant us in saying that they have adopted any definite alteration of the creed of their fathers. But there has been an undeniable approximation to the principles of Independency in the abandonment of any habitual refer- ence to the practice of the Jewish Church as an example to us, and in the unequivocal tendency, now general, rather to " gather " into their Churches persons previously impressed with religious truth, than to "comprehend," 2 a XIV INTEODUCTIOJf. under their Church discipline, entire populations, scarcely contemplating more than a small admixture of spiritual members among a promiscuous multitude of nominal Christians. In so far as they may still retain a feeble attachment to the semi- Judaical theory of the older divines, they find themselves borne out even by the statements of Dv Wardlaw, in his astonishing assertion that the genera- tion who entered Canaan under Joshua, and their posterity who continued to possess the promised land, did so under the character of Abraham's spiritual seed (see Treatise on Infant Baptism, p. 54, 55, 58-62, Ed. 1825.) . Assuming, however, the abandonment of the general doctrine of an identity of principle between the Churches established by God, severally under the law and the gospel, which, as inconsistent with the doctrine of a spiritual Church, few indeed now appear to defend, my obje/;t here will be to give a summary statement of the grounds on which the example of circumcision in the earlier Abrahamic Church is to be regarded as inapplicable in deciding the rule of New Testament administration, and as truly an ordinance of the legal economy, as that economy is now admitted to have been abolished in the Church of God. It seems to me that the ordinance of circumcision, as given to Abraham, served three distinct purposes, and that the subject of its relation to us as an example will have been exhausted if it can be shewn that under each of these three views it is either iuapijlicable, or expressly re- pealed under the administration of the New Testament Church. First — Circumcision was *' a token of the covenant " INTRODUCTION. XV established with Abraham, and " a seal of the righteous- ness of the faith which Abraham had, being yet uncircum- cised." Second — It was a type of the circumcision of Christ, or of the putting away of sin by the shedding of the blood of the promised seed ; and also of the cir- cumcision of believers in their union and communion with Christ in his death. Third — It was a laiu imposed on the Abrahamic family — the germ of that more extended system of law developed in the covenant of Sinai, identical with it in its principle, and serving the same ends. The two former views of the subject will be universally admitted; and it will only be necessary to shew that in neither of these views can circumcision, or any ordinance supposed to have come in its place, be applied to the chil- dren of believers in the New Testament Church. The third view is formally denied by Dr Wardlaw, who well understands that, even could all his other reasonings be upheld, the establishment of this view of the rite of circumcision, reducing it to the character of an ordinance of the old covenant, would at once bring it within the scope of a great statute of repeal such as he insists that his opponents shall produce. My object under this head will be to shew that circumcision was to Abraham and his posterity a legal ordinance, and at the same time to state the grounds on which, as a legal institution, the revival of its principle, under whatever form, is unlawful, and op- posed to the gracious designs of G-od in the establishment of a JSfew Covenant Church. First — Circumcision was " a token of the covenant esta- blished with Abraham, and a seal of the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had." XVl INTRODUCTION. Baptism is administered to the children of professing believers under the supposition that they have an interest in a covenant with their parents " for substance," the same with that which Grod made with Abraham on behalf of his posterity. It is only necessary to give a little attention to the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant, and the extraordinary position assigned to the Abrahamic race under that covenant, to perceive that this hypothesis is groundless. The promises of the Abrahamic covenant were — 1 . That there should be born miraculously to Abraham a son or a seed — fulfilled in type in the birth of Isaac, when Abraham and Sarah were both *' as good as dead" — and ultimately in its higher sense, in the miraciilous birth of Jesus Christ from the race of Abraham, and afterwards in his resurrection as " the first-born from the dead." 2. That while in one view Abraham's seed was to be one, in another view it was to be multitudinous " as the dust of the earth," and " as the stars of heaven." 3. That to Abraham and his seed Jehovah would be " a God" for ever. 4. That in the persons of his seed he should receive the land of Canaan " for an everlasting possession," fulfilled, in type, in Israel being settled in Canaan under the covenant of law, and destined to receive its higher fulfilment under the new covenant in the latter days. 5. That in Abraham and his seed, all nations of the earth should be blessed. Will it be seriously maintained, that any one of these promises was given to any other race on the face of the INTRODUCTION". XVII earth, besides the race of Abraham. True, every indivi- dual Gentile believing on Jesus, and thus united by a spiritual tie to Abraham's promised seed, becomes thereby, in the best sense, a child of Abraham, and thus the gospel preached to Abraham is fulfilled, that in him " all nations" should be " blessed." But shall we, on this ground, pretend to assure to any mere fleshly nation or family — 'even if they should reckon their descent from a believing progenitor — an interest in the covenant made with Abraham's seed, whether in the flesh or in the Spirit, and with none else. Jesus gave to his disciples a commis- sion to go into all nations and to baptize them ; and this baptizing of the nations, i. e., of the G-entiles, may be re- garded as a recognition of their interest in the covenant made with Abraham, that in him and in his seed all nations should be blessed. But ere this recognition is conceded, he provides that first they shall have been apparently brought within the bond of the covenant, and constituted children of Abraham through faith. " Go ye therefore and disciple all nations, baptizing them," &c. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." It is plainly contrary to truth to administer baptism to the offspring of believers, being still, so far as appears to us, only in the flesh, as a token of any interest possessed by them in the covenant made with Abraham, when there is not one promise of the Abrahamic covenant which can be shown to have an application to them — neither the promise of Christ springing from them, nor the promise of the multiplication of their race, nor the promise of God being for ever the God of their race, nor the promise of their race inheriting Canaan, nor the promise that in their race all nations should be blessed. Let it be XVIII INTRODUCTION. observed that each of the last four of the promises enumerated above, arises out of the first promise, that Abraham should be the progenitor of Christ, according to the flesh. The fleshly race — the multitudinous seed of Abraham, derive their being and the various great dis- tinctions secured to them in the covenant, entirely from the fact that Abraham was constituted the progenitor of the one promised seed. Christ was " the seed to whom the promise was made ;" and this promise or covenant, even in its earthly reference, could have had no bearing on the multitudes descending from Abraham, unless in so far as God was pleased to constitute this descent a ground of unity to certain earthly effects between them and the one seed to whom they stood related as brethren, according to the flesh. Their fleshly relation to Christ was, in the sovereign wisdom of Grod, made the ground of the peculiar privileges of their race. Circumcision was to them a token of the covenant only in so far as it was a token of their kinsmanship to Christ according to the flesh. How absurd, then, to plead this example for ad- ministering a token of the same covenant, or of a cove- nant " for substance," the same to another fleshly family in whom this fleshly kinsmanship to Christ — the essential condition of Israel's privileges — can have no place. But circumcision was to the Abrahamic family, it is said, a seal of the righteousness of faith — which saving benefit is as free to the offspring of believers now, as to the descendants of Abraham then. The words of Scripture are " a seal of the righteousness of the faith which Abra- ham had, being yet uncircumcised." It was not a mere representation of an attainment or a blessing which God IKTRODUCTIOK. XIX was willing to bestow, not a mere sign, but a seal, — a seal of faith previously exercised by Abraham, and of the righteousness obtained by him through faith. So, it will be said, may baptism not be a seal to an infant of a be- lieving parent's faith ? In truth, under the spiritual economy of the New Testament, neither baptism nor any outward ordinance constitutes a seal of a spiritual benefit — " In whom, after that ye believed ye were sealed with that holt/ spirit of promise." But waiving this, what war- rant would there be for applying the supposed seal of the parent's faith to the offspring — or what sense or signifi- cancy could there be in it, unless it could be shewn that the fleshly posterity are comprehended like the Abrahamic family in the same absolute and gracious covenant with the parent — securing them either in the peculiar distinc- tions of Abraham's children as a race, or in what is really a far higher distinction, that of enjoying a personal interest in new covenant grace — in the love of him who " tasted death for every one" of his sheep individually, and who can say, " those whom thou hast given me I have kept, and none of them is lost ?" There was a good reason why Abraham's posterity should receive circumcision as a seal, not of their own, but of their progenitor's faith. They were one with Abraham in the covenant in respect to all its earthly results. As in the spiritual sphere, Christ is one with " the children" to whom he stands in the relation of a progenitor and a covenant head ; in the earthly, Abraham was one with the multitudinous race Avho were to spring from his loins, and were to be blessed for his sake. When Jacob was going down to Egypt, God said, " I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will XX IKTEODUCTIGN, also bring thee up again." But Jacob personally never returned alive into Canaan. The promise was fulfilled to his posterity as one with him in the covenant. Israel in their generations waited for the fulfilment of a yet greater promise, made sure to them by Abraham's faith. Whether believers or unbelievers personally, they were set apart to be the progenitors of the righteous seed in whom their father Abraham believed, and by whom Abraham obtained the righteousness of faith. Circum- cision, then, was fitly administered to them as a token of the covenant which secured them in their national distinc- tion, and a seal of the righteousness of that faith of Abraham which made them what they were. Circumcision sealed nothing to a carnal descendant of Abraham except the inalienable outward privileges of the race to which he belonged — from which Messiah was to arise — and the faith of his illustrious progenitor, by which these privileges were procured. What rule or example can be derived from such a case as this, for administering a seal of the parent's faith to other races, who have not one of those* sure hereditary privileges obtained by Abraham's faith for his posterity, nor any sure covenant standing, or hereditary privilege, of whatever kind, which it is possible to defend, or even to particularize ? Of course, after what has been shewn with reference to any conceivable privilege in the house of Grod which may be attributed to a fleshly seed, — namely, that it was peculiar to Abraham's fleshly seed, or that it has no place in God's covenant with other believers — men who are deeply committed by education and other influences to such a view, will still be likely to take refuse in a general INTRODUCTIOK. XXI assertion of a covenant standing for the posterity of believers, fortifying themselves, as it is easy to do, by some passages of Scripture, such as the promise to Abra- ham now discussed, without reference to their connexion or specific meaning — persuading themselves that there must be something in a privilege which has taken its place almost as a first principle in their creed. It is clearly impossible directly to disprove the existence of a privilege which is not defined, or even professed to be understood. But in so far as such a view is made to rest on the covenant with Abraham, it is easy to show that it is necessarily inconsistent with one essential principle in that covenant, as compared with undeniable facts. It is too evident that the offspring of believing parents do, in many melancholy instances, prove unbelieving and repro- bate— that in some instances they are excluded, in the inscrutable providence of God, from those holy influences which a believing parent's example and instruction would have supplied — and that, very often through the extinction of the race, there is no plea for expecting that the failure of the supposed covenant-interest in the more immediate posterity will be remedied in more remote descendants. Here is a case in which the promise, if it exists, absolutely fails and becomes void. But there is no possibility of such a failure in the covenant with Abraham. It was not a legal covenant — depending for its fulfilment on any creature conditions or earthly contingencies. Its grand distinguishing principle was its absoluteness, its gracious- ness, its eternal security, as based on the simple promise, the awful oath, and the almighty power of God. Dr Wardlaw has written (p. 169, 170) what tends to obscure XXII INTRODUCTION. this principle in the use which he has made of the passage, Gren. xviii. 19, " I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him," where he endeavours to establish a parallel between the dependence of the supposed covenant blessing of Christian families upon the fidelity of their parents, and a like dependence of the blessing of Abra- ham's family upon his fidelity in teaching them the way of the Lord. Dr Vv". may be presumed to know that there is an admitted imperfection in the translation of that passage. When this is remedied, it strikingly brings out the absolute certainty of the blessing of Abraham's family, and also of the means by which it was to be conveyed — as both alike resting on the free grace and absolute .purpose of God — " I know him in order that he may command his children, and his children after him, * * in order that I may bring upon Abraham the good thing which I have spoken." Thus, in point of fact, Abraham's promised son was born — his seed was multiplied — redeemed from Egypt — settled in Canaan, and became the progeni- tors of Messiah, and a source of blessing to the world — all as God had promised — and still they are miraculously preserved, and in due time they will be gloriously restored, despite the opposition of men and devils, despite their own unbelief and hardness of heart. " If my covenant be not with da-y and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then will I cast away the seed of Jacob." " As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes — but as touching the election, they INTRODUCTION. XXIU are beloved for the Fathers' sakes, for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. "Whatever security exists m the Abrahamic covenant for the salvation of an individuu,l believer, as shown by the apostle in Gal. iii., the same security is afforded in that covenant for the preservation and blessing of the Israelitish race; and it is a mere perversion and degradation of its gracious promises, to quote them as the ground of privileges, the fulfilment of which at the best are uncertain, while their A^ery meaning no one is able definitely to express. II. Circumcision was a type of the circumcision of Christ, or of the putting away of sin by the shedding of the blood of the promised seed, and also of the circumci- sion of believers in their union and communion with Christ in his death. There is a clearly marked distinction between a type of a good thing not yet bestowed, as it existed under the Old Testament, and a spiritual ordinance of the New Testament. The type is composed of mere earthly ele- ments, and contains in it no spiritual likeness, but only a shadowy outline of the evangelical benefit which it re- presents. In the spiritual ordinance, while a fleshly out- line and representation is still employed as in the type, it is appointed to be used in no case as the substitute, but only as the badge, of the spiritual blessing which it repre- sents, considered as present or realized. If this plain contrast between an Old Testament type and a gospel ordinance be understood and received, it will at once cut at the root of all arguments tending to regu- late New Testament administration by the example of Old Testament types. XXIT IKTRODUCTIOIf. Until tlie manifestation of the promised seed, God authorized the employment of " carnal ordinances" — pre- figuring the great salvation to be accomplished by Christ, and this with or without the presence of any spiritual interest in the coming Saviour on the part of the woi'shipper. The sons of Aaron were, " for the time then present," the ordained priests of Jehovah in Israel, whether they had or had not a personal interest in the great bene- fits, the figures of which they were appointed to dispense ; and all Israel were required to submit to purgation at their hands, with or without a personal interest in the blood which alone cleanseth from sin. But when Christ had come — the true High Priest of the good things to come — these shadowy representations, and the carnal worship associated with them, were for ever abolished in the house of God. The legal worship " stood in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances," and they were imposed on Israel only " till the time of refor- mation." Accordingly, Jesus, when manifest in the flesh, announced that the time of their endurance had expired, — " "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the father, * * the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth." Thus the apostle warns the Colossians : — "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." And again, " Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments (elements) of the world, why, as though living in the world (under the eax'thly and INTRODUCTION. XXV typical dispensation of the law), are ye subject to ordi- nances, * * after the commandments and doctrines of men." What the apostle means by " the world," and " the elements of the world " here, is plainly shewn in Clal. iv. 3-11 — " When we were children we were in bondage under the elements of the luorld, but when the fulness of the time was come, Grod sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, * * hov/beit, then, when ye knew not Grod ye did service to them that by nature are no gods ; but now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and heggarly elements (of the law), whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ?" He thus describes the ritual of the law as it was obligatory, independently of any spiritual element in the worshipper, by the emphatic name of " the world ;" and as such he pointedly condemns any return to its principles in the services of the new and spiritual Church. It is remarkable that the revival of the ordinance of circumcision in the Glalatian churches is the very occasion which leads the apostle, in the passage last quoted, to charge them with a return to the shadowy types, and earthly elements of the law. Circumcision contains in it the essential characters of a typical or carnal ordinance. In the cutting off of " the superfluity of the flesh," in the shedding of blood which accompanied this operation, and the abiding mark which it impressed on the person, it of course represented great spiritual advantages in the salva- tion of Christ. This symbolical character belongs to it in common with baptism, which is at once a representation 2 h XX yi INTRODUCTION. of the believer's death and resurrection in the death and resurrection of Christ, and of the washing away of the sins of the flesh consequent upon Christ's finished work. But the character peculiar to it as a type is derived from the law of its application to a mere fleshly race, with or with- out the presence of the spiritual reality which it represents, and as a substitute, in the earthly tabernacle, for that spiritual reality. It was imposed, without reference to any requirement of a previous circumcision of the heart, upon the whole household of Abraham that were males, alike his sons and the servants born in his house, or bought with money. It was imposed, in like manner, upon his whole male posterity in their generations ; and no one was permitted to keep the passovei", or share in the dis- tinguished privileges of the Israelitish nation in Canaan, unless previously circumcised. There is nothing, therefore, plainer in the word of Crod than that circumcision, as administered under the cove- nant with Abraham, was not an evangelical or spiritual ordinance, but a carnal ordinance, and an earthly figure of good things to come, and that, as such, with the other shadows of the Old Testament, it has ceased to have any place among the. ordinances of the Church of God. As the example of Jacob is no longer appropriate to us when, immediately after the slaughter of the Shechemites by his wicked sons, he " said to his household, and to all that were with him, ' put away the strange gods that are among you and be clean, and change your garments, and let us arise and go up to Bethel ;' " simply prescribing an outward and typical preparation as the condition of access to God's altar ; so it would be a violation of the INTRODUCTIOir. XXVII law of God's house, as now purified by Christ from its earthly elements, to make the circumcising of the flesh, with or without the accompanying circumcision of the heart, the means of initiation into its society and privileges. But admitting the abolition of the rite of circumcision, baptism, it is alleged, has come in its room, and is to follow the rule of administering circumcision, if not as existing under the law of Moses, at least as under the covenant of grace established with Abraham. Waiving the sophistry which represents the covenant with Abraham as simply a revelation of the covenant of grace, peculiarly so called, we ask — who, then, professing to be a minister of the gospel in any of the churches of the Reformation, is prepared to adopt, in all its breadth, the rule for the administration of circumcision, as it was prescribed to Abraham, and faithfully obeyed by him ? But, taking the mutilated copy of Abraham's example, as it is now sanc- tioned by general practice, we farther enquire — was it the mere form of that ordinance — was it only the pain and violence inflicted by it on the flesh, that rendered it the object of an apostle's holy jealousy, when, in reference to its revival in the church of Christ, he said, " I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain" — or was it not rather this very feature of it which is professed to be copied — the rule and principle of its administration ? It was the introduction of the fleshly seed into the spiritual house of God, or the recognition of a fleshly qualification as necessary or in any way availing, whether in the spiritual or carnal seed, which called forth the strong denunciation of the apostle, as going to the subversion of the doctrine of salvation by grace, and XXVin INTRODUCTION. virtually the substitution of " another gospel," " 0 foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, * * having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the Jlesh ?" " It is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other of a free woman ; but he that was born of the bond woman was born after the Jlesh. * * What saith the Scripture ? — ' Cast out the bond woman and her son.' " It is no answer to plead that, doctrinally, the grace of God and the work of Christ are acknowledged still as the only proper course of a sinner's salvation. So it was, in so far as appears, in the churches of Galatia. The charge against them, was not that they had erred in doctrine, unless in regard to the continued obligation of this law of circumcision. Their error was properly one of administration, which, recognizing a fleshly observance as the condition of access to a standing in the house of Grod, thereby, in effect, made void the doctrines of grace. " If ye be circumcised^ Christ shall profit you nothing." He thus even appeals to their professed attachment to the doctrine of their salvation by Christ, as the powerful motive for renouncing an observance which, in its very nature, as administered irrespectively of prevenient grace, and as a way of entrance into the house of God, involved an expectation of being spiritually benefited by a fleshly work. It is true that outward membership in the church of Christ is not now recognized as the mere badge of a justified and saved state, as it was in apostolic times ; and allowance must in fairness be made for this change of sentiment — a departure from the truth though it be — on the subject of the constitution of the Christian church, in estimating how far the denunciations of the apostle are INTEODUCTIOK. XXIX applicable to a parallel administration of fleshly ordi- nances now. But the rule of New Testament administration remains unchanged, and men who have the Scriptures cannot violate it without sin. Its salutary tendency in maintaining a practical testimony against mere carnal worship and nominal Christianity, is the same as before. The New Testament description of church membership, as Grod instituted it, is still read by the multitude, and familiar to their ears ; and it may well be feared that the practice of giving the appointed badge of a true discipleship to whole families who are only in the flesh, and even to whole nations called Christian, continues to produce results as ruinous to the unconverted, as those apprehended by the apostle from an administration of the same kind among the believers of Galatia. Baptism has, indeed, in some general respects, come in the room of circumcision. It has essentially the same spiritual signification ; and it is appointed to be the initia- tory ordinance of the New Testament, as circumcision was of the Abrahamic Church ; but its succession is regulated by the great principle which transforms the carnal into a spiritual ordinance, and which dispels the shadow while it introduces the spiritual reality. Circumcision was, in respect of the rule of its administration as applied to the whole seed of Abraham according to the flesh, a mere figure of good things to come. So says Dr M'Crie of baptism as now applied to a similar fleshly seed — " Until he has been born again his is not a perfected baptism — he has but the shadow of good things to cotne." But such earthly shadows, we have seen, are now peremptorily repealed in the administration of the new Covenant Church. Baptism XXX INTEODUCTIOir. then, however in certain respects it may have succeeded circumcision, must follow another rule of administration, making it something better than a shadow. Accordingly, when the New Testament writers speak of baptism and circumcision they never use language implying that they might, in their legitimate application, be both shadows alike. The ordinance of circumcision, as a shadow in its very nature, is constantly represented as a work of flesh, as unavailing either to distinguish a spiritual Israelite, or to convey any sort of spiritual privilege in the house of God. Of course were baptism considered a thing that might legitimately exist separate from the reality which it repre- sents, the same warnings would be called forth in regard to it. But when the Scriptures refer to the baptismal ordi- nance, they employ a widely opposite strain — " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." " Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." " As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." The reason of this striking contrast is to be found in the Bupposition, under which the apostles overwrote, that those whom they addressed had received, in connection with their baptism, not a mere shadow, but the very spiritual reality pre-figured in the circumcision of the flesh. Cir- cumcision was a type impressed on the fleshly seed, point- ing to the spiritual reality as yet absent and future. Baptism was a badge given to the spiritual seed, indicating that in them the blessing was present and realized. Thus, the apostle warning the Colossians against suffering any man to spoil them after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, presents to them the fact that Grod had raised them in their baptism above the need of any such rNTKODUCTION. XXXT return to the observance of earthly shadows and types — • " Ye are complete in Him who is the head of all princi- pality and power, in whom also i/e are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.'* And this great spiritual change was supposed in their baptism, as it had been received by them in faith ; for he goes on to say, " buried with him in baptism, wherein ye are also risen with him by the faith of the operation of Grod, who hath raised him from the dead." III. Circumcision was imposed upon Abraham and his family on a principle of law, and it was the germ of that more extended system of law developed in the covenant of Sinai — identical with it in its principle, and serving the same ends. In undertaking to establish this proposition, it is neces- sary to obtain, as wc proceed, a clear conception of the ideas involved in the word " law," as it is constantly op- posed by the New Testament writers to the Gospel, and the dispensation of grace. There is a groat sense in which the subjects of Gospel grace are also the subjects of divine law, as the apostle says of believers — " not without law to God, but under the law to Christ." It is the very design of Christ's mission that he might bring his people into willing and entire subjection to the eternal law of God. For this end he first of all redeems them from the curse which naturally holds them in bondage to the power of sin, and by a divine operation in their hearts communicates to them a spirit of holy sub- mission and conformity to the will of God. Now, in the first place, a covenant or dispensation of XXXiy INTRODUCTION. The gospel itself comes armed with a fearful penalty to those who reject it — " If he who despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation ?" Here we must observe the proper nature of the cove- nant of law given to the chosen family, as it is distin- guished from the radical covenant of law on which the destinies of the human family were originally suspended. It would indeed be a startling and inexplicable fact could we suppose that God proposed to bestow spiritual and eternal life as the rcAvard of any obedience to be rendered in the flesh by creatures already fallen, and under the curse. Such a scheme of salvation would be inconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of scripture, that man, once fallen, is, so far as his own independent resources are concerned, reduced hopelessly and for ever under the bondage of his sin ; and the proposal of such a scheme, in terms which plainly imply its realization as in some sense attainable, and as in many instances actually at- tained, would seem to be at variance with right views of the truth and sincerity of Clod. But the legal covenant of Sinai, rightly understood, presents to us no such formid- able difficulty. The gracious promise given to Abraham — " I am thy God," in its high and spiritual sense, our Lord shews, involved the promise of eternal life. Now the covenant of Sinai left this promise untouched, as the ground of sure hope to every spiritual Israelite to whom it was given to apprehend it by faith. As the apostle says, — " The covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should make the promise of INTRODUCTION. XXXV none effect." The law did in no way repeal or supersede the plan of salvation by grace which had been given to Abraham. It imposed alike upon spiritual and carnal Israelites a legal administration which at first sight would seem to be at variance with that promise of grace as given to the fathers, and which, indeed, did, in the righteous judgment of God, veil or conceal the doctrine of a free salvation from a carnal people. But then, alike its pre- cepts, and its promises, and its threatenings belong to an earthly sphere, wholly distinct from the spiiitual sphere of the evangelical promise. No doubt it had an inner spirit — holy precepts, which reached to the heart — and heavenly sanctions, which went to determine men's eternal state. But this was veiled by its earthly and literal administra- tion, and was only gradually developed on the approach of the advent of him who fulfilled its commands in all their breadth, and bore its utmost curse, and obtained its heavenly reward. The difficulty which has been suggested arises out of the literal form of the pi-ec^pts and sanctions of the Sinai covenant, especially as it is presented at its first promulgation. In so far as the legal scheme of sal- vation prescribed to Israel is treated as one practically available to a fleshly and fallen race, or afiocting the destinies of spiritual Israelites, it is to be understood in its mere literal and earthly reference. Thus, in conse- quence of his subjection to the letter of the law, an Israel- ite might have two opposite destinies corresponding to his two-fold relation to the earthly and spiritual sphere. An offender dying under the sentence of the law might still, through faith in the promise — like the thief on the cross — become an eternal partaker of the promise by grace. XXXVI INTEODTJCTIOH'. And one like Paul, who, as touching the righteousness that was in the law, was blameless, might still come short of eternal life as it formed the subject of the promise of grace. In its visible administration it took no cognizance of the state of the heart ; and as the actions of which it took cognizance were external, so its rewards and penalties were only external. It promised life in Canaan to the obedient, and it threatened the penalty of temporal death, or " cutting off from the people," to the disobedient. In short, the law, in its letter, formed a great temporal and earthly institution — only an outward symbol of the great universal system of Divine law to men, which, finally enforced at the heavenly tribunal, will determine their eternal ^tate. Having seen, under the previous head, that the ordinance of circumcision was as a legal institution administered to men in the flesh, independently of prevenient grace, the proposition which we have now to establish is, that it con- tained the second great feature of the system of law esta- blished in Israel, being enforced by the penalty of temporal death. This is expressed in the original law of circumci- sion as given to Abraham — " The uncil'cumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut of from his people ; he hath broken my cove- nant." If any reader doubts the meaning now assigned to the penalty of cutting off, he may refer for the evidence of it to such passages as Bxod, xxxi. 14, Lev. xx. 2, 3, xxii. 3, 9, xxiii. 29, 30. That death was the appointed penalty of an uncircumcised state in the family of Abra- ham, even previously to the covenant of Sinai, is in4icated in the narrative of Moses' return from Midian. As the INTRODUCTION. XXXVII ordinance of circumcision had fallen into desuetude during Israel's sojourning in the wilderness, rendering it necessary that they should all be circumcised before keeping the Passover, which was held at Gilgal, and entering on the possession of the land of Canaan, so it appears that the same ordinance had been neglected in the family of Moses in Midian, and, there is some reason to think, in Israel generally, during the latter period of their abode in Egypt. But it was necessary, ere Moses should come forth as the leader of Glod's Israel, that he should both personally and in his family receive the mark of God's covenant. There- fore " when he was by the way in the Inn, the Lord met him, and sought to slay him. And Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, saying, surely a bloody husband thou art because of the circumcision. So he let him go." Circumcision, then, in common with the passover, insti- tuted previously to the covenant of Sinai, as well as many other institutions established in Israel by that covenant, was not only prescribed to the fleshly seed irrespectively of any individual interest obtained by them in the great future salvation, but contained in it also the other leading feature of a legal institution — that it was imposed upon them under the penalty of death for disobedience (compare Exod. xii. 15, and Num. ix. 13). Baptism, however, according to the appointment of Grod, is in no sense the condition on which a sinner's salvation, either from spiritual or temporal death, has been made to turn. It is not even a duty to those who are still in the flesh, unless as having already, by faith in Jesus, attained to salvation and life. In so far as baptism is administered to the 2 c XXXTIII INTRODUCTIOK. children of the flesh as a meaus of obtaining or conferring life, or of averting the penalty of death as threatened by the law, it involves a return to a legal administration. It will be said that it is not administered to the children of believers on any such self-righteous or unevangelical principle. If baptism were nothing more than a symbolical device for the presentation of Christian truth to the mind through the medium of the eye, there would be place for this defence. But as defined in the Scriptures, it is a personal badge — not only " a sign of initiation into the society of the church," but " of our engrafting into Christ, and of our union with him." Thus the adminis- tration of baptism to the children of the flesh must involve a legal or self-righteous princi|)le, just in pro- portion as the Scriptural design of the ordinance as a distinguishing mark of Christians is understood. Hence the ill-disguised uneasiness with which even intelligent adherents of the theory of infant baptism contemplate their own or their neighbour's children dying without the fondly cherished rite. The apostle, in the epistle to the Galatians, we have seen, holds the introduction of a fleshly ordinance into the Christian church as involving, of course, a seeking justification by the law. This, indeed, supposes the true theory of Christian ordinances as symbolical of a personal interest in evangelical blessings ; but after making every allowance for the obscuration of this theory which has grown up in the chui'ch, the dis- tinctive design of Christian ordinances is still recognized with a suflicient measure of clearness to render the main- tenance of the administration in question equivocal and dangerous iu its bearing on the great doctrine of salva- INTRODUCTION-. XXXIX tion by grace alone. True, baptism is not enforced, at least in our country, as circumcision was wont to be in Israel, by a legal penalty of a civil and outward kind ; and it is not observed under the name of a legal ordinance at all, but as an ordinance of the Christian church, only framed after the example of an Old Testament rite. But this absence of earthly rewards and penalties is the very circumstance which marks out the observance as a violation of the principles of grace. To perceive this, we must observe that there is a remarkable distinction recognized in the New Testament between the observance of legal ordinances severally by Jewish and Grentile believers. To the former they were' allowed — to the latter they appear to have been ordinarily prohibited, as involving the introduction of " another gospel." Paul "took and circumcised Timothy, because of the Jews which were in those quarters," he being through his mother of Jewish descent. But in regard to Titus he writes, in connection with his argument in the epistle to the Galatians, " Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage : to whom we gave place 'by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." To administer circumcision as an ordinance of the Jewish law, suspending earthly benefits on the observance of the carnal rite, could no more be subversive of the principles of evangelical grace, than the imposing of the same ordi- nance upon believing Abraham, or even the imposition of XL INTRODUCTION. the common laws of civil and worldly prosperity upon spiritual men in our own time. But to administer it to Gentile believers separate from the earthly sanctions with which it was associated in the commonwealth of Israel, could only be held as implying its recognition as the badge of salvation, and as an ordinance of the Christian church ; and thus viewed, it went directly, as in its very nature, a carnal ordinance, ordained for the use of Israel after the flesh, to assign a certain virtue to a fleshly privilege or performance in saving the soul from death, and obtaining eternal life. It has appeared, then, that circumcision, from its origin, and in its very nature, was an ordinance of law. The institution of a legal dispensation in the earlier, as well as in the later, period of the history of the Abra- hamic family, is in accordance with what we should have expected from the revelation given us concerning God's purposes in the institution of a covenant of law in Israel. The law " was added," we are told, after the giving of the covenant of promise, " until the seed should come to whom the promise was made." God's purpose in the election of Abraham^s race being to keep them separate from the nations of the earth, as the depositaries of his oracles and the progenitors of Messiah, it was necessary, in the absence of a better principle of separation and subjection to his authority, that they should inherit some fleshly distinction, silch as circumcision furnished, and that they should be awed and restrained by a system of rewards and punishments addressed to the selfish instincts of their carnal nature. Moreover, the influence of a rigid legal administration being to force continually upon their INTRODUCTION. XLI notice their lialDility to condemnation as transgressors, its natural tendency was to excite in their minds a vivid expectation of the promised Deliverer, who should once for all redeem them from sin. Yet again, the very fleshly ordinances prescribed to them by the law being divinely adjusted figures of the great salvation to be accomplished by Christ, the manifest inefficacy of these shadowy sacri- fices and purgations, as testified by their constant repetition, was fitted to teach them the great lesson which carnal man is so slow to learn, that the works of the flesh are unavailing to put away sin, and to shut them up to the faith of Grod's righteousness, afterwards to be revealed. These various designs of the legal services were no less ap- plicable to the earlier than to the more remote posterity of Abraham ; and they were fulfilled in regard to them by the institution of circumcision, and other elements of the legal economy which appear associated with it in the narrative of the book of Genesis. Mr M'Lean has, in his Review of Dr Wardlaw's Lectures, substantially asserted the legal character of circumcision, insisting that God entered into two distinct covenants with Abraham; the one conveying the promise— a covenant of grace ; and the other annesed to it embracing the rite of circumcision — forming a covenant of law; and that the whole plausibility of Dr Wardlaw's ai'gument is derived from his confounding the legal covenant of cir- cumcision, recorded in Genesis xvii. 9-14, with the covenant of promise previously entered into with Abraham, recorded in Gen. xii. 2, 3. In Dr "Vy.'s Treatise on Infant Baptism, embodying his answer to Mr M'Lean's Review, and published after the XLII IITTRODUCTION, death of the latter, that gentleman has endeavoured to turn aside this objection, by shewing that it is the same covenant of promise recorded in the seventeenth chapter with that previously given in the twelfth. Mr M'Lean had here committed one of those slight inaccuracies of which an able controversialist might be expected to make effective use. It is undoubtedly true, as Dr W. argues, that the promise is repeated in the seventeenth chapter with even more than its former fulness ; but it is equally certain that there is in the same chapter " added " to it, in the imposition of the law of circumcision, another cove- nant, distinct and opposite in its nature. In the seventh chapter of the book of Acts, Stephen, after reciting Grod's gracious promise to Abraham, goes on to say, — " And God gave to him the covenant of circumcision." Just as in the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, God first re- peats the promise formerly given to Abraham, and then goes on to deliver the terms of the covenant of law, so we find a similar sequence in the delivery of the legal cove- nant of circumcision. Indeed, both the law given to Israel and the law of circumcision previously given to the Abra- hamic family, are with evident fitness annexed to the covenant of promise, since both the one and the other were given not only in the way of legal imposition, but as tokens of God's covenant with the chosen family (compare Exod. xxXi. 13, 17, Neh. ix. 7-14, Psalm cv. 42-45), occupying " for the time then present," and in reference to the fleshly seed, the place of the inward and spiritual token, ultimately to be conferred on the spiritual seed. It is simply absurd to suppose that when God says "ye shall keep my covenant" (of circumcision), he is INTRODUCTION". XLIII speaking of the covenant of promise. Man might keep ©r break Glod's covenant of circumcision, but how could he keep or break God's free promise, of which the apostle announces that, resting singly on the divine power and fidelity, it cannot be " disannulled." What have Dr Wardlaw, and those who assert the evangelical character of the ordinance of circumcision, to oppose to such evidences of its legal standing ? Dr W. has quoted two Scripture statements in proof of his posi- tion— one, the words of our Lord, speaking of circumcision (John vii. 22), " not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers" — the other, the declaration of the apostle (Gral. iii. 17), that " the law" was "four hundred and thirty years after the covenant of promise." The former is the statement of a fact, which simply leaves the present question untouched. In regard to the latter, the covenant of Sinai is emphatically designated " the law," being the complete development of the legal dispensation given to Abraham's family. The apostle had in the previous con- text been discussing, not the effect of the law of circum- cision simply, but that of the law of Moses in general — the entire obligations of which the practice of circumci- sion, he afterwards shows, brought in its train — in bringing upon its subjects the curse for disobedience, and it was necessary, in order to bring out the full strength of his assertion of the unchangeableness of the free promise in the Abrahamic covenant, to shew that the covenant of law, evett in its most complete form, with its inultiplied oc- casions of transgression and condemnation, could in no way impair the secure standing of those who have been constituted Abraham's children by faith. XLiy INTEOBTJCTION. It has iDeen shewn that circumcision must be regarded as an ordinance of law, as the principles of its adminis- tration are essentially those of a legal institution. In op- position to Dr W.'s two inapplicable quotations there is, farther, abundant ground for affirming that the conclusion to which we are shut up by a regard to the principles in- volved in the question, has been made the subject of ex- press declarations in the word of God. In truth, circum- cision is not only treated by the apostles as a legal institu- tion, but as the very head and representative of the whole class of institutions collectively denominated " the law." Witness the record of the famous discussion in the Church at Jerusalem concerning the observance of the Mosaic ritual by the Gentile disciples (Acts xv.) The occasion of this question was the doctrine taught by certain men who came down from Judeato Antioch, — "Ye must be circum- cised and keep the law." Peter answers, — " Why tempt ye God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear." Again (Acts xxi. 20, 21,) the apostles report to Paul concerning the Jewish believers, — " They are all zealous of the law, and they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs." The same supposition of circumcision being essentially a legal ordinance, and the token of an entire subjection to the law of Moses ia constantly involved in the argument of the Epistle to the Galatians. It has been argued that circumcision, stand- ing by itself, was an evangelical ordinance ; and that only when it was adopted into the covenant of Sinai it changed INTRODUCTION. XLT its nature, and was transformed into a legal institution. Why then does the apostle in this Epistle denounce its ohservance as a subverting of the Grospel in those who simply observed it as it was prescribed to Abraham, sepa- rated from the numerous other observances of the law of Moses, using it as an argument to deter them, that it necessarily involved them in the obligations of the whole Mosaic law ? — " I testify again to every man that is cir- cumcised that he is a debtor to do the ivhole Zaiy." Every Scripture student is aware that the New Testament writers are accustomed to designate by the name of " the law" other books of the Old Testament besides those which treat of the Mosaic and Levitical institutions. There must be a propriety in this language, as employed by the Spirit of God, and the ground of it is to be found in the fa-ct, that from the creation of man down to the coming of Christ, the great mystery of salvation then revealed was veiled under successive systems of legal administration, imposed — more or less comprehensively — upon the human family, unaccompanied, unless in the case of a favoured remnant, and in a limited degree, by the operations of saving grace. In regard to the dispensation intervening between Abraham and Moses, contained in the Book of Genesis, from the twelfth chapter downwards, Paul has, in the Epistle to the Galatians, characterized it as legal, in a passage in which he is directly dealing with the sub- ject of " the law," as finally abolished in the New Testa- ment Church, — *' Tell me, ye who desire to be under (the obligations of) the km, do ye not hear (the instructions of) the law ? for it is written that Abraham had two sons" &c., Gen. xxi. Indeed, there is probably not a single d XLVI INTEODTJCTION. principle in tLe covenant of Sinai which we do not find in operation in the Abrahamic period ; and, with one or two exceptions, in the more remote history of the Church. Its sacrifices, — ^its external purgations, — its sacred places, (comp. Glen. iv. 16, xxviii. 22,) — its denunciations of the penalty of death for disobedience, (comp. Gen. ix. 6, xvii. 14,) — its typical reference to good things to come, — its outward and fleshly separation were all presented in their germ and commencement in the earlier history of the Abrahamic family ; and have, as existing there, together with the more extended ritual of the law of Moses, been confessedly abolished in the New Testament Church. But, for ever to cut off all pretext for treating the dispen- sation of the former period as different, in reference to the principle of law, from that which succeeded it, the apostle has dealt explicitly with the ordinance of circumcision as given to Abraham, and has determined it to be an adminis- tration of law, — " Cometh this blessedness then (of being justified by faith) upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also ? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned ? In circumcision or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumci- sion, but in uncircumcision, * * for the promise that he should be the heir of the world %ifas not to Abraham or his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." The fact peculiar to Abraham, the head of the chosen family, that he was first justified, and then circum- cised— unlike believers among his posterity, who were usually first circumcised and then justified — proves that " the law" is not the ground of a sinner's justification be- fore Grod. But where would have been the cogency of this IITTRODUCTION. XLVII reasoning had circumcision, according to the representation of the Epistle to the Gralatians, not been itself a work of the law, and contained in it the essential principle of the whole legal righteousness ? If circumcision had been an evangelical ordinance, the fact referred to in Abraham's history might have proved that the observing of such an ordinance was not the ground of a sinner's justification before God. But the conclusion of the Apostle's argument is against the justifying power of "the law." In the law of Moses the Jews and the Judaiz- ing teachers gloried, as given by God to his chosen people for the very pui-pose of securing them in the possession of his favour. To have shown, then, that an evangelical ordinance could not justify, — even had such an error ever appeared in the primitive churches, — or farther, to have shown that men could not be justified by obedience to the commands of God in general, apart from the law of Moses, would by no means, to their minds, have sustained his conclusion. Eut when he showed that Abraham was not justified by circumcision, he could derive from it a proof, irresistible even by them, that " the law " was not — even in the Abrahamic family — the ordained means of justify- ing a sinner "before God." Why ? Because circumcision, in the time of Abraham, was the single representative of those legal institutions in luhich they trusted. For the time being it was itself " the law.^' If, then, as has been shewn, circumcision was, in its principle, an institution of " law," and contained in it the germ and essence of the whole Mosaic law, baptism, being supposed to occupy the place of circumcision, and to fol- low the rule of its administration, must be held to possess XLVIII INTEODUCTIOK. the same legal ebaracter. But the New Testament scrip- tures have authoritatively and most solemnly decided that in this character it caa have no place in the New Cove- nant Church ; as in Paul's decision on the question of the revival of circumcision in the Churches of Galatia, — " Tell me, ye who desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law ? * * what saith the Scripture ? — ' Cast out the hond woman and her son, for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.' So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond tvoman^ but of the free." It is a principle applicable, we have seen, not ©nly to legal ordinances but even to the Gospel itself, as it beeomes the subject of a legal or mere external ad- ministration, or as it stands related to the unbelieving. They may all have their legitimate and scriptural place in the world, as circumcision had in the worldly system of the old covenant. But they belong not to the enclosure of the New Covenant and spiritual Church, where Christ dwells with the subjects of his grace, and where he promises to meet with them only on the condition of their separating themselves from the children of the flesh and of the law (comp. 2 Cor. vi. 14-18). The same decree which introduces the new covenant, with its life-giving spirit, into the Church of God, for ever casts out the earthly elements of the old, — " He taketh away the first that he may establish the second." Thus have we endeavoured summarily to prove that bap- tism has not come in the room of circumcision in respect of any of the three specific functions which belonged to the latter ordinance in the Old Testament Church, whether as a token of the covenant with Abraham, as a figure of INTEODXTCTION". XLli good things to come, or as an institution of law. The history of infant baptism shews that a far mightier influ- ence than even scriptural arguments, however clear or cogent, is necessary to deprive it of its power over the professing Church. As the very symbol of the great Anti- Christian system, in its substitution of a fleshly for a spiritual Church, the overthrow of this error, we may con- clude is reserved for some grand revival of spiritual light and life in the Church of Grod. Without this, indeed, a mere change of sentiment among professing Christians on the question of baptism could hardly be regarded as a blessing. But, meantime, we are assured that it is not in vain that we take up the protest of by-gone centuries against this great enemy to the peace and freedom of the Christian Church. God may honour it as a means of carrying conviction to the heart of some of his servants now groaning under a bondage which he has not yet re- ceived light to reject. In any case it will serve as another testimony to the truth, destined ere long to come forth em- bodied in a holy and separated Church ; when the daugh- ter of Zion shall stand forth in her beauty — the garments of her captivity for ever laid aside* REVIEW DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. AND ITS (SI'PPOSED) CONNECTION WITH INFANT BAPTISM. . ^^J'^itli A REVIEW '- ^,^i^ "^^^ i 'm WARDLAW'S LECTURES OX THE ABRAIIAMIC COVENANT. Though I have not the pleasure of being pei'sonally acquainted with any of the teachers in the Tabernacle connection, yet I am happy to understand that they seem to be advancing in scriptural knowledge, and that the}' admit it as a principle, " That all Christians are bound to observe the universal and approved practices of the primitive Apostolic churches recorded in scripture." * So far as they teach and practise these things, I do most sincerely wish them success ; and if in any thing they are otherwise minded, it is my earnest prayer that Grod may reveal even this unto them. Meantime I cannot but observe with regret how much their views of divine truth are aifected by their attachment to infant baptism, in support of which they are obliged to adopt such argu- ments and interpretations of scripture as are not very consistent with their sentiments in other respects, when that point is out of view. Grod has, indeed, his elect among infants, as well as among adults ; but to dis- tinguish and baptize them as visible members of the king- dom of heaven is neither consistent with the spirituality of that kingdom, as distinguished from the Jewish Theocracy, nor with its true visible appearance in the world, as in the days of the apostles. I have perused Mr Waedlaw's three Lectures on * Mr Haldane's View of Social "Worship, p. 36. B 2 EEVIEW OF DR WAEDLATv's LECTURES Rom iv. 9-25, compared with Gal. iii., and find that his main design is to support infant baptism, and that too from two chapters where it is never once mentioned more than in any other part of scripture ; nor does it appear in the least to have entered into the mind or view of the sacred writer. But he finds cii'cumcision there, and the covenant made with Abraham respecting his seed ; and from these, by a long train of ingenious reasoning, he deduces a warrant for baptizing the infant seed of New Testament believers. Reasouers on this subject have often been reminded that it is of such a nature as not to admit of reasoning. It is undeniable that Christian baptism is a positive institution, founded entirely in the will of the Institutor, and therefore cannot, like moral duties, be deduced or inferred from any other principle whatever but the Divine will, as made known, either by express precept (which is its very institution), or by the approved example of the inspired apostles who were commissioned to administer it. It is also plain that baptism is a positive institution, peculiar to the New Testament, and therefore cannot be deduced by analogical reasoning from any Old Testament institution, either as to its form, subjects, signification, or design. These things we must learn from the New Testament itself, to which alone this ordinance belongs, and in which alone we have any revelation about it. Therefore, in answering Psedobaptists, we are under no necessity to depart from the subject, and follow their reasonings back to the xviith of Grenesis, where there is not a syllable about baptism to be found. The Baptists, however, have never declined to meet them on that ground ; and though the institution of circumcision is foreign to that of baptism, and differs essentially from it in many respects, yet it frequently leads to a discussion of the Abrahamic covenant, a subject of great importance, and well worthy of our consideration. As Mr W. draws his ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENA^TT. 3 arguments for infant baptism chiefly from that covenant, in order to judge of the propriety and conclusiveness of his reasoning, it will be necessary first to consider the nature of the covenant itself. Men have given different views of that covenant. Some, both Baptists and Paedobaptists, differ only in the mode of stating their view, while they agree in keeping clear the distinction between the Old and New Testament state of things ; but others confound that distinction, except in a few circumstantials, and present us with a kind of semi-Judaical system, which agrees neither with the old economy nor with the new. Some are of opinion that more covenants than one were made with Abraham, and produce express scripture for this ; others think that these were only the different promises of the same covenant. Some consider this covenant as bearing two aspects ; one towards Abraham's natural seed in respect of the temporal promises ; the other towards his spiritual seed by faith, consisting of Jews and Glentiles, in respect of the spiritual promises ; yet so connected, that the former aspect was typical of the latter : But others state it as their firm conviction, " That the promises contained in the Abra- hamic covenant, both the temporal promise and the spiritual, were made to the same seed, on the same footing ,•" and so they make it to be purely and altogether the same with what is commonly called the covenayit of grace. Now this last is Mr W.'s view of that covenant, p. 33, 43, 44, and also that of Mr Haldane * and Philalethes, f though they differ in sevei'al particulars from each other. * View of Social "Worship, Sect, vii., p. 313-341.— [" I remem- ber to have heard Sir M'Lean remark (with a smile) that Mr Haldane avowed himself a Baptist in about eight days after the publication of the " Review of Dr Wardlaw's Lectures," in which he was followed probably by some hundreds of his friends of the Tabernacle connection. — See Joms' Memoir of M'Lean, p. 35.] t Edin. Evaug. Mag., vol. 3, p. 129-136. 4 KEVIEW OF DE WAEDLAW S LECTURES Before I state my own riew of the Abrahamic covenant, permit me to transcribe the opinion of two Psedobaptist writers, who seem to have paid a great deal of attention to that subject, viz., Dr Owen and Mr John Gtlas. The words of Dr Owen are : " Two privileges did God grant unto Abraham, upon his separation to a special interest in the old promise and covenant. " 1st, That, according to the flesh, he should be the father of the Messiah, the pi'omised Seed, who was the very life of the covenant, the fountain and cause of all the blessings contained in it. That this privilege was tem- porary, the thing itself doth demonstrate. " 2dly, Together with this he had also another privilege granted unto him, namely, That his faith, whereby he was personally interested in the covenant, should be the pattern of the faith of the church in all generations : and that none should ever come to be a member of it, or a sharer in its blessings, but by the same faith that he had fixed on the Seed that was in the promise, to be brought forth from him in the world. On the account of this privilege, he became the father of all them that do believe ; For they that are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham, Glal. iii. 7, Rom. iv. 11 ; and thus he became heir of the world, ver. 13, in that all that should believe throughout the world, being thereby implanted into the covenant made with him, should become his spiritual children." " Answerable to this twofold end of the separation of Abraham, there was a double seed allotted unto him. A seed according to the flesh, separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah, according to the flesh, and a seed according to the prorfiise ,• that is, such as by faith should have interest in the promise, or all the elect of God. Multitudes afterwards were of the carnal seed of Abraham, and of the number of the people separated to bring forth the Messiah in the flesh ; and yet were not of the seed ON THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 5 according to the promise, nor interested in the spiritual blessings of the covenant, because they did not personally believe as our apostle declares, Heb. iv. And many afterwards who were not of the carnal seed of Abraham, nor interested in the privilege of bringing forth tlie Messiah in the flesh, were yet designed to be made his spiritual seed by faith, that in them he might become heir of the world, and all nations of the earth be blessed in him." " Now it is evident, that it is the second privilege and spiritual seed, wherein the church, to whom the promises a^e made, is founded, and whereof it doth consist; namely, in them who by faith are interested in the covenant of Abraham, whether they be of the carnal seed or no. And herein lay the great mistake of the Jews of old, wherein they are followed by their posterity unto this day. They thought no more was needful to interest them in the covenant of Abraham, but that they were his seed according to the flesh ; and they constantly pleaded the latter privilege, as the ground and reason of the former." " It is true', they were the children of Abraham according to the flesh ; but, on that account, they can have no other privilege than Abraham had in the flesh himself : and this was, as we have showed, that he should be set apart as a special channel, through whose loins Grod would derive the promised Seed into the world. The former carnal privilege of Abraham and his posterity expired on the grounds before mentioned, [having answered its end] the ordinances of worship which were suited thereunto, did necessarily cease also. And this cast the Jews into great perplexities, and proved the last trial that Glod made of them. For whereas both these, namely, the carnal and spiritual privileges of xVbraham's covenant, had been carried on together in a mixed way for many generations, coming now to be separated, and a trial to be made who of the Jews had interest in both. 6 REVIE-W OF DE WARDLAVs LECTURES who in one only ; those who had only the carnal privilege of being children of Abraham according to the flesh, contended for a share, on that single account, in the other also ; that is, in all the promises annexed to the covenant. But the foundation of their plea was taken away, and the church unto which the promises belong, remained with them that were heire of Abraham's faith only. The church unto whom all the [spiritual] promises belong, are only those who are heire of Abraham's faith ; believing as he did, and thereby interested in his covenant." * Now, if Abraham's fleshly seed had no other privilege in common by that covenant but what was carnal and temporary, and which has accordingly expired and reached its end in the coming of the Messiah in the flesh — and if none, even of Abraham's fleshly seed, were partakers of the spiritual privileges of that covenant, but osly such of them as were heirs of his faith, and believed as he did — then, it may be asked, upon what ground are all the fleshly seed of New Testament believers considered as par- takers of the spiritual privileges of that covenant, and upon that presumption, baptized in infancy without any appearance of their faith ? The follov»'ing are Mr Glas's sentiments of the Abra- hamic covenant : — " God called Abraham, of the seed of Shem, and gave him the promise of Christ, and separated him and his seed, Isaac and Jacob, and the children of Israel, from the nations, till Christ the promised Seed should come of him. " We must carefully consider the promise made to Abraham ; for now the revelation of Christ the Seed became more clear, and the distinction Ijetwixt the Old Testament and the New must be understood in a great measure by the due understanding of this. " It must be agreed among Christians, that own the authority of the New Testament, that Christ is that Seed * Exercitat. on Epist. to Heb. vol. i. p. 53, 56, 57- Oir THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 7 promised to Abraham, in whom aU the nations of the earth should he blessed, G-en. xii. 3, ch. xxii. 18, compare GaL iii. 6. So that here the gospel is preached before unto Abraham, Gal. iii. 8. By the nations in this promise, we cannot understand all and every one in the nations: nor can we consider them as such political bodies of men in the earth ; but, according to the New Testament explica- tion, it is " a great multitude of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues,'^ Rev. vii. 9 and v. 9. This will be evident, if we consider^ that the blessedness spoken of in this promise is spiritttal and eternal — Gal. iii. 8, 9, 14. " And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then, they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham — That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith," It is manifest no nation of this woi-ld can, in a national capacity, be the subject of justification by faith ; and of the promise of the Spirit which we receive through faith — " Thus far, then, God'^s promise to Abraham was spiritual and eternal. And here lay the object of that faith whereby Abraham was justified and eternally saved ; even as his spiritual seed of all nations are Messed with him, in the faith of the same thing that was then to be found in the promise, but now in the accomplishment of that promise, as is declared in the gospel. " Yet there was something in this promise peculiar to Abi"aham, and not common with him to all believers ; and that was, that Christ should come of his seed, Gal. iii. 16, Heb. ii. 16. That this might be evidently fulfilled, it was necessary that Abraham''s seed according to the fiesh, of whom Christ was to come, should be preserved distinct from other people, till the promised Seed, Christ, should come of them. And of this, which was peculiar to Abra- 8 REVIEW OF DR WAEDLAw's LECTURES ham in the promise of Christ, there came another promise, which we may see Gren. xii. 2, 7 — I will make of thee a great nation. — Unto thy seed will I give this land. See likewise Cxen. xiii. 14, 15, chap. xv. from verse 13. It is evident that this promise was temporal^ aa the other is spiritual and eternal, and fell to be accomplished before that other. And this temporal promise was given as a pledge of the accomplishment of the eternal promise, and carried in it a type, or earthly pattern, of the heavenly things of that promise. For the land of Canaan, pro- mised as an inheritance to his seed according to the flesh, was a type of the heavenly inheritance ; and so Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob took it to be, Heb. xi. 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16. And the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, that became a nation, and inherited Canaan's land, was evidently a type of Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations, the heavenly nation that inherits the heavenly country. And the difference betwixt these two was typified by Ishmael, the son of the bond-woman, and Isaac, the son of the free-woman, in Abraham's family, Gal. iv. 21-31. " This twofold promise laid the foundation of a twofold relation to God ; the one spiritual and eternal, betwixt God and them tliat believed the spiritual promise, and all the children of Abraham according to the Spirit, in all the nations of the earth : The other earthly and temporal, betwixt God and the seed of Abraham according to the flesh ; which it behoved so far to continue till Christ came, as the end desired by it required. Of both these God speaks to Abraham, Gen. xvii., when he gives him the covenant of circumcision, to be kept by him, and his seed after him, in their generations. This circumcision was a sign of Christ's being to come of Abraham's seed according to the flesh ; and it represented the shedding of the blood of that promised Seed, and the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and was a seal of the Q-S THE ABEAHAMIC COVEKAIfT. 9 righteousness of faith to them that believed in the Seed to come : so that, by the nature of it, it fell to be done away by the coming of that promised seed : and therefore it belonged to the temporal promise and the temporal relation betwixt Grod and Abraham's seed according to the flesh, as that promise and relation was subservient, and had a reference unto the eternal promise, and the relation arising therefrom. And thus God made the covenant of circum- cision with Abraham, to be a God unto him, and to his seed after him, in their generations, (Gen. xvii. 7-11, &c.) by this means separating Abraham and his seed, that were to be a nation, and inherit Canaan, to be a peculiar people to him above all people, and enclosing the promise of Christ among this circumcised people, till that promised Seed should come. " When the Lord proceeded to fulfil the temporal promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to make their seed a nation, and give them the promised land, he did it by means of a covenant, even that which he made with them when he took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt by the mediation of Moses, Exod. xix. 3-8. This is called the old covenant, Heb. viii. 13, on account of the temporal relation between the Lord and that nation, which is [now] done away. It is also called the la%v, Gal. iii. 17, Heb. x, 1, Isecause of the law therein given to the children of Israel ; and the first testament, Heb. is. 15, on account of the typical adoption, and the temporal inheritance, which was first given before the promise of the eternal inheritance was fulfilled. And when he proceeded in the fulness of time, to fulfil that great spiritual and eternal promise, of blessing all nations in Christ, he did it by means of another covenant, even that which he made by the mediation of Jesus Christ with Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations, redeemed from spiritual bondage and the wrath to come, by the blood of the Lambj the true only and heavenly nation^ 10 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAW's LECTURES This is called the neiu covenant, Heb. viii., because of the new spiritual and eternal relation betwixt Grod and this new nation, made up of all the nations of the earth. And it is called the neiv testament, on account of the true adoj^tion, Gal. iv. 1-7, and the eternal inheritance therein given to as many of all nations as the Lord calls, now when the first inheritance is done away, Heb. is. 15. This is the better covenant ; as much better, as the sure promises of spiritual and eternal blessedness to all nations in heavenly places in Christ, upon which it is established, are better than the promises of temporal blessings in earthly places to the nation of Israel, upon which that first covenant was established ; as much better, as the luJioIe people within the bond of this covenant, whose sins Grod remembers no more, who all of them know him, and in whose hearts his law is written, that they may never depart from him, are better than that covenanted nation,, which continued not in that same covenant whereby it was related to Grod, and was cast off by him ; — and as much better, as the hlood of the Son of God sealing this covenant, is better than the blood of beasts dedicating the first ; and as his mediation is better than the mediation of Moses. And these are the two covenants or testaments of which the apostle speaks, Gal. iv., Heb. viii. and ix. He calls them two covenants ; and so they are indeed, as much distinct as heaven and earth are ; and shows plainly, that all the covenanted in that first covenant were not saved, yea, that none were saved but by faith in the promises of Christ, upon which the new covenant is established." * This statement is much the same with the former, only he takes notice of circumcision, and having explained its. mystical or typical import, he considers it as belonging to the temporal promise, and the temporal relation betwixt God and Abraham's seed according to the flesh, * Glas's Works, vol. i. p. 50-56, second edition. ON TUB ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 11 as that promise and relation was subservient, and had a reference to the eternal promise, and the relation arising from it ; and so, by its very nature, fell to be done away by the coming of the promised Seed. Thus he classes circumcision in the flesh made by hands with the rest of the carnal typical institutions, and views the promise to which it belonged as of the same temporal nature with the old covenant at Sinai, which was evidently founded on, and connected with, that promise, and in which Grod ileclares himself to be related to the whole nation of Israel as their God. And with regard to circumcision being termed a seal of the righteousness of the faith, he restricts that to Abraham, and to them that believed in the Seed to come as he did; for so the apostle himself (who alone uses that expression, and must have best known his own meaning), expressly does, Rom. iv. 11, 12. And indeed, without this restriction, the apostle's reasoning would be not only altogether inconclusive, but inconsistent, as shall afterwards be shown. Now, if the foregoing view of the covenant of circum- cision be scriptural, it does not afford the least ground for baptizing the infant seed of New Testament believers, but very much the contrary : For here we see, that the covenant of circumcision was peculiar to Abraham's fleshly seed, of whom Christ was to come according to the flesh ; that it was of a temporal and typical nature, and accordingly has long ag-o been done away, with cii-cum- ■cision itself, which was the token of it in their flesh, together with the Sinai covenant which was founded on it, and all the typical and ceremonial institutions pertaining to it. So that the only covenant which corresponds with the gospel state of things is the new and better covenant, which was intimated in the original promise made to Abraham, Gen, xii, 3, typified by the old covenant, and expressly mentioned and promised in Jer. xxxi. 31-35, but did not actually take place till Christ came ; for it 12 REVIEW Of DR WAEDLAW'S LECTURES was made through his mediation, and ratified in his blood, or by his death, Matt. xxyi. 28, Heb. ix. 15-18. Now the people who are related to Grod by this new covenant are described in the better promises on which it is estab- lished, as having his law written in their hearts, as all knowing him from the least to the greatest of them, and as having their sins and iniquities forgiven, Heb. viii. 10- 13. None have any interest in the spiritual blessings of this covenant, by being either the fleshly seed of believing Abraham, or the fleshly seed of believing Grentiles. Here no man is known or acknowledged after the flesh ; but only as being the spiritual seed of Abraham, and that only by faith in Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. v. 16, 17, G-al. iii. 7, 9, 26, 29. " For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love, or a new creature," Gral. v. 6, chap. iv. 15. Therefore to acknowledge any as visible subjects of this covenant upon the ground of the covenant of circumcision, or indeed upon any other ground whatever, short of the scriptural evidence of their personal faith in Christ, is mere presumption, and of dangerous consequence. Further, as baptism belongs to the new covenant, so it cannot be lawfully administered to any, be their parents what they may, who do not appear to be the subjects of this covenant by the profession of their faith in Christ, as the whole account of it in the New Testament, both with regard to its institution and administration, clearly demonstrates. I do not in the main differ from the state which the forementioned writers have given of the Abrahamic cove- nant ; but shall only observe that they seem to view all the promises, both spiritual and temporal, which were made to Abraham, first and last, as only different promises and renewals of one and the same covenant, though they admit that it involved in it two very different future cove- nants, the old and the new ; and in this light I have treated the subject .in my 7th Letter to Mr Glas. Yet as ON THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 13 the scriptures speak of more coTenants than one being made with Abraham, I think it safest to give place to the express language of scripture. I know no difference between a simple promise and a promissory covenant, but only this, that the latter was usually confirmed by sacrifice, an oath, or some other solemn ratification, which gave it a covenant form. Now the original promise made to Abraham, recorded in Gen. xii. 3, and which was four hundred and thirty years before the law, is termed by the apostle, " the covenant that was confirmed before of Grod in Christ," Gal. iii. 17, and this was afterwards renewed and confirmed by an oath. Gen. xxii. 18, Heb. vi. 13-18. The promise in this covenant is, " In thee shall all nations be blessed ;" which the apostle explains, entirely in a spiritual sense, as being the gospel which was preached before to Abra- ham respecting God's design of justifying the heathen through faith, Gal. iii. 8, and vipon this view of it he grounds his argument throughout the rest of that chapter. About eight years after this original transaction, God made a covenant with Abraham respecting the inheritance of the land of Canaan. He had promised it to him and his seed before, but now he puts his promise iuto the form of a covenant ratified upon sacrifice. Gen. xv. 9, 10, 17, and so it is said, " In that same day the Lord made a cove- nant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the gi'eat river the river Euphrates," verse 18, see also Psalm cv. 8-12. About sixteen years after this, God gave him the covenant of circumcision (as it is termed, Acts vii. 8) in which he renewed the promises of multiplying his seed, of giving them the land of Canaan, and of being a God to him and to his seed after him in their generations, and, as a token of this covenant in their flesh, he commanded that every man-child among them should be circumcised. Genesis xvii. 4-15. 14 EEVIEW OF DR WARDLAW's LECTURES Thus we may see that there were different covenants made with Abraham, and so the apostle speaks of them in the plural number, calling them the covenants, Rom. ix. 4, the covenants of promise, Eph. ii. 12. The first contained the promise of spiritual blessings in Christ to Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations, Jews and Gentiles, as the apostle explains it at large. The other two contained temporal promises to Abraham's fleshly seed, which were literally fulfilled to the nation of Israel, served to keep them distinct from all other nations till Christ should come of them, and at the same time were types and pledges of spiritual blessings to the faithful among them. Having thus stated my view of the original covenant made with Abraham, and of the covenant of circumcision which was made with him and his seed about twenty-four years after, I proceed now to make some observations on Mr Wakdlaw's Lectures. On Rom. iv. 11, he observes, " That circumcision is here represented, first, as a slr/7i, and, secondly, as a seal. A sign is that which o-epresents ; a seal that which con- firms, assures, or pledges." With regard to the first, he says, " It was a sign of the spiritual blessings bestowed in justification — the taking away of sin both in its guilt and in its pollution, or justification and sanctification ; the circumcision of the heart ; the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." And he also thinks that circum- cision was prohahly intended as a sign, that the seed in whom all nations were to be blessed, should come from the loins of Abraham, p. 8, 9, 10. It is admitted that circumcision, as well as all the other carnal and typical institutions of the Old Testament, had a spiritual or mystical meaning, which applied to all the spiritual seed of Abraham, even as it had also explain and literal meaning as applicable to all his fleshly seed. But this affords no argument for infant baptism ; for baptism has not a twofold meaning like circumcision, a letter and ON THE ABRAHxVMIC COVENANT. 15 a spirit, but it is a sigu of spiritual blessings only, and therefore belongs to none but those who appear to be the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith. He next considers of what circumcision is here said to be, a seal. " Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised." But he does not think that it was to Abraham the seal of his oviru personal justification, or that it is the manner of God to seal thus to any their per- sonal acceptance. This he imagines would be inconsistent with the future trials of his faith, and his inheriting the pro- mises through faith and patience — and with the exhortation given to Christians to give diligence to make their calling and election sure ; and that therefore it was not properly a seal of Abraham's faith and acceptance, but of justifi- cation, being by the faith of Abraham, p. 11, 12. Here I think Mr W. is in a very great mistake. Abraham's receiving circumcision as a seal of his own personal faith and acceptance, was certainly very consistent with the future trials of his faith and patience, and tended to support him under these trials. Pciul spoaks of believers as having the Spirit as the earnest of the inheritance, and of their being sealed unto the day of redemption, Eph. i. 13, 14, chap. iv. 30. Had they, therefore, no more to d(v with trials of faith and patience ? Peter represents Christians as rejoicing with joy unspeakable and full of glor}' , while they were actually exercised with manifold trials of faith and patience, 1 Pet. i. 6, 7, 8. And why did he exhort them to give diligence to make their calling and election sure, 2 Pet. i. 10, if no such certainty was attainable in this life, or if he thought such attainment inconsistent with their future trials of faith and patience ? Do trials of faith consist chiefly in doubts about a man's state ? If circumcision was not a seal to Abraham of his personal faith and acceptance, how could it be a " seal to him of justification being by the faith of Abraham ; or 16 REVIEW OF DE WARDLAw's LECTURES that uncircumcised Gentiles would be justified by the like faith ?" The truth is, it was a seal to him of his own personal justification by faith, and consequently of the justification of all who should afterwards believe as he did, Rom. iv. 23, 24. But this does not prove that it was such a seal to all his natural seed, nor indeed to any of them at eight days old. He puts the question, " What was circumcision to those who followed Abraham in the observance of it? What was it to his seed ?" and answers, " That, as a sign, it could never change its meaning while it continued in practice. What a sign is fitted to represent at first, it is fitted from its nature always to represent," p. 13. This is nothing to the purpose. The question is. What was its meaning as administered to Abraham's natural posterity ? In answer to this he says, " It denoted the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh — the circum- cision of the heart — that separation to Clod which takes place when faith was counted for righteousness — and the coming of Christ from the loins of Abraham," p. 13. Here he gives us its mystical or typical sense, which is realized only in Abraham's spiritual seed, and is applied to New Testament believers ; but does not say what it was to all Abraham's natural posterity indiscriminately as such. If it was a sign to them only of spiritual blessings, it must have been a mere empty sign to the most of them of what they neither discerned nor possessed. And if it was fitted from its nature always to represent only the spiritual blessings of the gospel, as its literal and plain import, how came it to be set aside ? nay, how came the apostle to represent it as of the most pernicious consequences to the Gentile converts, declaring, that if they were circumcised, Christ would profit them nothing ; and that it made them debtors to do the whole law ? Gal. v. 2, 3, 4. It should be particularly observed, that circumcision had both a letter and a spirit, i. e., a literal and & mystical ox THE ABRAIIAMIC COVENANT. 17 meaning, as all the ofcller typical institutions Lad. The Lord promised to xibraham, that in him, or in his Seed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed, Gen. xii. 3, which promise he confirmed with an oath, Gren. xxii. 18. This is that covenant to which the apostle so often refers, and says it was confirmed of God in Christ 430 years before the law, Gal. iii. 17. * But besides this, God afterwards made another covenant with Abraham in a subserviency to the former, wherein he promised to multiply Abraham's seed, to give them the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and to be their God, Gen. xvii. 6-9. To this covenant, which was literally with Abraham's natural seed, he annexed the sign of circumcision : " And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations — and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant," verse 11, 12, 13. Here we see that circumcision was an indelible mark in the flesh of all Abraham's natural seed, particu- larly in the line of Isaac and Jacob ; and it must have signified to them what was literally imported in the pro- mises to which it was annexed. It was the token of God's covenant whereby they were separated from the rest of * The covenant referred to, being 430 years before the giving of the law, must be that gospel promise made to Abraham, Gen. xii. 3, when he was 75 years of old, verse 4. •' ' YEARS From thence to the birth of Isaac, when he was an hundred, Gen. xxi. 5, is 25 From thence to the birth of Jacob, when Isaac was threescore, Gen. XXV. 26, is 60 From thence to Jacob's going into Egypt, when he was 130, Gen. xlvii. 9, is 130 From thence to Israel's deliverance out of Egypt, and the giving of the law, is 215 So that the whole time of their sojourning in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, according to the Seventy (Exodus xii. 40), makes 430 c 2 18 BBVIBW OF DK WARDLAw's LECTURES mankind to be a peculiar people t6 himself, and by which he stood related to them as their God in the same sense as he declared himself the Glod of the whole nation of Israel ; and it also signified their being heirs of the earthly inheritance of the land of Canaan, and of its temporal blessings, which was made over to them by that covenant. This was the original and literal meaning of circumcision, as it belonged to the natural posterity of Abraham. But then both circumcision and the temporal promises to which it was annexed, had also a mystical or typical sense. As the children of the flesh are not, as such, the real children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, Rom. ix. 8, so " he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision," i. e., the true circumcision, which is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men, but of God," chap. ii. 28, 29. Outward circumcision in the flesh of Abraham's natural seed, was only a typ& of the circumcision of the heart of his spiritual seed, or of that " circumcision which is made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the cir- cumcision of Christ," Col. ii. 11. And so New Testament believers are termed the circumcision who worship God in the Spirit, &c., Philip, iii. 3. The true seed of Abraham are only " they who are of faith," Gal. iii. 7. The earthly inheritance of the hxnd of Canaan was a type of the heavenly country, Heb. xi. 10, 16 ; and the temporal relation in which God stood to the fleshly seed of Abraham by the covenant of circumcision, and afterwards by the covenant at Sinai, and which is now done away, was a type of the spiritual and eternal relation in which he stands, by the new covenant, to all the children of Abra- ham by faith, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, Gal. iii. 26, 29. Thus we see that circumcision, and what pertained to ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 19 it, had both a letter and a spirit, or a literal sense in rela- tion to the fleshly seed of Abraham, and a mystical or typical sense in reference to his spiritual seed. Much confusion and inconclusive reasoning has been introduced on this subject from not properly distinguishing these things. He observes, " That circumcision retained the nature of a seal of the righteousness of faith, to all who were not of the circumcision only, but also walked in the steps of Abraham's faith," p. 13. Grranting this, it makes nothing for infant baptism, but very much against it, unless he could show, that circum- cision retained the nature of a seal of righteousness to all Abraham's natural posterity, whether they walked in , the steps of his faith or not. The apostle, however, does not say, that circumcision was a seal of righteousness in its universal application to Abraham's infant seed ; but only that Abraham himself " received the sign of circum- cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of all them that believe in uncircumcision," i. e., of all believing Gentiles, " that righteousness might be imputed to them also ; and the father of the circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had in uncir- cumcision," i. e., That he might be a father to such of his circumcised seed only as imitate his faith. The design of the apostle is to exclude both circumcision and the works of the law (which he joins together on this subject) from having any influence on justification ; and therefore, having shown that Abraham was justified by faith exclu- sive of works, ver. 2-6, he proceeds here to show, that it was exclusive of circumcision also, because he was justified before he was circumcised, ver. 10., and he received cir- cumcision afterwards, not to contribute to his justification, but as a seal that he was justified by faith while in uncircumcision. If circumcision retained the nature of a 20 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAw's LECTURES seal of the righteousness of faith to others besides Abra- ham, it could be such a seal to those only who, like him, believed ; and Mr W. has not yet ventured to affirm that it was a seal of righteousness to any but believers. To show that circumcision retained the nature of a seal of righteousness, he instances in " Isaac and Jacob, Abraham's immediate successors in the faith, in the line from which Messiah was to spring," and asks, " "What was circumcision to tliem ?" And having observed that they were heirs with Abraham of the same promises, Heb. xi. 9, and that the promises made to Abraham were expressly repeated by God to them, Gren. xxvi. 1-5, chap, xxviii. 10, he proceeds thus, " Now I hardly think any one will say, that while circumcision was to Abraham a seal of the righteousness of faith, it was to Isaac and Jacob, these heirs with him of the same promises, a mere mark of their carnal descent from albraham, and of their heirship of temporal blessings. Was it not to them a seal or pledge of the faithfulness of God to that promise of which they were fellow-heirs with their father ? that is, a seal of spiritual blessings, which is the same, in effect, as a seal of the righteousness of faith — I cannot think it was less," p. 13, 14. Isaac and Jacob were heirs with Abraham both of the temporal and spiritual promises. Of the former they were heirs 6y birth as the seed of Abraham, for these were sti- pulated to Abraham and his seed after him. Of the latter they became heirs bif faith in the promised Seed, and so had righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had. But why single out Isaac and Jacob from among the rest of Abraham's circumcised seed ? Is it because they are a proper specimen of the whole ? I hardly think he will maintain this. Or is it to show, that circumcision was something to them at eight days old which it was not to others ? If so, then it may be asked, what was circum- cision to the luhole of Abraham's seed to whom it was OS THE ABRAHAMIC COVENAKT. 21 indiscriminately administered ? It is certain that the covenant of circumcision had no regard to any distinction of character among Abraham's natural seed, nor was it possible that it should, because circumcision was to be administered at eight days old. Circumcision, therefore, belonged to them all alike by their birth as descendants of Abraham; for thus the covenant runs, "This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee ; Every man-child among you shall be circumcised. — And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your gener- ations," Gen. xvii. 10, 12. Here it is plain, that every male-infant, descended from Abraham, had as good a right to circumcision by the divine command as either Isaac or Jacob had in infancy. Circumcision in its letter, or proper and literal sense, was the very same thing to Isaac and Jacob, in infancy, that it was to all the infant-seed of Abraham. It was to the whole of them (as has been shown) a sign of their separation and relation to Grod as his typical peoj)le, by an external covenant of which it was a token in their flesh, and of their being heirs of the earthly inheritance and its temporal blessings. And with regard to spirituals, their chief advantage was, that unto them were committed the oracles of God, Rom. iii. 2, which contained the revelation of his will, and intimations of good things to come. Isaac and Jacob were doubtless heirs of spiritual blessings ; but not by virtue of the covenant of circumcision, or by being of the circumcision only, which was common to them with all the natural posterity of Abraham ; but only through the righteousness of faith, manifested by their walking in the steps of that faith of their father Abraham which he had while uncir- cumcised, Rom. iv. 12, 13, for it is only they who are of faith that are the children of Abraham, and are blessed with faithful Abraham, in the sense of the gospel promise made to him, Gal. iii, 7, 8, 9. 22 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAW S LECTURES Mr W. having affirmed that circumcision was to Isaac and Jacob a seal of spiritual blessings, he adds, " Yet if it was so, we have here a seal of spiritual blessings admi- nistered by divine command to infants of eight days old. And this certainly shows that there is no absurdity in the thing itself, and no absurdity in the idea of circumcision being a seal to all who should oftenuards believe, of the righteousness of faith, or of the -same blessings which it sealed originally ; for what may be in one case may be in ten thousand," p. 14. Here he talces it for gi'iinted, that circumcision " was a seal of the righteousness of faith at eight days old to all who should oftenuards believe." But the scripture says no such thing. It informs us, that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the' faith which he had yet being uncircumcised ; but it no where says that infants of eight days old received it as a seal of their future faith and acceptance. Mr W. says, that " a seal is that which confirms, assures, ox pledges^'' p. 8 ; and does he really believe that circumcision confirmed, assured, or pledged, that all the infants to whom it was administered would afterwards believe and be justified ? If it be said that it sealed the righteousness of faith to them, if they should afterwards believe, this is only to say, that when administered it was no seal of righteous- ness to them, nor till they actually believed, which, it is likely, might never take place ; and can we term this a divine seal of spiritual blessings as administered to infants of eight days old ? In the law of circumcision there is no restriction of it to those infants who should afterwards believe ; for had it been so restricted it could have been administered to none in infancy, because such were known to God only. A s therefore the covenant of circumcision makes no distinction among the male-infants of Abraham's posterity, nor any difi'erence as to what it signified to some more than to others, it must have been the same thing. ON THE ABEAHAMIC COVEXANT. 23 whatever that was, to Isaac and Jacob in infancy that it was to all the rest, and to affirm the contrary is mere assei'tion without the least foundation. Those of them who afterwards believed, and so became the spiritual seed of Abraham, were possessed of the righteousness of faith, and the circumcision of the heart made without 'hands, and so had the spirit of circumcision ; but this could not be anticipated and sealed to them by any outward sign in infancy, it being then a pi'ofound secret in the mind and sovereign purpose of God. Hence it appears, that outward circumcision in the flesh must have had a literal significa- tion, which applied equally to all the male-infants of Abraham's seed, whether they should afterwards become real believers or not. The great body of the circumcised nation of Israel were a carnal people, uncircumcised in heart and ears ; yet circumcision was not misapplied when administered to them in infancy, but was according to the express command of Glod. He thinks there is nothing in the circumcision of infants that unfits it for being a seal of the righteousness of faith, which would not equally unfit it for being a seal of temporal blessings, p. 15. This would be true, if the righteousness of faith devolved upon us as heirs to our natural parents. If an earthly inheritance is by a deed conveyed to a man and his seed after him in their generations, his children have a right to it by birth, according to the tenor of the deed ; and by that same birth they are known to be heirs, and so may have a token or seal of heirship (circumcision for instance) impressed upon them in infancy as well as at any after period. Here its fitness is obvious, because it is a token or seal of a truth, or existing title. But if faith, or a second birth, be necessary to the enjoyment of spiritual blessings, then it is plain that circumcision could not seal the righteousness of faith to any of Abraham's seed in infancy, nor even when adults, except to such of them 24 REVIEW OP DE TVAEDLAW'S LECTURES as believed as he did. It is only they who be of faith that are blessed with faithful Abi-aham. Indeed, we no where find circumcision termed a seal of the righteousness of the faith of any but that of Abraham, and that as father of the faithful ; and to suppose that circumcision was administered by divine authority to the whole of Abra- ham's natural seed, as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which they had, would certainly be a very great absurdity. Hitherto he has been giving us his sense of the first clause of verse 11, " And he received the sign of circum- cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised ;" and now proceeds to the words following, viz., " that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also ; and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circum- cision only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had, being yet uncircumcised." To illustrate these words he observes, " 1. That Abraham on his hemg justijled hy faith, was constituted the father, in a spiritual sense, of all among mankind, both of his natural descendants and of the Gen- tiles, who, to the end of time, should be justified in the same way." " 2. Abraham's being justified when in icncircumcision, denoted that he should have part of his spiritual family from among the uncircumcised Gentiles ; that he was to be the father of all them that believe, though not cir- cumcised." In both these observations he has exactly hit the sense of the apostle, and is perfectly right. Only, in the second observation, he might have added, that Abraham's being justified in uncircumcision, denoted also that none of his natural descendants were justified by circumcision, which enters also into the apostle's design. But as neither of ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENAIfT. 25 these observations conies up to the point he has chiefly in view, therefore he adds, '' 3. When Abraham received the sign and seal of circumcision, he then became, according to the appellation, the father of circumcision. Now, observe particularly to what description of persons he is represented as holding this relation — to thetn who are not of the circumcision only, hut who also walk in the steps of his faith.'" And he thinks, " words could hardly intimate more plainl}-, that circumcision was a seal of this covenant, not merely as to the temporal part of it, but also as to the spiritual. For surely it must have been of the same import to the children of circumcision as it was to the father of circumcision^''^ p. 16, 17. He admits that Abraham is here spoken of as a spiritual father to a believing or spiritual family ; and he bids us " observe particularly to what description of persons he is represented as holding this relation — to them who are not of the circumcision only, hut also tualk in the steps of his faith." In this he is certainly right ; for the apostle, in this passage, is speaking only of Abraham's spiritual seed. But he seems to forget that this is the Baptist's argument, and is not aware that this concession (for so I must call it) overthrows at once all the arguments for infant baptism drawn from the covenant of circumci- sion ; unless he means to af&rm, in express contradiction both to the apostle and himself, that all who were included in that covenant, even those who were of the circumcision otily, were Abraham's believing or spiritual family ; and from that again to infer, that all the fleshly seed of New Testament believers are also Abraham's believing or spi- ritual family, as being included in that same covenant. I know that to state the matter shortly in this plain manner would startle some of the most zealous Independent Pffidobaptists ; but as it is really the point to which all their arguments tend, and in which they must issue, if D 26 REVIEW OF DR WAEDLAW's LECTURES they come to any conclusion at all, tliey ought fairly to state and avow it, instead of involving the subject in so many ingenious and intricate reasonings, (in which they frequently both affirm and deny the same thing) which are the sure marks of an untenable cause when the ques- tion relates to a positive divine institution. But I must attend to his argument. Abraham is here termed " the father of circumcision to them who walk in the steps of his faith." This, he says, " plainly intimates, that circumcision was a seal of this covenant, not merely as to the temporal part of it, but as to the spiritual. For surely it must have been of the same import to the children of circumcision as it was to the father of circumcision.'''' In answer to this, let it be observed, 1. That the covenant of circumcision made no distinc- tion whatever among the natural seed of Abraham. All of them, without exception, or distinction of character, were included in that covenant ; and, being all circum- cised, may be termed the children of circumcision ; yet Mr "W. will not affirm, that circumcision was of the same import to them all as it was to their father Abraham ; for if so, they must all have received it as a seal of the righteousness of their faith. 2. Abraham is here called the father of circumcision, not as being the father either of the covenant or rite of circumcision, for these were the immediate appointments of Grod, but as being the spiritual father of his believing circumcised offspring, who, in common with the nation of Israel, are denominated the circumcision ; * but dis- tinguished from the bulk of that circumcised nation, by their being not of the circumcision only, but also by their walking in the steps of Abraham's faith. * Though Vipirofjjri wants the article in this place, as it does also in chap. iii. 30, yet it ought to have been translated the cir- cumciiioH here as well as there. ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 27 3. The whole drift of the apostle's argument in this passage is to show, that none were ever justified or saved either by the covenant of circumcision or the works of the law, but by faith only. To evince this, he shows that Abraham was justified by faith .long before he was cir- cumcised, and that he received the sign of circumcision only as a seal of this : That none of his circumcised seed were justified, or had Abraham to their father in a spi- ritual sense, by virtue of their circumcision ; but only by believing as he did, or walking in the steps of that faith of their father Abraham, which he had, being yet uncir- cumcised. And as to Grentiles, who never had any thing to do with the covenant of circumcision, he shows, that Abraham is the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also, as it was to him. It is therefore evident to a demonstration, that the whole of the apostle's reasoning, particularly from verse 9 to 17, goes to deny that either circumcision or the works of the law gave any title whatever to justification, or the heavenly iiHieritance, to the circumcised Jew more than the uncircumcised Gentile ; and to show that it is only by faith that either of them come to be the spiritual children of Abraham, and to be blessed with him. And the promise of this blessed- ness he traces back, not to the peculiar covenant of circumcision, but to the original promise made to Abraham, the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, which was 24 years before the covenant of circumcision, and 430 years before the giving of the law. See Gal. iii. 8, 9, 16, 17. Circumcision was ind-eed very much insisted on by the Judaizing teachers in the apostolic age, but the apostle has sufiicientl}- refuted all their pleas for it. It therefore appears very strange to me, that uncircumcised Gentile believers, who never were under the peculiar covenant of circumcision, and were forbidden to come under it, should still strenuously plead it as an argument 28 EEVIETV OP DR WAEDLAw's LECTURES for administering the new covenant ordinance of baptism to their infant seed, though expressly restricted to believers. He says, " It will, I dare say, be admitted, that they only can with any propriety be denominated f A e circumci- sion in whom the import of the rite is fulfilled," p. 17. This will be either admitted or denied according to the sense in which we understand the import of the rite, which is an ambiguous expression when applied to a rite which had both a literal and mystical import, as has been shown. I suppose, however, that he means to affirm, that none could, with ant/ •propriety, be denominated the circumcision who were not inwardly circumcised in heart. But this will not be admitted ; for the whole circumcised nation of the Jews are frequently denominated the circitmcision, to distinguish them from the Clentiles. Thus Christ is said to be the minister of the circumcision, i. e., of the Jews among whom he exercised his personal ministry, Rom. xv. 8. To Peter was committed the gospel of the circumcision — the apostleship of the circumcision — and it was agreed that James and he should go unto the circumcision, and Paul and Barnabas unto the heathen, Gal. ii. 7, 8, 9. Here the circumcision simply means the Jews, without any reference to the circumcision of the heart, but merely as nationally distinguished from the heathen. Again, believing Jews are denominated of the circumcision, not because they were circumcised in heart, but to distinguish them as Jews even from believing Gentiles, see Acts x. 45, chap. xi. 2, Col. iv. 11 ; nay, they are said to be not of the circumcision only, Rom. iv. 12, to distinguish them from such Jews as were only of the circumcision, and so not the spiritual children of Abraham by faith. Since, therefore, the Jews are repeatedly denominated the circum- cision by the sacred writers, it certainly must have been with great propriety, whether the bulk of them were believers or not ; nay, it is the first, the literal and only proper sense of that appellation. And though believers ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 29 in Christ, whether circumcised or not, are once termed the circumcision, Philip, iii. 3, yet it is in a secondary or mystical sense, not from the nature of the thing, but by a figure borrowed from circumcision in the flesh. Further, he says, " They who, though descended from Abraham, wanted his faith, arc not allowed the honour- able appellation of the circumcision, but degraded and proscribed under that of the concision.''^ We have just seen, however, that they were not only allowed the appellation of the circumcision, but that it was repeatedly given to them both by Paul and Luke, not because they had Abraham's faith, but because they were his circumcised offspring, to whom that distinguishing appellation literally applied as a national characteristic. And if Paul degraded and proscribed the Jewish zealots from the honourable appellation of the circumcision, how came he afterwards to bestow that supposed honour upon those whom he describes as unruly, vain-talkers, and deceivers, who subvert whole houses ? Tit. i. 10, 11. The whole nation of Israel were the circumcision and a type of the true Israel ; among these there were a number who were not of the circumcision only, but were also of the faith of Abraham, circumcised in heart, and so were blessed with faithful Abraham as his spiritual children. And I agree with him " that the true circumcision, or the true Israel, have in every age been the same," though greatly differing in their degrees of light and spiritual privileges. Having followed him through the argumentative part of his first Lecture, I would now ask, what is the amount of all his reasonings on ver. 11, 12 ?* Has he shown that there was nothing of a temporal or typical nature of the covenant of circumcision, as it respected and included all the fleshly seed of Abraham, but that it is still in force under the gospel ? or has he made it appear that there was nothing peculiar to the Jews in it, but what e€[ually applies * See Appendix, Note A. d2 30 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAw'S LECTURES at this day to the fleshly seed of New Testament believers ? With regard to the spiritual sense of circumcision, has he proved that it was a seal of the righteousness of faith to any of Abraham's natural seed but believers ; or even to them previous to their believing ? or has he shown that Abraham was a spiritual father to any of them but those who walked in the steps of his faith ? No ; he has not as yet explicitly and directly avowed these particulars ; yet upon any other principles his arguments come to no con- clusion as to the point at issue. He begins his second Lecture with ver. 13, " For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." Here he takes notice of three things — The promise — The seed to whom it is made — and the ground on which it rests. With regard to the promise that he should be the heir of the world, he observes, " 1. That it must be understood in a sense not entirely peculiar to Abraham, but made to Abraham and his seed." True, Abraham's believing seed are included in this promise ; but still there was something peculiar to Abra- ham in it, to whom it was promised, that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed, Glen. xii. 3, and that he should be a father of many nations. Gen. xvii. 4, 5 — that is, of believers throughout the whole world. Yet this distinguished honour conferred upon Abraham was with a view to Christ, who was to come of his seed, be constituted heir of all things, and in whom, not in Abraham personally, all nations were to be blessed, Gen. xxii. 18. As to the nature and extent of the pro- mise, he says, " 2. I agi'ee with those who consider this promise as of a very extensive import, as including the possession of Canaan — the possession of the whole earth — and the final possession of the heavenly country itself," p. 26. The promise that Abraham should be the heir of the ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENAWT. 31 world is of the same import with his being made the father of many nations, ver. 17, or with all nations being blessed in him, or in his seed, the Messiah, Gal, iii. 8. It should be kept in view that the apostle is here, as well as in Gal. iii., establishing the doctrine of free justification by faith, independent of circumcision or the works of the law ; that he adduces the justification of Abraham him- self as an instance of the way in which God justifies all the believing world of Jews and Gentiles, that whole world for whose sins Christ is the pi'opitiation, 1 John ii. 2. And he shows that this promise of being heir of the world, " was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith" — " to that seed which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all," Eom. iv. 13, 16. It is plain, therefore, that he is speak- ing of a promise made to Abraham and his spiritual seed, and to them only. Now, if we enquire what kind of blessings are promised to all this seed, and bestowed upon them exclusively, the same apostle informs us that they are " all spiritual blessings in heavenly places (or things) in Christ," Bph. i. 3, such as justifcation, Rom. iv. 23, 24, Gal. iii. 8, 9 — the promise of the Spirit, Gal. iii. 14 — the adoption of sons, ver. 26, chap. iv. 5, 6 — and the heavenly inheritance, Gal. iii. 18, Heb. ix. 17, chap. xi. 10, 16. These are all included in the blessing of Abraham. If, therefore, the promise under consideration respects spiritual blessings, which belong exclusively to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith, as appears from the scope of the whole passage, I cannot think that it intends the earthly tem- poral inheritance of the land of Canaan ; for though that was also promised to Abraham's seed, and was a type of the heavenly inheritance, yet it was not peculiar to the spiritual seed, but common to them with the rest of his natural posterity who were of the circumcision only ; nor was it ever promised to, or bestowed on, the Gentile part of his spiritual seed, as was the blessing of Abraham ; but 32 REVIEW OP DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES it is expressly said of the promise we are now speaking of, that " it is of faith that it might be by grace, to the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed ; not to that only which is of the law {i. e., believing Jews), but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all," both believing Jews and Glentiles, ver. 16. Nor do I think that this promise signifies that Abra- ham and his spiritual seed shall have the possession of the whole earth, or that the land of Canaan was a prelude of this : For though after the destruction of the beast and false prophet, and the binding of Satan, we are given to expect a more extensive spread of the gospel and its effects in advancing the kingdom of Christ in this world. Rev. XX. 4, 6, yet unless we understand this of a literal resur- rection of the saints from the dead, and their taking pos- session of the whole earth (a sentiment inconsistent with many passages of scripture), this promise could not respect any of Abraham's spiritual seed, but such of them as shall live on the earth at that period ; whereas the promise made to Abraham, as has been observed, is of faith, and by grace, that it might be sure to all the seed, which I think must import, that it will be infallibly accomplished to the whole of Abraham's spiritual seed, and not merely to that part of them who inherited the land of Canaan, or that shall personally enjoy the blessings of the millennial period. Mr W. seems aware of this objection to his scheme, and endeavours to obviate it, by distinguishing between a right and actual possession, p. 28, 29. But what is the benefit of a right when there is never any actual j}ossession ? He thinks the promise of " the possession of the whole earth must be understood of the seed collectively considered," and for this cites Psal. Ixvi. 6, 1 Thess. iv. 15, 1 Cor. xv. 51 ; and he might also have cited Rev. v. 10, to show that by a certain mode of speech, men frequently apply that to themselves which applies only to another pai't of the col- lective body to which they belong ; and from this he con- ON THE ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 33 eludes, " So we may with perfect propriety say, that the promise spoken of, in the view I am now taking of it, is to us, because it shall be verified to the seed of which we are a part," p. 30. I admit the mode of speech referred to in certain cases, but not as applicable to the spiritual promise made to Abraham ; for that is expressly declared to be sure to all his seed; not as being verified to some of the collective body, but to every individual of the spiritual seed ; for a promise can with no propriety be said to be sure to all, which is verified only to a part. He observes in general, " That all the seed have the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." This is certainly true ; but he knows that they may possess the life that now is, though they should never possess the land of Canaan, nor the much higher degree of temporal enjoyments which, he supposes, will be enjoyed by those who live in this world during the mil- lennium ; nay, though they should, like their Lord and his first followers, sufi"er many privations of earthly comforts. He will surely admit, that godliness with contentment is great gain ; that a man's life does not consist in the abundance of the things which he possesses, and that a little that a righteous man hath, is better than the riches of many wicked. As to the life to come, he says, " All being finally put in possession of the heavenly country, may be said then to inherit the promises in their full extent, this being their grand sum, their glorious completion." To this I heartily subscribe ; for this promise is sure to all the spiritual seed, who by faith and patience during the life that now is, are seeking and desiring that better country, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did. He admits that " Moses and Aaron inherited the promises, although they were sentenced to finish their course short of the earthly Canaan ;" and he might have added, that all the 34 REVIEW OP DR WAKDLAW'S LECTURES saints who have died in the faith, from the beginning of the world to this day, inherit the promises, though they have been appointed to finish their course short of inherit- ing the whole earth during the millennium. The promise to Abraham has been accomplishing more or less in all ages of the church, and that as really, though not so extensively, as when God at the first did visit the nations to take out of them a people for his name, or, as we have ground to expect, when the kingdoms of this world shall become our Lord's and his Christ's, Rev. xi. 15. But whatever change we may then suppose will take l)lacc as to the prosperity, extent, outward peace, and other circumstances of Christ's kingdom in this world, I have no idea that it will change its spiritual nature, or become a kingdom of this world, any more than it was in the days of the apostles ; nor can I see how such a change would be very desirable to a spiritual mind. He next proceeds to consider the need to whom the pro- mise is made, and for this he directs us to Gal. iii. 16, " Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made : he saith not, and to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." On this he observes, " that the name Christ is sometimes used as inclusive of his peo- ple, the head being intended to express the whole body connected with it," and for this he produces one instance, viz., 1 Cor. xii. 12, for as to Gal. iii. 29, it is not to the purpose. I know that several learned commentators give the same sense of the name Christ in ver. 16 that he does, understanding it not of Christ personally but mystically considered, as including all the believing seed, and that in this sense they are not many, but one kind of seed. But though it is true that the seed who make up Christ's mystical body are not many, but one kind of seed, viz., believers ; yet, with all due deference to the judgment and learning of these commentators, I humbly conceive that they have mistaken the meaning of the name Christ in ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVEKAKT. 35 this passage, and have imposed a sense upon it very different from what the apostle means to convey, viz., That the seed of Abraham, to whom the promises has a primary respect, is spoken of not as many, tut as one individual person, and that this person is Christ. This is not only the plain sense of the words, but agrees best with the scope of the whole passage, which is to convince the Galatians that no sinner can be justified or obtain the inheritance by the works of the law, ver. 10, 11, 12, 22, but only by the faith of Christ, the Seed of Abraham in whom all nations were to be blessed, ver. 6-9. The apostle grounds his argument on the original pro- mise made to Abraham, which, as it was 430 years before the giving of the law, ver. 17, must be that which is re- corded in Gen. xii. 3 ; and I suppose it will be admitted that the words in thee are equivalent to in thy Seed, as it is afterwards expressed. Glen. xxii. 18. Nor can it be denied that this Seed is Christ, and no other ; for in whom else but in Christ alone could all nations of the earth be blessed ? Besides, this promise and oath is said to be performed when the Grod of Israel raised up an horn of salvation for them in the house of his servant David, Luke i. 69, 72, 73 ; and when, having raised up his Son Jesus, he sent him to bless them, in turning away every one of them from his iniquities, Acts iii. 25, 26. This will further appear if we consider hoiv the blessing of Abraham comes to the nations in his seed, which is ex- plained thus : " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree ; that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith," Gal. iii. 13, 14. Further, the apostle represents the original promise as a covenant which was unalterably ratified (tig Xpigov) to, in, or ivith a view to Christ; and therefore could not be disannulled or rendered 36 EEVIETr OF DR WAEDLAW's LECTURES ineffectual by tlie law, which was afterwards given to the nation of Israel: "And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise ; but God gave it to Abraham by promise," ver. 17, 18. Again, in answer to the question, " Wherefore then serveth the law ?" he says, " It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made," &c., ver. 19. The Seed that should come evidently means Christ ; and if so, we are here expressly told, that to him the promise was made. It was to this one Seed of Abra- ham, as distinguished from the many, or from all the nations that were to be blessed in him, that the promise of the inheritance was made ; though it was made to him as representing them, for they are blessed in him. Mr W. having stated his view of the extent of the promise made to Abraham that he should be the heir of the world, which he understands of the land of Canaan, the whole earth, and the heavenly country ; and having also given his view of the seed to whom the promises here intended were made, which, though spoken of as one, and explained by the apostle to be Christ, he understands in a collective sense, as signifying one kind of seed, or Christ's mystical body, he proceeds thus : " From these passages, I now state it as my Jirm con- viction, that the promises contained in the Abrahamic covenant, both the temporal promise and the sjyiritual, were made to the same seed on the same footing. That they were both made to the same seed, seems to be as plain as a positive declaration from an inspired apostle can make it : To Abraham and his seed were the promises made — these are here expressly said to have been made to the same seed," p. 33. I own I am at a loss to understand what he means by ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 37 saying, that " both the temporal promise and the spiritual were made to the same seed, on the same footing." The spiritual seed of Abraham among his natural posterity were not, as such, the same seed with the mere children of the flesh ; yet they enjoyed the temporal promise in common. The apostle says, that " unto Abraham and his seed were the promises made ;" but he at the same time explains that seed to be Christ, as has been shown. Some, from this and other passages, state it as their firm conviction, that the promise even of the temporal inheritance of the land of Canaan was made in the first instance to Christ the Son of Grod, and as he was to spring from the nation of Israel according to the flesh ; so that nation, by virtue of their fleshly relation to him, inherited it in his right, as the typical children of God and joint- heirs of it with him. They also argue this from its being teinned the holif land, Hag. ii. 12, as being consecrated to God, who therefore claims it as his peculiar property, calling it my land, Lev. xxv. 23, 2 Chron. vji. 20, Isaiah xiv. 25, Jer. ii. 7, chap. xvi. 18, and from its being expressly termed, thy land, 0 Immannel, Isa, viii. 8, a name peculiar to Christ, who was to be born of a virgin, chap. vii. 14, Matt. i. 23. But whatever be in this, if Mr W. by the same seed, means only Abraham's spiritual seed, then it is not true that the promise of the temporal inheritance was made to them as such ; for as no such distinction of the seed is mentioned in that promise, so we know that in fact the possession of it was not restricted to the spiritual part of Abraham's natural posterity, but was common to them with the rest of the nation of Israel ; and I am persuaded he will not venture to affirm, that the whole nation of Israel, nor even the bulk of them in their successive generations, were the spiritual seed of Abraham either in reality or appearance. And with respect to his spiritual seed among the Gentiles, the promise of this inheri- tance was never made to them, nor did they ever possess it. 38 REVIEW OF DR WAEDLAw's LECTURES He says, " There is not the smallest hint given of the distinction so often contended for, that the temporal pro- mise was made to the fleshly seed as such, and the spiritual promise to the spiritual seed as such. No such distinction is to be found in Paul's reasoning. But the promises of the covenant without difference are declared to have been made not to seeds as of many, but as of one — And to thy seed, which is Christ," p. 33. The Baptists, indeed, do often contend for a distinction in Abraham's natural posterity, between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise. They also distinguish temporal from spiritual promises ; and they affirm, that the former belonged to all his natural posterity without difference ; but that the latter belonged only to his spiritual seed. And does Mr W. mean to deny that there is the smallest hint given of such distinctions in Paul's reasoning? I cannot allow myself to think that this is his meaning, because it would contradict many passages in his Lectures which seem to admit these dis- tinctions ; but yet I cannot find out any other sense to his words. Does he mean that none of Abraham's mere fleshly seed were included in the covenant of circumcision ? If so, then he must also maintain, that the whole nation of Israel were Abraham's spiritual seed ; for it is certain that they were all expressly commanded to be circumcised as the token of Grod's covenant in their flesh ; and the uncircumcised man-child is threatened with being cut off from among God's people, as having broken his covenant, Gren. xvii. 14, which shows, that all the circumcised seed had an interest in the covenant of circumcision. But it is clear that the apostle, throughout the passages under consideration, constantly distinguishes the spiritual seed of Abraham from the rest of his circumcised seed by their being not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of Abraham^ s faith — believe on him that justifieth the ungodly — all them that believe — the seed which is of ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. -. 39 the faith of Abraham — who believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, Rom. iv. 5, 11, 12, 16, 24. And in his Epistle to the Gralatians, he distinguishes them as they which he of faith — the just wAo live by faith — who are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus — heirs according to the promise — not children of the bond- woman, but of the free, Gal. iii. 7, 9, 11, 26, 29, chap. iv. 31. With respect to the promises, though the scripture does not distinguish them by the words temporal and spiritual; yet the nature of the things promised sufficiently distinguish them. Thus we know that the promise of the land of Canaan, and of the good things of it, was a temporal promise, and that justification, the promise of the Spirit, the adoption of sons, and the eternal inheritance, are all of a spiritual nature, and so included in the spiritual promise. Now, when we say, that the temporal promise was made to Abraham's fleshly seed, as such, we mean, that it respected his natural offspring in common, or without distinction ; for had it been restricted to the spi- ritual part of his natural seed, it would not have been accomplished to the whole nation of Israel, as we see it actually was. And if any should affirm, that the whole nation, or even the bulk of them, were his spiritual seed, such are not to be reasoned with. Again, when we say, that the spiritual promise was made to Abraham's spiritual seed, as such, we mean, that it did not respect them merely as his natural seed, but as believers ; nor was it restricted to believers among his natural seed, but extended also to Gentile believers, who were the natural seed of heathen idolaters, but became the children of God and the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus, and so heirs according to the promise, Gal. iii. 26, 28, 29. But as Mr W. seems to deny that there is the smallest hint of such a distinction in all Paul's reasoning, I shall, in addition to what I have already observed, show, both from Paul's reasoning, and other passages of scripture, the grounds we 4:0 REVIEW OE DR WAEDLAw'S LECTURES have for holding the important distinction hetween Abra- ham's natural and spiritual seed, and between the temporal and spiritual promises made to them. John the Baptist had his mission to the natural posterity of Abraham, who were in actual possession of the temporal promise of the land of Canaan. He baptized with the baptism of repentance, " saying unto the people, That they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus," Acts xix. 4. But as many of them imagined, that they were secured from the wrath to come, and entitled to the favour of God on account of their being the descendants of Abraham, he repels all their claims upon that ground, saying, " Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father ; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham, Mat. iii. 9. Here we see that the natural seed of Abraham, who, according to the covenant made with him, were circumcised, and enjoyed the temporal promise, had no right, on these accounts, either to baptism or the spiritual blessings signified by it ; and therefore, to obtain an interest in these spiritual blessings, they were called to that faith and repentance by which men become the spiritual seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise. And it deserves serious consideration, whether the present plea for the baptism of infants, founded on their being the children of believing parents, and their supposed interest in the covenant of circumcision, be indeed equally well founded as the old exploded Jewish boast of having believing Abraham to their father, and of their being circumcised in the flesh according to the litei'al binding terms of that peculiar covenant. If the natural posterity of Abraham, that illustrious patriarch, were not, as such, interested in the covenant of grace by virtue of the promise, " I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee," it must be vain and pre- sumptuous in Christian parents to imagine, that their ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 41 children are included in the covenant on account of that promise. It is said of Christ, " He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of Grod, even to them that believe on his name ; who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the j&esh, nor of the will of man, but of Grod," John i. 11-14. The Jews, the natural seed of Abraham, were Christ's own nation and people. They were peculiarly favoured above all other nations with many distinguished privileges. " To them pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of Glod, and the promises ; and of them, as concerning the flesh, Christ came," Rom. ix. 4, 5. But notwithstanding these external national privileges, the great body of them did not receive Christ when he came unto them, but rejected him ; and so were not the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith, but were his seed only as being born of blood, of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, and, as such, had no title to the spiritual promises contained in the blessing of Abraham. From these the spiritual seed are distinguished by their receiving Christ, or believing in his name, and by their being born of God, and obtaining the dignified privilege of being his sons. This is that second birth of which our Lord speaks to Nicodemus, and concerning which he declares that, without it, no man can enter into the kingdom of Grod, John iii. 3-9. It comes not by natural generation from believers, no not from believing Abraham himself ; nor did the covenant of circumcision entail it upon his natural seed ; for it is a fact, that the bulk of his natural seed were rejected, while the seed of heathens became the true seed of Abraham and the children of Glod by faith in Christ Jesus, Rom. ix. 26, 30, 31, Gal. iii. 26, 29. Paul expresses his great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart, on account of the unbelief and rejection of the e2 42 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAw's LECTURES bulk of the Jewish nation, who were Israelites, his kins- men and brethren according to the flesh ; but lest any, from this awful event, should take occasion to impeach the faithfulness of Grod, or imagine that the promise which he made to Abraham and his seed had fallen to the ground, or failed of its accomplishment, he proceeds to evince the contrary, by distinguishing the children of the flesh from the children of the promise ; and he shows that this dis- tinction was typically intimated both in the family of Abraham and of Isaac : " Not as though the word of God had taken none effect : For they are not all Israel which are of Israel ; neither because they are the seed of Abra- ham are they all children ; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God ; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed," Rom. ix. 6-8. And he illustrates this distinction by what took place in the family of Abraham. Ishmael was his first-born by Hagar ; yet the promise did not respect him, but was restricted to Isaac, Sarah's son : " For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son," ver. 9 ; and the same restriction was intimated in the promise, " In Isaac shall thy seed be called." But as some might suggest that this difference was owing to Ishmael's being the sou of the bond-woman, or perhaps to something more wicked in his character than in that of Isaac, he shows, that a distinction of the same kind was also made in the family of Isaac, the son of the free-woman and child of the promise : " And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac (for the chil- dren being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth), it was said unto her. The elder shall serve the younger : As it is writ- ten, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," ver. 10-14. Now the apostle produces these instances to show, ON THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 43 that in all succeeding generations the children of the fiesh, or the mere lineal descendants of Abraham, even in the line of Isaac and Jacob, are not, as such, the children of Grod, or the spiritual seed ; and that, therefore, though a great part of Abraham's natural seed did not obtain the spiritual promise, but were rejected as unbelievers, yet in this there was no failure in the divine promise, for it was never made to such, but only to Abraham's seed by faith, who alone are the children of the promise, and counted for the seed. "With respect to the temporal promise, that was not restricted to the spiritual seed, as has been shown ; for the history of the nation of Israel clearly informs us, that they obtained and possessed the land of Canaan and its temporal blessings for many ages, according to the pro- mise of it made to Abrahain and his seed after him. And though it was absolutely necessary to their peaceable and comfortable possession of it, that they should acknowledge and worship the true Glod, and abstain from idolatry (which was a breach of the national covenant whereby he stood related to them as their God) ; yet they are described in general as a stiff-necked and rebellious people, not only when entering into the possession of it, Deut. ix. 6, 7, but after they had possessed it near 1500 years. Acts vii. 51- 53. The possession of the land of Canaan, therefore, being common to the nation of Israel, did not discriminate the children of the spiritual promise. I shall only add, on the distinction of the seed, that Mr "Vy. would do well to consider attentively what the apostle means by saying, " Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh ; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature," or, there is a new creation ; " Old things are past away, behold all things are become new," 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. To " know no man after the flesh," is to acknowledge or esteem 4:4 REVIEW OP DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES no man as a child of Glod, or a true Christian, on account of his carnal descent or connection with believers, or any carnal consideration whatever, and particularly those things which the carnal Jews boasted of, such as their being the seed of Abraham, of the stock of Israel, circum- cised the eighth day, &c., all which the apostle afterwards enumerates, and terms the fiesh, ch. xi. 18, 22, Philip, iii. 4-7 ; and declares that, in Christ Jesus, such things are of no avail, but a new creature, or faith which worketh by love, Glal. v. 6, ch. vi. 15. He admits that formerly they made the flesh the rule of their judgment and ground of esteem, even of the Messiah himself, as being peculiarly related to them according to the flesh, and on account of the worldly expectations they had from him, such as his restoring again the kingdom to Israel ; but that from henceforth, or from the time that they were enlightened to perceive the glorious ends of Christ's death and resurrec- tion (ver, 14, 15), and the spiritual nature of his kingdom and subjects, their regard to him was no longer influenced by such carnal considerations ; nor did they esteem any one as belonging to Christ, or of the time Israel of Glod, but as being a new creature : See also Gal. vi. 15, 16. By this rule of judging, they acknowledged none of Abra- ham's natural offspring as his spiritual seed but believers, who were but a remnant of them, Rom. xi. 5 ; and, by the same rule, they regarded Grentile believers as the spiritual seed of Abraham though the natural seed of heathens, Gral. iii. 7, 29. If therefore none of believing Abraham's natural posterity were known or acknowledged by the apostles as his spiritual seed, but those of them who appeared to be new creatures, and walked in the steps of his faith, by what rule are we to esteem the infant natural seed of believers to be the spiritual seed, of whose faith and regeneration we cannot possibly have the smallest evidence ? Among many other strange things, it has been said that ON THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 45 the scripture rule is, that we should look upon infants as in the very same state of salvation as their believing parents are. But there is no such rule to be found in all the word of Grod. On the contrary, the scripture assures us that, in their first birth, they are shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, Psal. li. 5. This is the state which they derive equally from believing as unbelieving parents. The spiritual birth does not consist in the faith or charac- ter of a proxy or representative, but in a personal change in the subjects of it ; and therefore cannot be known by us till that change visibly appears in the individuals them- selves, be their parents what they may. Therefore to look upon infants as the spiritual seed, because they are the natural offspring of believers, is plainly to know them after the flesh. Still, however, it is asserted, that the covenant of cir- cumcision, wherein God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his seed after him in their generations, is the same for substance with the new covenant, or what is commonly tenned the covenant of grace, differing only in some cir- cumstances, relating to the mode of its sign, and extent of its administration. And their main proof for this is, that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had in uncircumcision. But this rather proves, that the covenant of circumcision was not the same with the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace, or new covenant, is that by which sinners are justified, and in which God promises to remember their sins and iniquities no more. The blood of Christ is the blood of that covenant which was shed for the remission of sins, and men are justified through faith in that blood. The promise of this covenant was made to Abraham, and confirmed of God in Christ, when the gospel was before preached to him concerning God's justifying the heathen through faith, in these words, " In thee shall all nations be blessed," Gen. xii, 3, compared with Gal. iii. 8, 17. 46 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAw's LECTURES And herein lay the object of Abraham's faith, through which he was justified long before he received the sign of circumcision. Now let us attend to the design of the apostle in saying, that " Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had in uncircumcision." And, whether we consider the words themselves, or the scope of the apostle's reasoning, it is evident to a demonstration, that the apostle's design is to show, that Abraham was not justified by the covenant of circumcision, but altogether independent of it, and while he was in uncircumcision ; and that he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had in his uucircumcised state ; and on this he grounds his argument, that neither Jew nor Grentile are justified either by circumcision or the works of the law, but only by faith, as Abraham himself was. Now, if Abraham was not justified by the covenant of circum- cision, but previous to, and independent of it, how can it be the same for substance with the covenant of grace by which alone sinners can be justified ? The covenant of circumcision was not the same with the covenant of grace, or the promise of it which extended to the Grentiles, but was evidently a covenant peculiar to the natural posterity of Abraham, and was the beginning and foundation of an intermediate typical economy, which served as a partition wall to distinguish and separate the nation of Israel from all other people till the Seed should come of them to bless all nations ; and accordingly when the Seed came, and broke down the middle wall of partition between the Jews and G-entiles by his death, circum- cision was declared to avail nothing, and so was set aside like every other typical institution, and is represented aS belonging to the letter and the jlesh, as opposed to the spirit, Rom. ii. 27, 29, Philip, iii. 4, 5, Clal. vi. 12, 13. And though the Jewish converts were indulged in circum- cision for a time after it was virtually set aside by the ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 4:7 death of Christ, yet it was absolutely prohibited to the Gentile converts as of the most pernicious tendency, and is always connected with the law as opposed to their justi- fication by faith, and to the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, Clal. v. 1, 5. It is very remarkable, that while the inspired apostles of Christ so often cite the original promise made to Abraham, to show that the blessings of the gospel were to be extended to the Gentiles, they should never so much as once mention the covenant of circumcision in that view : Nor do they give the smallest hint concerning the entail of that covenant upon New Testament believers and their natural seed, which is now so much insisted on as the main argument for infant baptism. Mr W. affirms, " That the Sinai covenant is represented in the apostle's reasoning as quite distinct from the cove- nant made with Abraham four hundred and thirty years before ; and therefore, in forming our ideas of the latter, the former should be left out of view. The scheme of God, revealed in the Abrahamic covenant, might have gone on to it's fulfilment independent of the law," p. 41; The covenant which was made with Abraham, and con- firmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty years before the law, was not the covenant of circumcision, nor peculiar to Abraham's natural posterity as that was, but contained the promise of blessing all nations, see Gen. xii. 3, with Gal. iii. 8. Now though this covenant was distinct from the Sinai covenant, yet the law delivered in the latter was subservient to the promise in the former, by making men sensible of their need of the promised blessing ; and therefore, in forming our ideas of the original covenant made with Abraham, the law ought not to be left out of view. Nor does it become us to say, that the scheme of God might have been otherwise fulfilled than it actually was. But with respect to the covenant of circumcision, which was not made for twenty -four years after the former, 48 EEVIETV or DR WAEDLAw's LECTURES that was not quite distinct from tlie Sinai covenant, but was the very foundation of it. Let us trace the connection : — When the Lord covenanted to give the land of Canaan to Abraham's natural posterity, he foretold their previous affliction in Egypt and deliverance out of it, Gren. xv. 13- 17. When they had multiplied into a nation in that kingdom, and were in actual bondage, the promise made to Abraham of their deliverance was repeated, Exod. vi. 3-7 ; and the book of Exodus gives us a clear historical account of the fulfilment of this, so far as relates to their redemp- tion from Egypt. In the covenant of circumcision he had promised to be a Grod to Abraham's seed after him, Gren. xvii. 7. This promise was also repeated to Abraham's natviral seed while they were groaning under the bondage of the Egyptian yoke : " And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a Gl^od ; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your Grod, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, Exod. vi. 7 ; and this was actually and formally accomplished, when he took them as a nation into a covenant relation to himself at Sinai, and declares, " I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," Exod. xx. 2. See the whole of that remarkable transaction, Exod. xix. xx. xxiv. Again, in the covenant of circumcision the Lord promised to Abra- ham, " I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession," Giren. xvii. 8. This promise was also renewed to them in Egypt, " I will bring you in into the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob ; and I will give it to you for an heritage," Exod. vi. 8. The book of Joshua gives us a plain historical account of the accom- plishment of this promise, where we are told that " the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 49 tiuto their fathers ; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein," Josh. xxi. 43. If therefore we would form pro- per ideas of the covenant of circumcision, we must take into consideration the renewal of its promises to the nation of Israel, with the historical facts in which these promises were actually fulfilled to them, and consequently explained. But Mr W. would have these things left out of view. They indeed plainly prove that the covenant of circumcision was made with all Abraham's seed according to the flesh, and that its promises to them, as a nation, were of a temporal nature : conseq^uently that it is now set aside under the gospel, together with the Sinai covenant which was founded on it. He says, " That none of the promises, either the tem- poral or the spiritual, were made to the fleshly seed of Abraham, merely on the footing of carnal descent," p. 35. I know not exactly what he means by the footing of carnal descent. Taking it in connection with what he says in the preceding page, his meaning seems to be, that none of the promises, no not even the temporal, were made to any of Abraham's natural posterity, but to his spiritual seed alone. And if so, it plainly follows, that all to whom the temporal promises were accomplished must have been the spiritual seed of Abraham ! I think I may be excused from making any reply to this. He observes, that Israel in the wilderness came short of the land of Canaan, through unbelief, p. 36. This is fully granted, for the apostle says the same, Heb. iii. 18, 19. But then Mr W. conjectures, that their unbelief did not only respect the promise which Grod made of the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed after him, and a distrust of his veracity and power, accompanied with rebellious complaints and murmurings ; but that it implied ignorance and unbelief of the spiritual import of that pro- mise, and included also ignorance and unbelief of the other gospel promises made in connection with it in the same 50 REVIEW or m wardlaw's lecttjres covenant — They were unbelievers of the gospel, which was then revealed in the promises of the covenant made with Abraham, p. 37. When we look into the history of Israel in the wilder- ness, we shall find their unbelief manifested on many occasions ; but the particular instance in view, was their unbelief of Grod's promise of the land of Canaan, distrust- ing his power and faithfulness to accomplish it, and being discouraged by the evil report of the spies ; they mur- mured and rebelled against him, notwithstanding the astonishing miracles he had already wrought on their behalf. This is what is assigned as the cause why the Lord sware, that none of the men of that evil generation should see that good land which he sware to give unto their fathers : See Num. xiv., Deut. i. 26-40. But we no where read, either in the Old or New Testament, that they came short of the earthly rest, because they did not believe the spiritual import of that promise, or because they did not understand and believe the mystical sense of the other promises connected with it in the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham. Mr W. has the advan- tage of the New Testament revelation, which lays open the spiritual or mystical sense both of Old Testament promises and types ; but it does not follow that Israel in the wilder- ness had these things laid open to them, so as that they might have stedfastly looked to the end of that which is abolished. If it is not recorded that the mystical sense of the typical economy was explained to them, how can we possibly know that it was ? Or how can we suppose that they were so severely punished, and yet the main part of their guilt never once mentioned ? The apostle says, " For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them ; but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it," Heb. iv. 2. The words literally translated are, " For we are evangelized as well as they were ; but the word which they heard did not OK THE ABKAHAMIC COVEKAKT. 51 profit tliem, not being mixed witli faith in tliem that heard it ;" i. e., We Christians are favoured with the good news of the heavenly rest, as well as Israel in the wilderness were with the good news of the earthly rest in Canaan ; but the word which they heard concerning that rest did not profit them, because thej did not believe it. That this is the sense is clear frora the whole of the apostle's reason- ing; for the rest which Israel came short of through unbelief was evidently the possession of the land of Canaan ; and the rest which Christians are exhorted to labour to enter into is the heavenly rest, the rest that remains for the people of Clod. It should be observed, that faith and its opposite unbelief are not confined to the spiritual truths and promises of the gospel of Christ, but respect any truth which Clod may reveal, or promise he may make even concerning temporal things. It is a be- lieving, or disbelieving Clod in what he says, whatever be the subject. This is clear with respect to faith from several instances of it mentioned in Heb. xi., and also with respect to unbelief in the case of those whose carcases fell in the wilderness. I cannot think that Mr W. will affirm (though his argument requires it), that all who died in the wilderness fell short of the heavenly rest, or that all who entered the land of Canaan believed to the saving of the soul. He returns again to the covenant made with Abraham, and having quoted Gal. iii. 17, he says, " The expression employed in this quotation to describe the covenant made with Abraham, that it was confirmed before of God in Christ, seems most decisively to establish the view that has been given of it. The promises of this covenant were made with a prospective regard to Christ, as their foundation," p. 42, 43. But the covenant which the apostle refers to in that passage is not the covenant of circumcision (which would have been very foreign to his argument with the Galatians), 02 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAW S LECTURES but it is the covenant whicli was confirmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty years before the law, as I have already noticed, and is mentioned, ver. 8. He thinks, " It will surely be admitted, that there is but one covenant, the promises of which were made either to Christ, or in Christ ; but the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are expressly declared to have been so made ; whence it appears to follow, that this covenant was nothing less than the glorious gospel of the blessed Grod ; his ever- lasting covenant of grace," p. 43. It will not be admitted " that there is but one covenant." It has been shown, that there were more covenants than one made with Abraham ; and that from these sprung other two covenants very different in their nature, viz., the old covenant at Sinai which gendereth to bondage, and the new covenant in Christ's blood, which answereth to Jeru- salem which is above, the free woman, and the mother of all Grod's children, Gal. iv. 24-27. Does Mr W, mean to set aside these distinctions, and to jumble the whole to- gether as one covenant ? I am sorry to say that the sequel too clearly manifests that this is his real design. For having quoted the promise — " I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee," Gen. xvii. 7, he proceeds thus, " In whatever sense we consider God as promising to be the God of Abraham, in the same sense we must consider him as promising to be the God of his seed. The promise is one, No hint is ever given, of his being the God of Abraham in one sense, and the God of his seed in another. Nor does any ground appear for the distinction made in the meaning of the term seed, as if he were to be the God of his fleshly seed in one sense, and the God of his spiritual seed in another. The promise, as it stands, is plainly one in its import, and to one seed in its extent ; ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 53 even the seed mentioned G^al. iii. IG, and considered above," p. 43, 44. It is certain that God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in a spiritual and eternal sense, that is, as justifying and bestowing eternal life on them, see Matt. xxii. 32, Luke xiii. 28, Heb. xi. 16, and that all who are of faith are thus blessed with faithful Abraham, Gal. iii. 9, 29. But must we therefore consider God as promising, in the covenant of circumcision, to be the God of all the natural posterity of Abraham in the same sense as he was to Abraham himself ? It is clear beyond all dispute, that God promised in that covenant to be a God to Abraham and to his seed after him in their generations ; that the whole of his natural posterity, in the line of Isaac and Jacob, were included in it, without any distinction, and that the token of that covenant was by the divine com- mand to be administered to all of them without exception, " Every man-child among you shall be circumcised," ver. 10. Now, will Mr "W. stand to it, that God was in no other sense the God of Abraham than that in which he was the God of all his natural posterity ? Would not this be the same as to affirm, that all Abraham's natural seed, in their successive generations, obtained eternal life ? Again, if " there is no ground for the distinction made in the meaning of the term seed, as if he wei'e to be the God of his fleshly seed in one sense, and the God of his spiritual seed in another," why does the apostle make a distinction among Abraham's natural seed (though all included in the covenant of circumcision), between those of them who were of the circumcision only, and such as also walked in the steps of Abrahani's faith ? Rom. iv. 12. Why does he say, " They are not all Israel who are of Israel ; neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children — that is, they who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God ; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed ?" Roiu. f2 54 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAw'S LECTUBES ix. 6-8, Here we find a distinction made in the mean- ing of the term seed. It is applied to Abraham's mere natural offspring, and also to his spiritual seed by faith as distinguished from these ; consequently, there must be an auBwerable distinction as to the sense in which Grod stood related to them as their Grod. To the former, he was their Grod in a typical and temporal sense, to the latter, in a spiritual and eternal sense. But Mr W.'s design is to show, that none were included in the covenant of circumcision, or had the promise that Grod would in any sense be their Grod, but only the spiritual seed of Abraham, " even the seed mentioned Gral. iii. 16, and considered above." I have already shown, that the apostle in Gral. iii. is commenting not on the covenant of circumcision, but on the original promise made to Abraham, Glen. xii. 3, which he quotes, verse 8, and distinguishes it as the covenant which was confirmed of Grod in Christ four hundred and thirty years before the law, verse 17. He shows that this covenant included all believers, not only among Abraham's circumcised natural seed, but among uncircumcised Glentiles, verse 14, 28, and that the promises of this covenant, which are iiicluded in the blessing of Abraham, are redemption from the curse, justification, the promise of the Spirit, adoption, and the inheritance, verse 8, 13, 14, 18, 26, 29. Now, whether we understand the seed mentioned, verse 16, to mean Christ, as the apostle declares, or the whole collective body of which Christ is the head, as Mr W. explains it, in neither of these senses does it quadrate with the seed mentioned in the covenant of circumcision. It cannot be said that Christ was Abraham's seed in their generations, Gtcu. xvii. 10. Nor are its promises restricted to the spiritual part of his natural seed, exclusive of the rest ; for no such distinction of the seed, nor any such restriction of the promises, are ever mentioned in that covenant : On the contrary, every man-child, without exception, was to ON THE ABEAHAMIC COYENANT. 55 receive the token of that covenant in his flesh, ver. 11, 12, and it was commanded to "be administered to them at eight days old, which shows that they had a right to it by hirth as the natural seed of Abraham, independent of regeneration or of faith. As to that part of his spiritual seed which consists of believing Gentiles, they had nothing to do with the letter of that peculiar covenant, and so were absolutely forbidden to receive the token of it in their flesh, as is clear from the epistle to the Gralatians and many other passages ; and it is also cei'tain, that they never had any promise or possession of the land of Canaan which was stipulated in that covenant. It is therefore clear, beyond all reasonable dispute, that, in the covenant of circumcision, the seed of Abraham must be understood to signify literally his natural oifspring or posterity in the line of Isaac and Jacob. Besides, the facts recorded in the succeeding history of that people, and the application of the promises made to Abraham respecting them, demon- strate abundantly that they were literally the seed with whom that covenant was made. And thus we may see that the seed to whom the Lord promised in that covenant to be their God, turns out in fact to be the nation of Israel ; and as to the new covenant sense of that promise, it falls under another consideration. Mr W. is of opinion that God was the God of the nation of Israel in the same sense as he was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or as he is the God of all true believers, that is, in the new covenant sense of that pro- mise, and for this he cites Matt. xxii. 31, 32, Heb. ix. 13- 16, Jer. xxxi. 33, chap, xxxii. 38-40, Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24, 30, 31, chap, xxxvi. 25-28, Heb. viii. 10, p. 44-47. The two first of these citations show in what sense he was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and indeed of all true believers who follow the steps of their faith. The rest are promises of the new covenant itself, and therefore cannot show in what sense God was the God of the whole 56 REVIEW OP DE WARDLAW'S LECTURES nation of Israel under the old. When God promises to make a new covenant, he says it was to be, " not according to the covenant which he made tvith their fathers, in the day when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt," but entirely of another nature, both in its blessings, and in the character of the people covenanted, Jer. xxxi. 31-35 ; and so the apostle terms it a letter covenant, which was established upon better promises, Heb. viii. 6. But if the promise of his being their God implied nothing more than what it did in the former cove- nant with old Israel, I cannot see with what propriety it could be called a better covenant, or be said to be estab- lished upon better promises. He states a very proper question on this subject, viz., " In what sense is it that Grod calls himself the God of the nation of Israel ; and in assuming this relation to them, as a nation, declares, that he remembers the covenant made with their fathers — as he does in Exod. vi. 4-8, Lev. xxvi. 12, and in other places ? In answer to this he observes, "1. It seems to me a fair general principle, that when we find a particular view of any subject, expressly and simply stated by an inspired writer, we should so far admit this view to be a rule for the explanation of other passages of Scripture, as that, when there are two possible interpre- tations of any circumstance connected with it, that should be held the right one, which harmonizes with, and illus- trates it. It appears to me that nothing can be more express and simple, than what the apostle says in Gal. iii. in connection with the passage before us, that this cove- nant made with Abraham, was confirmed of God in Christy and that its promises were made to one seed which is Christ. If the view given of these expressions, with their connec- tion, is admitted, and I conceive it to be founded on the plain and obvious meaning of the words, it follows, that when God is any where said to remember his covenant, the ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 57 expression ought to be understood in a sense consistent with it," p. 46, 47. Though this general rule of interpretation were unex- ceptionable, which it is not ; yet, in the present case, it is inapplicable ; because, though the covenant made with Abraham "was confirmed of God in Christ," and its " promises were made to one seed, which is Christ," yet none of these expressions refer to the covenant of circum- cision, as has been shown, and so do not explain the sense in which Grod declares himself to be the Glod of the whole nation of Israel. It is to the covenant of circumcision, which includes the promise of being their God, and of his giving them the land of Canaan, that God refers when about to deliver them out of Egypt, and to put them in possession of it, Bxod. vi. 4-9. We need only to read Psalm cv., from verse 8 to the end, to see how God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the whole series of his dealings with their seed after them, till at last, " he gave them the lands of the heathen ; and they inherited the labour of the people." No human rule of interpretation, nor process of reasoning, however laboured and ingenious, can be sustained as giving the true sense of scripture promises, when that sense does not agree with the plain historical facts which the scripture itself states as the fulfilment of these promises. Mr W.'s general principle or rule of interpretation in the present case, is founded on a mistake which runs through his whole lectures, namely, that the covenant which was con- firmed before of God in Christ, Gen. xii. 3, Gal. iii. 8, 17, is the very same with the covenant of circumcision, Gen. xvii. 7, 8, 10, though it is plain, that the former included the Gentiles, while the latter respected the natural descen- dants of Abraham, and was part of the partition wall which separated them from other nations. But he proceeds, " 2dly. "When he is called their God, we are to view 58 REVIEW OP DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES them not as a nation, or civil community, but as his church, his professing people," p. 47. But where does the scripture make such a distinction as this ? Where is it declared that Grod was not their God as a nation, but only as a church ? Was not the nation of Israel a national church ? How then could he be called their Grod as his church, and not as his nation ? Does he not say to that nation, " I am the Lord thy Grod, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt ?" Exod. XX. 2, and " ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation," chap. xix. 6. Moses uses this argument with Grod on their behalf, " Consider that this NATION is thy people," chap, xxxiii. 13. It is evident the Psalmist thought that God was their Grod as a nation, for he says, " Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, and the people whom he hath chosen for his inheri- tance," Psalm xxxiii. 12. If Mr W. could show, that Israel as a church were Abraham's spiritual seed, but as a nation they were only his carnal seed, this would be doing something to the purpose ; but a mere verbal distinction, or the difference of a name, could never make any diflfer- ence in the nature of the people, or in their relation to God. The government of that nation was a Theocracy, the government of God himself. He not only gave them laws respecting the whole form of their religious worship, but also for regulating their secular and civil affairs as a state ; so that he was the very king of that nation even in a political sense ; and hence he was displeased with that people for desiring a king like the rest of the nations ; and says, " they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them," 1 Sam. viii. 7. And though he allowed them a king, yet that king was to be of his choosing, and to be under his express command and direction, in the matters of government, and of peace and war ; so that the Lord still remained the King of that nation, which is included in the idea of his being their God. Thus he was, during ON THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 59 that temporal and typical economy, tlie God of the whole nation of Israel in such a sense as he never was to any other nation of this world. With regard to the spiritual seed of Abraham who were among them, he was their God in a spiritual and eternal sense ; but not by virtue of the covenant of circumcision, or the old covenant founded thereon, which included the whole nation, but by faith in the promised Seed, by which they became interested in the new covenant to be made after those days, and heirs of its spiritual blessings. But Mr "VV. is sensible that this does not suit the point he has in view, which is the baptism of all the natural seed of believers ; and therefore he labours to show, that God was the God of the national church of old Israel, in the same sense as he is the God of the true Israel by the new covenant; and, in short, that the christian church does not differ from that erected at Sinai, but is only a restoration of it. To evince this he observes, That when God made his covenant with Abraham, his family became " the household of faith ;" otherwise the adults would not have submitted to the painful rite of circumcision — That the nation of Israel became the church of God, when they believed the message sent to them by Moses, and bowed their heads and ivorshipped, Exod. iii. and iv. — That they kept the passover as a profession of that faith, chap. xii. — That the reason why the race who came out of Egypt fell in the wilderness was unbelief, which showed that their former professions of faith were hypocritical — That, on entering into Canaan, the generation then existing, " avouched the Lord to be their God," and, on the footing of that profession, were circumcised with their little ones. Deut. xxvi. 17, &c., Josh. v. 2-9, p. 47-49. These are his proofs that the family of Abraham, and the church of Israel, were believers. The family of Abra- ham that were born in his house, or bought with his money, no doubt believed something which made them submit to 60 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAw's LECTURES be circumcised, and among other things, they might believe that, if they did not submit, Abraham might dispose of them to other masters. The elders of Israel believed the word of the Lord respecting their temporal deliverance from slavery : but they soon after disbelieved it, Exod. v. 21, chap. vi. 9, 12, and whatever faith they professed in keeping the passover, it seems to have entirely failed them at the Red Sea, chap. xiv. 11, 12. After they had got safely through, we are told that " the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord and his servant Moses," ver. 31, yet Mr W. is obliged to admit, that they fell in the wilderness through unbelief, and gave abundant evidence that their professions of faith were hypocritical, " coming out of feigned lips." Now, whether shall we consider them, as, upon the whole, believers or unbelievers ? Surely the Lord's judgment of them was according to truth when he said, " they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith," Deut. xxxii. 20. But Mr W. observes, that, " on entering into Canaan, the generation then exist- ing avouched the Lord to be their Clod, Deut. xxvi. 17, &c., and on the footing of that profession were circumcised with their little ones," Josh. v. 2-9. Yet the Scripture does not say, that it was on thsi footing they were circum- cised, but because they had not been circumcised by the way, ver. 7. Those who fell in the wilderness had also avouched the Lord to be their God, Exod. xix. 8, chap, xxiv. 3-7, but yet they were not true believers. "With regard to those of them who entered into the land of Canaan and possessed it, the Lord himself, and his servant Moses, give a very different view of them from what Mr W. seems to convey (see Deut. xxxi. 16-30), and their history fully verifies that view ; for very soon after the death of Joshua they and the rising generation forsook the Lord and followed other gods, Judg. ii. 11-14. He admits that "the church was for many ages in a state of great corruption ;" but then he adds, " Yet after OK THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 61 all, was not the state of Israel of old very similar to the state of the church of Christ in many periods after his coming ? And to the state of many individual churches of the saints ? Take, as an example, the case of several of the Asiatic churches to whom the epistles in Rev. ii. and iii. are addressed by the Lord. Several of these churches are severely reproved for their corruption. They are called upon to repent ; they are threatened with judgments, and with destruction if they did not. Can anything, on a small scale, be more exactly parallel to the state and treat- ment of the ancient church ?' p. 49, 50. Here I would ask, what does he mean by the church of Christ, as distingTiished from many individual churches of the saints ? I know of no church of Christ that can be thus distinguished from individual churches, but the gene- ral assembly and church of the first-born, which includes all true believers ; and surely he cannot mean to say, that the corrupt state of the holy catholic church of Christ was at any period similar to the corrupt state of the Jewish church. As to individual visible churches, it must be admitted, that the purest of them, even in the apostolic age, were not without their evils and imperfections ; and it is also true, that many of them began very early to degenerate and fall oflf from their former attainments, par- ticularly with respect to the state of their minds, and were admonished by him who searcheth the reins and hearts. But should some of these churches depart from the faith and obedience of the gospel, and persist in refusing to lay to heart Christ's admonitions and warnings, or to comply with his calls to repentance, I cannot think that Mr W. would consider such as stiH possessing the character of churclies of the saints, though not more corrupt than Israel of old ; for he admits " the superior spirituality of the new dispensation, and the more complete discrimination of character which was to take place under it," p. 52. The church of old Israel, notwithstanding all their corruptions, a 62 REVIEW OF DE WAEDLAVs LECTURES are termed a holy nation, a peculiar people, as being exter- nally separated to God from all other nations, though the greater part of them were a carnal and irregenerate people ; hut I cannot think that a nation under the new Testament, similar to old Israel, though it should assume a kind of profession of Christianity, would be acknowledged by Christ, or his apostles, as a christian church, or a church of saints and faithful brethren. Many, indeed, plead the evils with which some of the apostolic churches are blamed, to excuse their continuance in the corrupt communion of a national church ; but surely this cannot be Mr W.'s motive for stating the corruptions of some of the apostolic churches as exactly parallel to those of the Jewish church. His design, I suppose, is to show, that the Old and New Testament churches are the same. Having cited some prophecies respecting the purging of the church, such as Zech. xiii. 8, Mai. iii. 2, 3, and the words of John the Baptist, Matth. iii. 8-12, he observes, that, " It was his own floor that Jesus thus fanned and purged — it was his own church to which he thus proved a refiner's fire and fuller's soap — it was his own vineyard that he thus cut down with the axe of his judg- ments, those rotten trees which cumbered the ground," p. 52. Doubtless the floor, the church, the vineyard were his own ; but what then ? Does it follow from this that they were the same with his New Testament floor, church, or vineyard ? The national church and kingdom of Israel were his oivn, so that when he came unto that nation he came unto his own ; yet his own received him not, John i. 11. The church and kingdom of Israel was of a worldly constitution. It admitted the use of the sword in its erec- tion, government, and defence. Its inheritance was earthly, and its blessings of a temporal nature. Its sanctuary and ordinances of divine worship were worldly and typical ; and its people in general were carnal, the mere children of the flesh. From this worldly establishment Christ dis- ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVEKANT. 63 tinguishes his New Testament kingdom or church in his confession before Pontius Pilate : " My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews : but now is my kingdom not from hence :" And he intimates that he was to promote his kingdom by " bearing witness unto the truth," and that his subjects are only such as are " of the truth" and " l\ear his voice," John xviii. 36, 37. This is termed the kingdom ofheaven as distinguished from the Jewish church or kingdom, which was only an earthly prefigu.ration or shadow of it. This kingdom was proclaimed as at hand, or nigh, by John the Baptist, and by Christ himself in the days of his flesh, Matth. iii. 2, chap. iv. 17. It is founded on Christ's death and resurrection from the dead, by which he ratified the new covenant with Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations who are blessed in him, and by which also he set aside the old covenant with the national church of Israel, and all the typical and earthly things pertaining to it ; admitting none of that people into his New Testament church and kingdom upon the footing of their descent from Abraham, or of their being members of the Jewish church, but as being believers in his name, and born of Grod, John i. 12, 13, and these were only a remnant of them according to the election of grace, Rom. xi. 5. So that though Grod had his people in all ages, both before and under the Jewish economy, who were saved by faith in the promised Seed ; yet the New Testament church is not a continuation of the Jewish church, but is of a very different nature and constitution. He says : "It is the uniform manner of the prophets to speak of the Gentiles as being at a future period to be added, or brought in to the church of Grod which existed at the time they wrote," p. 53. If by the church which existed at the time when ths prophets wrote, he means the national church of Israel 64 KEVIEW OF BR WAEDLAW's LECTUEES which was erected at Sinai, he must understand these pro- phecies to mean, that the Gentiles were to be added, or brought in to the national church of Israel : But does this agree with the apostolic application of these prophecies, or with the events which took place at the time when God visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name ? Far from it. Even the Jewish converts to Christ were formed into churches distinct from the national church or the synagogue, though indulged for a time in some of its usages. As to the Gentile converts, they were not added to the Jewish church, but were absolutely forbidden to be circumcised, or to observe its peculiar in- stitutions. Still he insists, " That the ancient church is represented in prophecy as gloriously restored at the coming of Messiah, and as re- ceiving the accession of the Gentiles," Isa. xlix. 6, Amos ix. 11, 12, p. 54. To understand these prophecies as referring literally to the national Jewish church, is to understand them exactly as the Jews did ; but they were miserably disap- pointed in their expectations. That national church, instead of being restored, was then broken off through unbelief, and, like the bond-woman and her son, cast out of God's house, Rom. xi. 20, Gal. iv. 22-31, and, as I have already observed, nothing but a small remnant of that nation was acknowledged as the true church of God, and with them, not with the national church, were the converted Gentiles incorporated, so as to become of twain one new man in Christ, Eph. ii. 15, and that not according to the covenant of circumcision, or the old Sinai covenant ; but according to the original promise made to Abraham, viz., " In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." With respect to Isa. xlix. 6, it is a promise to Christ, not that he should restore the preserved of Israel to their former state in the Jewish church; but that he should convert a number of them to the faith of the gospel, and ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 65 turn them from their iniquities to Grod, as Acts iii. 21, 1 Pet. ii. 25. And as to what relates to the Grentiles in this prophecy, we see how the apostle applies it. Acts xiii. 47. With respect to Amos ix. 11, 12, where the Lord promises to " eaise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen down, and to close up the breaches thereof, and build it as in the days of old," it does not signify that he would raise up and restore the earthly kingdom of David to its ancient glory and prosperity ; but that he would raise up the spiritual kingdom of Messiah the Son of David, and bring in subjects to him from among the Gen- tiles, as appears from the application of this prophecy. Acts, XV. 14-18, where it is used as an argument against circumcising the Grentiles who had turned to Grod. Mr W. observes, " That when the conversion of the Jews, in the latter days, is spoken of, it is under the idea of returning, or restoration ; which could never have been the case, if the Old Testament church had been entirely different from the New ; inasmuch as there would be no propriety in speaking of their returning, or being restored to a church to which they had never belonged." For these expressions he cites Isa. xlix. 6, Hos. iii. 4, 5, p. 55. Here he owns that it is the conversion of the Jews that is spoken of under the idea of their restoration or return- ing ; and if so, these expressions must be somewhat figurative ; but is there therefore no propriety/ in them ? "We are sure that the remnant of that nation, who were converted in the days of the apostles, were not restored to the Jewish church, of which they were already natural members ; but they were separated from that church, and added to the Lord and to one another in the strictest union. Acts ii. 41, 47, Acts v. 14, chap. xi. 24, and were formed into churches of Christ throughout all Judea, G-alilee, and Samaria, Acts ix. 31. As to Hos. iii. 4, 5, if that prophecy relates to the conversion of the Jews iu 66 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAw's LECTURES the latter days, it cannot mean their returning again to the Jewish Church. The words are, " Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their Glod, and David their King ;" i. e., Messiah the antitype of David. This is a clear prophecy of their repentance towards God, and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ : And in what other way can we suppose them to return in the latter days than as the remnant of them returned at first, when returning to Judaism, or the Jewish church, was considered as apostacy ? But he produces another passage to prove that the Jewish and Christian churches are the same : " Still more apposite and remarkable is the language of Paul, Rom. i. 23, 24. 'And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in ; for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed, con- trary to nature, into a good olive tree ; how much more shall they ■which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree.' Were the Old and New Testament churches entirely different, it is not easy to see with what propriety the Jews, in being brought into the latter, can be said to be graffed into their own olive tree — graffed in again, i. e., into the same tree from which they had been cut off," p. 55, 56. By the good olive tree he understands the Old Testa- ment church, otherwise he thinks it could with no pro- priety be called their own olive tree ; and he imagines that it is into that church they are again to be graffed. The apostle indeed speaks of Israel who were broken off through unbelief, as again to be graffed into their own olive tree : But by this tree he does not mean the nation of Israel, the whole frame of whose constitution, order and ordinances of worship, as a church, were settled and esta- blished by a peculiar national covenant; for he is evi- dently speaking of that good olive tree into which the ON THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT, 67 believing Q^entiles were graffed among the natural branches, the believing Jews, and with them partaking of its root and fatness, ver. 17 ; but the believing Gentiles were not graffed into the national church of Israel, and so that church cannot be meant by the good olive tree. I appre- hend the apostle, by this figure, intends the original pro- mise made to Abraham, that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed. This seed is Christ, who is the root from which all the true branches derive fatness. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were separated unto Grod for the sake of Christ, that seed that was to spring of them, and bless all nations ; and for his sake also their posterity, the whole house of Israel, were separated unto Grod from all other people, and were favoured with many distin- guished privileges. The Jews were naturally related to Christ according to the flesh, and so are termed the natural branches. But when Christ came unto his own, and the greater part of them received him not, their natural relation to him was of no more avail ; as they had no spiritual connection with Christ, they were broken off. It was only to those of them that received him, believing on his name, that he gave power to become the true sons of God, John i. 11, 12. These were graffed into Christ by faith, and were branches in him the true vine, chap- XV. 1-6. And it was among these believing Jews that Gentile converts, who were of the wild olive, were graffed in, being made " fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel," Bph. iii. 6, and thus partook with them of the root and fatness of the good olive tree. And so when the natural branches, which were broken off through unbelief, shall be graffed in again, it will not be into Moses, but into Christ ; nor into the national church erected at Sinai, but into that which is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. Mr W. lays much stress upon the word again, as if it 68 REVIEW OF DR WAKDLAW'S LECTUltEg meant their being put into their former Jewish church state. But the word is not always to be taken in so strict a sense. The Glalatians are said to turn again to the weak and beggarly elements of the Jewish law, and to desire again to be in bondage to them, though they never observed these things before, CiaL iv. 9. When a man is said to be born agahif it does not signify a repetition of his first birth^ but a birth altogether different ; and to be begotten again to a lively hope, does not signify the restoration of a hope which we formerly possessed ; So when it is said that the Jews, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed again into their own olive tree, it does not mean that they shall be put into the same church state in which the nation of Israel formerly was ; but that they shall be converted to the faith of the gospel, and partake with believing G-entiles of the blessing of Abraham through Jesus Christ. The reason why Mr W. contends that the Jewish and Christian churches are the same, seems to be for the sake of the covenant of circumcision, from whence he infers the baptism of the infant seed of New Testament believers. He says, " That while the promises of the covenant made with Abraham were made to the spiritual seed, consisting of be- lievers of all ages and nations of the world ; yet there was in them di, primary respect to the natural offspring of Abra- ham. This observation is of considerable moment on the subject under consideration," p. bQ. If the subject under consideration be infant baptism, I see not how this observation is of any moment at all on that subject, unless it be to Jews ; for neither Gen- tile believers nor their infants are the natural offspring of Abraham, and therefore are not the objects of that primary respect. He explains what he means by a pri- mary respect : " That primary respect, which I now speak of, as being had in the promise to the natural offspring, is a respect not ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 69 merely primary according to the order of time, but accord- ing to a iJeculiarity of regard, and according to what may be termed the natural course of things. That God does show such regard to children on account of their parents, we find both intimated and exemplified in many parts of the scripture history." For this he refers us to G-en. xviii. 17-19, Exod. xx. 5, 6, Jer. xxxi. 31-33, Rom. xi. 1, 28. I freely admit that the promises made to Abraham had a primary respect to his natural oflFspriug, and have shown this in another publication.* But on this subject we must distinguish Abraham's natural ofi'spring into the children of the flesh and the children of the promise, and also the promises themselves into temporal and spiritual. 1. Abraham had a numerous natural posterity by Hagar and Keturah, Gen. xxv., and in the line of Isaac by his grandson Esau, chap, xxxvi., so that he literally became the father of many nations ; but though these were the natural offspring of Abraham, and circumcised, the pro- mises had no primary respect to them ; they were not heirs with him, nor made any part of the holy covenanted nation or church of God, even in a typical sense. This primary respect was restricted to his natural posterity in the line of Jacob, the children of Israel, and that, not according to the natural course of things, or any natural right or excellency in them that might entitle them to a preference, Deut. ix. 4, 5, 6, 24, but according to the sove- reign purpose of God, who had elected them to be a peculiar people to himself, Rom. xi. 11-14. But here it must care- fully be observed, that even among the selected part of Abraham's natural posterity, there was a distinction still more wide and of greater importance than the former, viz., the distinction between the mere children of the flesh, who were of the circumcision only, or Jews outwardly, and * See Defence of Believers' Baptism in this Volume. 70 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES those of them who were not of the circumcision only, but also walked in the steps of that faith of their father Abra- ham, Rom. ii. 28, 29, chap iv. 12. The foi-mer made up the greater part of the church or congregation of Israel, and, as mere subjects of the old Sinai covenant, are classed with the children of Hagar, the bond-woman, Gral. iv. 24, 25. The latter were always but a small remnant in com- parison of the number of the children of Israel ; and though, by an election of grace, they were heirs of the spiritual promise made to Abraham, yet they were kept in a state of minority, under the discipline and tutorage of the Mosaic law, until Christ came and bestowed upon them the full liberty and privilege of sons, G-al. iii. 24, 25. chap, iv, 1-8. 2. In considering the primary respect which the pro- mises made to Abraham had to his natural posterity, we must distinguish these promises into temporal and spi- ritual. With respect to the temporal promises, these had not only a primary but peculiar respect to Abraham's natural offspring, in the line of Jacob, such as their being multi- plied, redeemed from Egypt, put in possession of the land of Canaan, and their enjoyment of the good things of that land ; and in all these blessings their infant seed, according to the natural course of things, must have shared with them ; even as, on the other hand, they must have suffered with them in their calamities ; for temporal promises or threatenings are freq[uently of such a nature as to affect succeeding generations. As to the spiritual promises, which are included in the blessing of Abraham, such as justification, the promise of the Spirit, the true adoption of sons, &c., these had also a primary, though not a peculiar or exclusive, respect to Abraham's natural offspring. That they had not an exclusive respect to them is clear from the very words of the covenant with Abraham on which the apostle's argu- ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 71 ment is founded, viz., " In thee," or, " in thy Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," which includes Gentiles as well as Jews, Gral. iii. 8, 14, 16, 17, 28, and with this the facts recorded in the accomplishment of that promise perfectly agree. But, as I said, the spiritual pro- mises had a primary respect to the natural offspring of Abraham. When the promised Seed came to bless all nations, he came first unto his own nation, being sent unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and was a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. The gospel was first preached to the Jews both by Chi'ist himself and his apostles ; and we find Peter urging and encoaraging them to repent and be converted, by the primary concern they had in the covenant which God made with their fathers respecting Christ, whom he had now first raised up to them, and sent to bless them, Acts iii. 25, 26. The first church of the saints was gathered from among them, being begotten with the word .■of truth, that they might be a kind of first fruits of his creatures ; and from that church sounded out the word of God unto the nations, that the Gentiles might be made partakers of their spiritual things, Rom. xv. 27. Thus the spiritual promises had a primary respect to the natural offspring of Abraham. But as the bulk of that nation rejected Christ when he came, and persecuted his followers, neither their being the circumcised seed of Abraham, nor their national relation to God by the Sinai covenant, could entitle them to the privileges of free sons and heirs ; and so they were, like the bond-woman and her son, cast out of God's house, Gal. iv. 22-31, John viii. 31-37. But Mr W. produces another passage : " There is an expression also used by Paul respecting the Jews in their present state of unbelief, which appears to me inexplicable, except on some such principle : — ' As touching the election, says he, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes^ " Rom. xi. 28, p. 58. 72 REVIEW OF DE WAEDLAW's LECTURES The apostle is there expressly speaking touching the election. Now there was a two-fold election of Abraham's natural seed. — 1. There was a national election of them, whereby they were chosen to be a peculiar people unto G-od in distinction from all other nations. See Deut. iv. 37, chap, vii, 6-8, chap. v. 14, 15, and the reasons as- signed for this are, because he loved their fathers and them, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto their fathers. — 2. There is an election of grace, as opposed to works, and distinguished from their national election, it being only a remnant of that nation who be- longed to this election in the time of the apostles, Rom. xi. 5, 6, so that though Israel, as a nation, obtained not that which he sought for, yet the election among them obtained it, and the rest, who were not of that election, were blinded, ver. 7-11. Now the election mentioned ver. 28, as it respects those of them who are yet to be graffed in, must be of the same kind with that election of grace, according to which a remnant of that people were saved in the apos- tolic age, and who were a kind of first-fruits or sample of all the true Israel among them. So that whatever general profession of Christianity, as some conceive, that nation may yet assume, it will always hold true, that none of them but the election will obtain ; and that not upon the footing of their ancient national election, and fleshly rela- tion to the patriarchs, but piTvely upon the footing of the same sovereign free mercy that was shown to the Gentiles. So the apostle states it : " For as ye (Gentiles) in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief ; even so have these (Jews) also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may OBTAIN MERCY. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief," or shut up all, both Jews and Gentiles, in their turns, " in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all," ver. 30-32. That is, that both of them being upon a level, and equally in a state of guilt and condemnation, their OK THE ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 73 •salvation might appear to be of the same free sovereign mercy, and not on account of any thing which dis- tinguished the Jew from the Gentile. But how then are the election among the Jews said to be beloved for the fathers' sakes ? Does not this imply that the distinguishing love of Grod towards the elect among the Jews took its rise from, or was influenced by, the personal faith or holiness of Abraham, Isaac, and their other godly fathers ? To this I answer, that if we understand the words in this sense, it will not be easy to reconcile them to the scripture doctrine of divine grace, which is always opposed to any worthiness in the creature, is represented as sovereign and free to the undeserving, and as leading the objects of it not to value themselves on any natural advantages, or even in having Abraham to their father, but to glory only in the Lord. If they were thus beloved merely for the sake of the godliness of their fathers, Ishmael and Esau with their posterities, and, at any rate, the whole nation of Israel, must have had an equal claim to this peculiarity of divine regard, for they all sprung from the same godly fathers. Abraham himself sprung from idolatrous ancestors, and was called out from, the idolatry of his father's house, Josh. xxiv. 6, 14. He had nothing of himself but what he received of sovereign grace. He was justified not by works, but in believing on him that justifieth the ungodly, Rom. iv. 1-6. All the spiri- tual blessings promised to him, either personally or to his spiritual seed, were of pure grace, through faith ; and though his faith wrought with his works, which were approved of Grod, yet it was not for the sake of these works that any of his posterity were beloved and elected to salvation ; for that is an election of grace, not of works, Rom. xi. 5, 6. I apprehend, therefore, that when the apostle says, '* As concerning the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes," he means for the sake of that which God promised H 74 EEVIEW OF DE WARDLAw's LECTUEES to their fathers. The promise to Abraham was, " In thee," or " In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," Gen. xii. 3, chap. xxii. 18. This, the apostle informs us, was the covenant which was confirmed before of Grod in Christ, and in which the gospel was before preached to Abraham ; and he explains this Seed in whom the nations were to be blessed, and to whom the promises were made, to be Christ, Gal. iii. 8, 16, 17. This promise was renewed to Isaac, Gen. xxvi. 4, and to Jacob, chap, xxviii. 14. Now as Christ is the Seed that was promised to the fathers, and as it is in him that men are blessed ; so it must be {biou) through, or for the sake of this Seed that the fathers themselves, as well as their elect offspring, are beloved. The Lord, indeed, says to Abraham, " In thee shall all nations be blessed," Gal. iii. 8. And so the apostle terms it " the blessing of Abraham," verse 14. But this manner of speaking is not to be understood as if Abraham himself was to be the original source, procurer, or dispenser of that blessing, or that it was to be bestowed for his sake ; but it was a free promise made to him as father of the faithful, and confirmed to him in Christ, who was to come of his seed according to the flesh, and in vjhom, not in Abraham personally considered, all nations were to be blessed. So that whatever temporal blessings and outward privileges were promised to, or conferred on, the nation of Israel for the fathers' sakes ; yet the spiri- tual blessings of redemption, which were peculiar to the elect among them, are promised and bestowed only for Christ's sake. It has been observed, that the promises made to Abra- ham had a primary respect to his natural offspring ; and from this it follows, that ihej can have no such respect to the natural offspring of Gentile believers, for this plain reason, that they cannot have tiuo primary respects. There is no absolute promise made to any believer that he shall have a seed, as was made to Abraham. No christian ON THE ABBAHAMIC COVENANT. 75 parent is constituted the father of tlie faithful as Abraham was, but is reckoned among his children ; for " they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham," Gal. iii. 7. None are the spiritual seed of Abraham, or to be reckoned such, as being the natural offspring of believers ; but as being themselves believers ; for such only are declared to be the children of God and Abraham's seed, Gal. iii. 26, 29. The graceless children of believers are no more in covenant with God than those of unbelievers, and to teach them otherwise is to furnish them with a presumptuous claim. Yet if christian parents set a godly example before their children, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, as they are commanded, (and they deserve not the name of christians who neglect this) their children must have advantages greatly superior to those which the children of Jewish parents had, though they were the natural seed of Abraham, circumcised in infancy, and early instructed in the letter of the Mosaic law ; advantages as much superior, in respect of outward means, as the light, purity, and spirituality of the gospel dispensation excel those of the legal. And though they cannot ensure success to their endeavours, nor baptize them, according to Christ's institution, till they are taught, and the effects of that teaching appear, yet they have ground to hope, that the Lord will bless his own appointed means for their conversion and eternal salvation ; for it is in this way that he ordinarily accomplishes the purposes of his gTace, though he has not bound himself by any absolute promise to believing parents, that these means shall always prove effectual for the salvation of their children. And here we ought to bow with the deepest reverence before the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth, who hath mercy on whom he will, and beware of binding him down by supposed promises, with respect to that wherein he hath left himself free. This would be high 76 EEVIEW OF DK WAKDLAW's LECTURES presumption on the one hand, and tend to infidelity on the other ; for when men observe that, in many instances, facts do not agree with the sense in which they understand these promises, they are in danger, instead of relinquishing their error, of suspecting the faithfulness of Grod. Mr "W. introduces his third Lecture with what he calls a favourite maxim with many, viz., " That, in considering the observances to which we are bound as christians, we have nothing to do with the Old Testament scriptures. These must be completely laid aside. We have no title to interpret them, or to act on such interpretation. This principle is very often brought forward to preclude all arguing as to our practice in baptizing children from the nature of the Abrahamic covenant," p. 68. The Baptists in general make as much use of the Old Testament scriptures as others do. They believe that all the Old Testament scripture is given by inspiration of Grod, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor- rection and instruction in righteousness ; and, in short, that whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning as christians. But then, they do not think themselves bound, as christians, to observe all the positive institutions of the Old Testament, nor indeed any of them as such, however much the ancient Judaizers insisted on this. Nor do they think that a ■positive institution, such as circumcision is, can by any process of reasoning whatever, be converted into a rule, precedent, or warrant for infant baptism, concerning which there is not a single syllable either in the Old or New Testaments. The baptism of believers is an insti- tution of Christ, and peculiar to the New Testament dispensation. It is a positive institution, founded entirely on the express will of the Instituter, and abstract from the revelation of his will concerning it, can be deduced from no other principle, natural or moral, with which we are acquainted ; and therefore all arguments for infant baptism^ ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 77 drawn from the covenant of circumcision, are altogether inconclusive and nugatory. That thei-e can he no positive ordinance of divine worship which christians are bound, or even warranted, to observe, without a revelation of the will of Grod concerning it by express precept or clear example, is a maxim fully admitted by all consistent Pro- testants, when contending against the superstitious inven- tions of the church of Rome, or even the ceremonies of the church of England. But Mr W. says, " I think this maxim might be fairly and successfully combated, as a general principle, upon general grounds," p. 68. I know not what general grounds he has in view ; but the subject in hand is a particular positive institution, which can neither be combated nor defended upon general grounds, but upon the particular and express revelation of the will of God concerning it. This is its only ground, and with this single ground it must stand or fall. But if Mr W. could fairly and successfully overthrow this maxim, as applied to positive institution, he would do more than all the abettors of clerical authority and superstition have hitherto been able to do, for they have been obliged to combat this maxim by asserting that the church, i. e., the clergy, have a right to enact such religious institutions and ceremonies as they in their wisdom may think proper. A sentiment this, which I am fully persuaded Mr "VV. would not adopt, though infant baptism itself should be at stake, as in fact it is. But though he thinks the above maxim might be fairly and successfully combated, yet he declines the task, as being quite unnecessary. His words are, " Yet I am very well pleased that such proof is, in the present instance, quite unnecessary ; for it happens most fortunately, that the covenant made with Abraham is a portion of the Old Testament scriptures, as fully and amply explained in the New as any other to which refer- ence is made. This I have attempted to show from the h2 78 EEVIEW OF DK WAKDLAW'^S LECTURES preceding verses, taken in connection with the third chapter of the epistle to the Galatians. So that, even upon this limited principle, supposing it admitted to its full extent, we have an unquestioned title to understand it, and found arguments upon it," p. 68, That the covenant made with Abraham is a portion of the Old Testament scriptures — that it is explained in the New — that he has an unquestioned title to understand it according to that explanation, and to found arguments upon it agreeably to the plain scope and design of the apostolic explanation, is freely admitted ; and if these are the things which he has been attempting to show by his lectures on Kom. iv., in connection with Glal. iii., he might have saved himself much ingenious labour ; for I know no Baptist who entertains the least doubt as to these par- ticulars. But what has all this to do with the question about positive institution, such as baptism is ? There is not a word about infant baptism in the Abrahamic covenant ; nor does the apostle, in all his reasoning upon it in Bom. iv. and GlaL iii,, give the least hint of infant baptism, either directly or indirectly ; the whole scope and design of his reasoning being to establish the doctrine of free justification by faith without circumcision or the works of the law. Though I am persuaded that Mr W. is a sincere friend of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, yet I am sorry to observe that, throughout his lectures on these two chapters, his main drift is quite foreign to that of Paul, it being to establish infant bap- tism, a point which the apostle had not at all in his view. No part of his argument supposes or implies it, nor does it appear to have entered into his thoughts ; nor indeed can we reasonably suppose that it did, as it is altogether a human invention, which, so far as it obtains, supersedes and makes void the commandment of Christ respecting the baptism of believers. Therefore, though Mr W. has an unquestioned title to understand the New Testament OW THE ABRAHAMIC COYEKANT. 7^ explanation of the Abrahamic covenant, and to found such arguments upon it as are clearly supported by that explanation, yet he has no title to found arguments for infant baptism on an explanation which has not the least reference to that subject, a subject which can have no foundation, but in positive institution. He gives the substance of his arguments from the Abrahamic covenant in the following three particulars : — "1, If it has been proved that the covenant made with Abraham, was the same in the substance of its import, with the New Covenant, being confirmed of Grod in Christ, then that covenant still exists. It could not be disannulled by the law which was four hundred and thirty years after it," p. 69. Ans. It has been shown, that though circumcision had a mystical import, as all typical institutions had, yet the covenant which was confirmed of Grod in Christ, recorded Gen. xii. 3, and repeated chap. xxii. 18, was not the covenant of circumcision, which included all Abraham's male seed without distinction, and also his slaves born in his house, or bought with his money ; but it was a gospel promise that helievers of all nations should be blessed in Christ, without regard to circumcision ; for so the apostle explains it, Gal. iii. 8, 9, Rom. iv, 9-13. It was therefore a promise of the new and everlasting covenant which was to be made long after those days, and ratified in the blood of Christ. " 2. I have," he says, " endeavoured to prove, from a variety of passages in the word of God, that the promises made to the Jewish fathers, had a primary respect to their natural offspring. The same thing, in my judgment, stiU continues. The same primary respect is still had in the promise, to the seed of believing parents," p. 70. Ans. It has been admitted, that the promises made to the Jewish fathers had a primary respect to their natural offspring. The temporal promises had a pecidiar respect 80 REVIEW OF DR WAEDLAW's LECTURES to them as a nation, as their whole history proves ; but the spiritual promises had a respect only to those of them who were of the election of grace. This is clear both from the doctrine of the New Testament on that subject, and from the facts relating to the accomplishment of these promises. By the promise Mr "W. chiefly means the spiritual promise, for he explains it as containing the spiritual blessings of justification, sanctification, and the inheritance, p. 70, 72. By the children to whom this promise has a primary respect, he intends the natural descendants of Gentile believers, as such, for to such only does his argument relate. So that he considers the fleshly offspring of Gentile believers, in their infancy, or without any regard to their faith, to be the seed of Abraham, to whom the spiritual promise has a primary, or, as he also terms it, a peculiar respect : And this peculiarity of respect he ex- plains by distinguishing it from God's rich and sovereign mercy, whereby he progressively enlarges his family, by bringing in sinners from the world, p. 72. This distinc- tion appears to me to imply, that the natural seed of Gentile believers are all born in covenant with God : That they never were of the world as others are, but were always the children of God and of his family ; and so have not the same need that others have of that rich and sovereign mercy which is exercised in bringing in uncove- nanted sinners from the world. I wish not, however, to impute such a sentiment to Mr W. ; for though the above distinction plainly imports it, yet it is possible that he was not aware of this. The children of believing parents have indeed many outward advantages which other children have not, at least to the same degi'ee. They have the pious example, the prayers, the particular care, and religious instruction of their parents, which the Lord often blesses to their conversion and salvation : But if they are by nature the children of wrath even as others, they are no more in OW THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 81 covenant with God, till they are born again, than the children of unbelievers are. And though it should be granted that the Lord more ordinarily selects a seed to serve him from among the former than from among the latter ; yet it affords not the least warrant for baptizing them in their infancy, or till they become the proper sub- jects of it by a profession of their faith in Christ, as the law of baptism expressly requires, and which, in this respect, differs essentially from the law of circumcision. He adds, " 3. I have endeavoured to prove, that the covenant made with Abraham is one, containing the promises of temporal, spiritual, and eternal blessings to one seed, viz,, the spiritual. I have endeavoured to prove that circum- cision was connected with this covenant, in this view of it, as a whole : — that this ordinance was the sign and seal of the promises of this covenant, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to all their believing seed — signifying or repre- senting to them all the same things, even the spiritual blessings of justification and sanctification, in connection with the coming of Messiah from the loins of Abraham," &c., p. 72. Ans. Poedobaptists, who have considered this subject, have been obliged to admit, that when all the promises made to Abraham first and last are collected into one covenant, they form a mixt covenant, including in it two future covenants or dispensations, as they term them ; that it contains two different kinds of promises, temporal and spiritual : and also two different kinds of seeds, the mere natural seed of Abraham, and his spiritual believing seed : And they are also obliged to admit, that circumcision, the token of this covenant, and the temporal promises of it, belonged in common to all the natural posterity of Abra- ham in the line of Jacob, while the spiritual promises respected only his spiritual seed by faith. But Mr W.,. not content with throwing all the promises into one cove- 82 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES nant, viz., that of circumcision, has endeavoured to prove that that covenant included only one seed, viz., the spiri- tual; that all its promises, both temporal and spiritual, were made only to that one seed; and that circumcision was connected with this mixt view of the covenant, as a whole, signifying to them all the same things, viz., the spiritual blessings of justification and sanctification, &c. To affirm that not only the spiritual and eternal, but also the temporal blessings were promised only to one seed, viz., the spiritual, is to deny that the greater part of Abra- ham's natural posterity had any interest in the temporal blessings. His proof for this is Gral. iii. 16, where the apostle is not speaking of temporal, but only of spiritual blessings, and of these as promised in the first place to Abraham's one seed, which is Christ, in whom all the spiritual seed inherit them ; for they are blessed in him. He connects circumcision with his view of the covenant as a whole, and considers it only as a sign or seal of spiritual blessings to Abraham and all his believing seed : But what did it seal to all the male infants of Abraham's seed, for whom it was expressly appointed, Gren. xvii. 10 ? Were they all, or even the greater part of them, Abraham's spiritual seed ? Did none of Abraham's seed inherit the promise of the laud of Canaan and its temporal blessings, but those of them who believed to the saving of the soul ? I have already shown that there were difi"erent covenants made with Abraham, as appears from the Mosaic history, from the apostle's speaking of them in the plural, Rom. ix. 4, Bph. ii. 12, and from the two very different cove- nants which sprung from them, viz., the old and the new. The first promise made to Abram, den, xii. 3, is termed " the COVENANT which was confirmed before of God in Christ," Gral. iii. 17, and contained a promise of blessing all nations, i. e., all Abraham's spiritual or believing seed of Jews and Gentiles. But the covenant of circumcision did not include the Gentiles, but was a peculiar covenant ON THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 83 with tlie natural posterity of Abraham, who were to receive the token of it in their flesh in infancy, as a people sepa- rated to Grod from all others, and of whom Messiah was to spring. Christian baptism, therefore, is not founded on the covenant of circumcision which was peculiar to the natural seed of Abraham ; but on that covenant which extends the blessing of Abraham to his spiritual seed of all nations : Accordingly, when that ancient covenant of promise came to be actually ratified in the blood of Christ, the peculiar covenant of circumcision with the fleshly seed of Abraham was set aside, and baptism was appointed to be administered to all, whether Jews or Grentiles, who appeared to be his spiritual seed by faith in Christ, but to none else. Mr W. remarks, " 1. That there is no absurdity in the thing itself — the administering an ordinance of spiritual import to chil- dren," p. 72. It is certain there can be no absurdity in any thing which the Lord appoints, whether we can see the reason and propriety of it or not. It was the command of God that every male infant of Abraham's seed should be cir- cumcised at eight days old. This constituted their right to it, and was the warrant for administering it to them ; and it was no part of the qualification, or description of its subjects, that they should understand its mystical im- port, nor was it suspended upon this : But the case is altogether dijfFerent with respect to baptism, which is appointed only for such as are first taught and believe the gospel, which is the same as to understand its import. Therefore to administer it to infants, is equally absurd as to affirm that infants believe, or are made disciples ; nay, it is worse, it is to alter and misapply that sacred institu- tion. He observes, " 2. That circumcision and baptism signify or repre~ sent the same things ; with this difference, that the former seems to have contained in its import, a notification of €4: EETIEW OF DE WAEDLAw'S LECTURES Messiah as to come, wliich, of course, at his coming, ceased to be necessary. And this, as I formerly observed, fur- nishes a good reason for the substitution of another rite in its place," p. 73. But if circumcision literally signified the same things as baptism does, I can see no reason for substituting baptism in its place ; for what is there in the nature of the rite of circumcision, or in cutting off the foreskin, which seems more fitly to notify Christ as to come, than as having alreacly come ? If it signified simply the shedding of the blood of Messiah, might it not represent this as well after as before his coming ? If, like baptism, it represented only the taking away of the guilt and pollution of sin by the blood and Spirit of Christ, or the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, how has the coming of Christ made it unfit to represent these things any longer ? The fact is, circumcision differs essentially from baptism in many im- portant respects ; and therefore seems altogether unfit to be continued under the gospel. To mention some of these differences : 1. Circumcision was appointed for all the male seed of Abraham without exception, and even for slaves, who were his property, by being born in his house, or bought with his money, Gren. xvii. 10-15. But baptism is appointed for none upon any such accounts, but for those only who believe, or appear personally to be the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus, Mark xvi, 16, Acts viii. 12, 36, 37, Gal. iii. 7, 9, 26, 27. 2. Circumcision belonged to a peculiar covenant with the natural posterity of Abraham. It was a token of that covenant in their flesh ; a mark of their national distinction and separation from aU other people ; and hence they are denominated the circumcision, Rom. iv. 9. But baptism belongs to the new covenant, which hath set aside the distinction of Jew and Grentile, and extends the spiritual blessing of Abraham to his spiritual seed of all nations, Mat. xxviii. 19, Rom. ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 85' iii. 29, 30, chap. x. 12, 13, Gal. iii. 13, 14. 3. Circum- cision was restricted to males, Gren. xvii. 10. But baptism is to be administered to all who believe, both men and women, Acts viii. 1 2, for male and female are all one in Christ, Gral. iii. 28. 4. Circumcision was annexed to the grant of the earthly inheritance, Gen. xvii. 8, and was a token of heirship or of interest in those temporal blessings which were promised to Abraham and his natural seed. But baptism has no respect to any thing of a secular or temporal nature, but represents or confirms to believers the spiritual, heavenly, and eternal blessings of the new covenant, answerable to the nature of Christ's kingdom, which is not of this world. 5. Circumcision laid the subjects of it under an obligation to conform to the whole system of Judaism as contained in the Mosaic law, Gal. V. 3, which left all those who sought to be justified by it under the curse, chap. iii. 10. But baptism represents the believer's freedom from that yoke of bondage, Col. ii. 12-15, his deliverance from the curse, and his justification by faith in Christ as the end of the law for righteousness ; while it engages him to die unto sin, and walk in newness of life, as being under law to Christ, Acts ii. 38, chap, xxii. 16, 1 Pet. iii. 21, Eom. vi. 3-15, Gal. iii. 27. Though circumcision had a secondary, hidden, or mystical sense, even as the earthly inheritance, and all the other types had, which were a shadow of good things to come ; yet its proper, literal, and direct sense was not the same with that of baptism ; for the apostle classes it with the latter, Rom. ii. 27, 29, and with the Jlesh, GaL iii. 3, chap. vi. 12, 13, with which baptism has no concern, but belongs entirely to the spirit, representing simply and directly the spiritual blessings of the new covenant as they are clearly revealed in the gospel. Those who afiirm that circumcision and baptism signify the same thing, may with equal propriety affirm, that because the paschal lamb typified Christ, therefore it signified the same thing to the I 86 REVIEW OF DE WAEDLAw's LECTURES Israelites that the Lord's Supper does to us, which is contrary to the express explanation of their different significations. See Exod. xii. 24-28, and 1 Cor. xi. 23, 27. Further, he says, *' 3. If the Ahrahamic covenant was confirmed before of God in Christ, and is the everlasting covenant, under which we at present are ; if circumcision, the sign and seal of this covenant of old, was administered hy Grod's command to the children of those who professed the faith of this covenant, I ask, where is any change in its consti- tution, in this respect, pointed out ? when were children excluded, and by what law ? While there is abundant evidence of a change as to the sign, there seems to be none of a change, either in the thing signified by it, or in the extent of its application," p. 73, 74. I have repeatedly shown, that the covenant which was confirmed of Grod in Christ four hundred and thirty years before the law, was not the covenant of circumcision — that the circumcision of infants was not a seal of the everlasting covenant under which we at present are ; but the token of a peculiar covenant with the fleshly seed of Abraham, which is now done away. As to the question, " Where is any change in its constitution, in this respect, pointed out ?" I answer, that though the original promise made to Abraham of blessing all nations in his seed, which is Christ, has undergone no change, but was fulfilled in the coming of the promised Seed; yet the covenant of circumcision, which included all Abraham's fleshly seed indiscriminately as such, is not merely changed in its constitution, but wholly set aside : and this is clearly pointed out, 1. By the abrogation of circumcision itself, which was the token of that covenant, and could not be dispensed with by any while that covenant stood, without breaking God's covenant, and being cut off from his people, Gen. xvii. 14, Exod. iv. 24-27 ; for circumcision and the covenant to which it belonged stood or fell ON THE ABKAHAMIC COVEKANT, 87 together. That baptism was substituted in the place of circumcision, as a seal of the same covenant, is a ground- less conjecture ; for, besides that the believing Jews were allowed to practise both for a considerable time, we no where find the apostles bringing it forward as an argument for setting aside circumcision, that baptism was substi- tuted in its place ; which doubtless they would have done in their disputes with the Jewish zealots, had they viewed it in that light. — 2. That the covenant of circumcision itself was set aside, is also evident from its promises. In that covenant (xod stipulated that he would be the God of Abraham's natural seed, and that he would give them the land of Canaan for an inheritance, Gen. xvii. 8. This he actually fulfilled to them as a nation, during the date of the typical economy. But now their peculiar national relation to God is dissolved, their title to the earthly pos- session vacated, and they have been long ago disinherited and cast out of that land : therefore the covenant itself, by which they were entitled to these peculiar privileges, must have come to an end. 3. As that covenant was made with Abraham's ^e^/i^y seed, so their carnal descent from Abraham, entitled them to the privileges of it : But under the gospel every claim upon that ground is rejected. Matt. iii. 9. The apostles knew, or esteemed, no man a subject of Christ's kingdom, according to his fleshly descent from Abraham, but as being a new creature, 1 Cor. V. 16, 17 ; and our Lord says, " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, John iii. 3. This shows that the covenant of circumcision with the fleshly seed of Abraham has no place under the new covenant J " For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love," or "a new creature," Galatians v. 6, chap. vi. 15. With respect to his other question, viz. " When were children excluded, and by what law ?" he should have 88 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES mentioned expressly from what it is that the Baptists hold them as excluded. Is it from an interest in the original promise made to Abraham of blessing all nations in his Seed ? This is far from being their sentiment : On the contrary, they believe that all elect infants are interested in that promise, whether they are the children of believing or unlielieving parents, and are baptized or unbaptized ; which is more than many Pcedobaptists will admit. Or does he mean, that the Baptists exclude children from an interest in the covenant of circumcision? This is only what the Pcedobaptists themselves do in eflfect ; for whilst they assert the entail of that covenant on their children, they administer circumcision to none of them, though it be the only token of that covenant which God hath appointed, and though the neglect of it is expressly declared to be the breaking of that covenant, and to cut them off from any interest in it, Gen. xvii. 14. There is ground to apprehend, that if the covenant of circumcision were still in force, many of those who now strenuously contend for it, would not choose to adhere to it as a whole, but would find out abundance of arguments for changing its painful and bloody rite into something more easy and delicate ; even as they have not scrupled to change baptism into sprinkling, though the temptation was not so strong. But I suppose Mr "W.'s question relates to baptism, and that he means to ask, " When were infants excluded from baptism, and by what law ?" To this it might be suflBcient to answer, that it is time enough, in all reason, to show when they were excluded from it, when it has first been proved from scripture that they were ever admitted to it, or that it was ever commanded to be administered to them. Yet it may further be observed, that if infants are not mentioned in the institution of baptism, or in the com- mission to baptize — if the characters by which its subjects are expressly described, will not apply to infants — and if, in the whole scripture account of its administration, we ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 89 find not a single instance of any infant being admitted to "baptism ; this amounts to a sufficient exclusion of them from that positive institution. To this I may add, that they are excluded by the law which forbids adding to, or diminishing from, the word of God, and teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. But what follows demands attention. " I now proceed," says he, " to call your attention a little to POSITIVE PROOF. I have said, that there does not seem to be any express evidence of a change, as to the extent of the application of the sign of the covenant ; let us now consider, whether there is not to be found, both in the prophecies which refer to New Testament times, and in the New Testament itself, direct evidence of the contrary ; that matters remain, in this respect, on their ancient footing," p. 75, Positive proof ! — direct evidence ! Of what ? That as to the extent of the application of the sign of the covenant, matters remain on their ancient footing. That is, all the infants of New Testament believers are to be baptized on the same footing on which all the male infants of ancient Israel were circumcised. If he can produce such proof and evidence of this as he here proposes, it will put an end to the controversy ; for I hope that the Baptists will not be so obstinate as to reject positive proof and direct evidence when it is laid before them. It is what they have been always calling for, but which no Poedobaptist has hitherto been able to produce, and many of them do not so much as pretend to do it. His first positive proof is from Jer. xxxii. 39, 40, " And I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them ; and I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good." Now, allowing his explanation of this promise (which in some particulars might be justly i2 90 RBVIE-W OP DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES disputed) we want positive proof that their children here mentioned signify their infant children ; for that is not the most ordinary sense of the word in Scripture, though it is the only sense that relates to the point in hand. Next, we want direct evidence, that the good promised to them and their children after them includes their baptism while infants ; or hefore they can give any evidence of their believing the gospel. To the same purpose he adduces Deut. xxx. 6, " The Lord thy Grod will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy Grod with all thine heart," &c. This he connects with the foregoing passage as referring to gospel times, and says, " It seems to contain an intimation, that the same connection should then continue between the people of God and their offspring, which had existed from the days of Abraham," p. 76. The connection which subsisted between Abraham and his natural seed, the nation of Israel, entitled them to the fleshly circumcision in infancy ; yet, notwithstanding this connection and circumcision, the greater part of them turned out to be " stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears," Acts vii. 51. And if christian baptism proceeds on the ground of the same connection, instead of a spiritual connection in the faith, there is little reason to expect that the subjects of it in general will turn out much better than the natural seed of believing Abraham did. Their being the natural seed of believers, is no proper criterion by which to distinguish the children of God from the world. The pious example and religious instruction of their parents may be blessed to the con- version of many of them, and so may the preaching of the gospel be blessed to the conversion of the children of unbelievers ; and when this appears, both of them ought to be baptized ; but this proceeds altogether upon a different gi'ound from the connection pleaded for. It is eaid that God hath promised to circumcise the heart of ON THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 91 the natural seed of believers. Be it so ; whenever this- appears to take place in any instance, no Baptist will- object to their baptism. But they cannot receive this as- positive proof, that all the natural seed of believers either are or will be circumcised in heart, or that ani/ of them ehould be baptized previous to the visible evidence that they are thus circumcised. Another passage which he brings forward as direct evidence, is Is-aiah Ixv. 23, " They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble ; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring luith them,^^ which he explains thus : " The seed of the blessed of the Lord, i. e., the spiritual s^eed of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And their offspring with them, i. e., connected with them in the promise of God's covenant, and partaking with them of his blessing," p. 77. If by Grod's covenant he means the new covenant, and that their offspring partake with them in its blessings, then he must consider them also as the spiritual seed. He does not, however, venture to afl&rm this universally, though the consistency of his argument requires it, but says, " The primary reference of the promise to the fleshly seed of believers, never implied the certain salvation of all their children." "Well then, let us suppose that this promise implies, that many of the children of believers, perhaps a greater proportion of them than of other children, shall certainly be saved ; what positive proof or direct evidence does this afford, that all of them, or indeed any of them, should be baptized in infancy ? Indeed, there does not appear to me, from all he has advanced, the least colour of proof for this. I have now followed Mr W. throughout his arguments for infant baptism, drawn from the covenant of circumci- sion and other passages of the Old Testament, which seem to be his main fort. * He next proceeds to consider the * See Appendix, Note B. SSf REVIEW^ OF DE WARDLAw'S LECTURES evidence that appears in the New, But first he cautions us against imagining that the New Testament is so clear and express upon this subject as to be properly understood, unless we keep in view what he has advanced from the Old. His words are, " It appears to be of the last importance, in interpreting the New Testament, that we should understand and attend carefully to the state of things previous to it. The reason is obvious. The language of the New Testament, we should naturally expect to be, in some measure, modified by these existing circumstances; and the import of a variety of the expressions employed, we shall be unable rightly to appreciate, without taking into view a reference to what already existed, and was known ; and the existence and knowledge of which rendered greater enlargement and minuteness unnecessary. Bearing this remark in mind, along with the preceding passages of the Old Testament which relate to gospel times, let us consider a little the evidence that appears in the New," p. 78. There are, indeed, many references and allusions in the New Testament to the state of things under the Old ; but it seldom refers us to the Old Testament as a key to its own meaning. Both Testaments mutually throw light on each other, but not to an equal degree.- The Old Testament revelation is compared to a light shining in a dark place, and is represented as veiled in a great measure under figures and shadows ;; while the New Testament revelation is held forth without a veil in great plainness of speech, and is represented as greatly excelling the former in point of light and clearness, with respect to every thing which relates to the faith and duty of christians ; nay, it is the very explanation of the Old Testament, by which its spirit and mystical sense is laid open. But Mr W. seems to reverse this. He thinks that it is of the last importance, in interpreting the New Testament, that we should under- stand and attend carefully to the state of things previous Olf THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 9S to it ; because, he imagines, the New Testament does not enlarge on things with such minuteness as to make them sufficiently understood, but refers us to the Old Testament for an explanation of its sense, without which we should be unable rightly to appreciate the import of its expressions. If he means to apply this remark to the New Testament in general, he must view it as being, by itself, a very imperfect revelation ; but if he means it only of certain expressions, or of some allusions and references to the previous state of things under the Jewish economy, how comes he to introduce such a remark on the subject of baptism, and to represent it as of the last importance in interpreting the doctrine of the New Testament on that head ? Do we ever find either Christ or his apostles referring us to the Old Testament for an explanation of that ordinance ? Indeed, it would be very strange if they did, as there is no such thing to be found there. As to the prophetic passages which relate to gospel times, these are best explained by the New Testament itself, and by the scripture historical facts in which they began to be accomplished. We have no occasion, therefore, to bear his remark in mind when consulting the New Testament as to the proper subjects of baptism. I am persuaded that if Mr W. could have found the baptism of infants either com- manded or exemplified in all the New Testament, he would have spared this remark ; nay, I am confident that, on any other subject but this, he would not difi"er much from me as to the superior clearness of the New Testament revelation. If we enter upon the consideration of the New Testament evidence on this head, with a preconceived opinion, that though infant baptism be not mentioned there, yet it must certainly be implied, that very opinion, while it preoccupies the mind, disqualifies us for judging of the evidence ; for, in that case, we do not consult the New Testament with a view to be determined by it, or to rest in its decision, but to confirm the opinion which we have already adoptedL 94 REVIEW or DE ■WARDLAW'^S LECTURES So Mr W. having formed his opinion upon what he conceives to have been the state of things under the Old Testament, particularly with respect to the covenant of circumcision, and the connection of the children with their parents in the national blessings of that covenant, he transfers these ideas into the New Testament state of things, and explains the passages relating to baptism accordingly ; nay, he even explains them by the ideas to which the Jews had been previously habituated. Thus on Acts ii. 38, 39, he says, " Peter addressed Jews. Their minds were habituated to the idea of the connection of their children with them- selves, in the promise of the covenant. It was an idea deeply rooted in their hearts. How, then, would they understand the apostle'^s words ? Certainly, in a sense consistent with their previous views, as intimating the continuance of the same connection," p. 81. According to this^ the apostle, it seems, gave them no new information on this subject^ but only confirmed them in their former opinion, Mr W. therefore must suppose^ that when Peter says, the promise of the Spirit is " even to as many as the Lord our God shall call," he thought it supei*fluous to add, together with their infant children, because the Jews needed no such information. And when Luke saySy " Then they that gladly received his (Peter's) word were baptized," verse 41, he thought it needless to add, with their infants, for the same reason. So likewise when he informs us^ that when the Samaritans believed Philip, " they were baptized both men and women," Acta viii. 12, he had no occasion to mention the baptism of their infant children j because, it seems, that was a thing of course, and always to be taken for granted. Thus he may easily assign a reason why the baptism of infants i& never once mentioned in aU the New Testament, by sup- posing it to be previously so well understood, especially by the Jews, that there was no occasion to take any notice of ON" THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 95 it ; tliougli, I own, he may have some difficulty in applying this reasoning to Gentile converts, as the greater part of them had no previous knowledge of Jewish principles. The whole of his reasoning from the state of things under the Jewish constitution, from Scripture prophecies relating to gospel times, and from the previous opinions of the Jews (by all which he would have us to interpret the plain passages in the New Testament on this subject, and supply their deficiencies,) is so far from amounting to positive proof, or direct evidence, that it does not appear to me to carry any evidence at all in it of what he wishes to establish. I am of opinion, that by the same kind of reasoning, it might with ec[ual plausibility be proved, that the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of this world. It might be argued, that though the kingdom of ancient Israel was a worldly kingdom, including their carnal seed, it was the kingdom of Glod : that the prophecies relating to the kingdom of Messiah frequently represent it as a worldly monarchy, like the kingdom of Israel under the reigns of David and Solomon : that the Jews in general interpreted these prophecies of a worldly kingdom ; their minds were habituated to this idea, and it was an idea deeply rooted in their hearts : they must therefore have understood John the Baptist, or Christ and his apostles, when preaching that kingdom, in a sense consistent with their previous views, as intimating a continuance of the same worldly kingdom as formerly, but now to be restored to Israel, and raised to a higher pitch of worldly power and prosperity than ever. Now, if what Mr "W. has stated proves that the connection of parents and children has the same place in the kingdom of Christ, that it had in the worldly kingdom of the Jews ; then what I have just now stated will also prove, that the kingdom of Christ is of a worldly nature ; for such was the opinion the Jews had of it, and such it must be in reality, if it includes all the natural seed of 96 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES believers. It may "be said, that Christ expressly declares, " My kingdom is not of this world — now is my kingdom not from hence." True, but he has as expressly described his subjects : " Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice," John xviii. 36, 37. And if men can get rid of this description of his subjects by reasoning from the covenant with the natural posterity of believing Abraham, they may also get rid of the account he gives of his kingdom, by arguments di'awn from the worldly kingdom of Israel. Nor is this an ideal supposition ; it has been sufficiently verified in the history of what is called the Christian church. It has been said by Independent Poedobaptists, that though they baptize the children of believers, yet they admit none of them into church communion but upon a profession of their faith : but this only shows their inconsistency; for, according to the Scriptures, none have a right to baptism who do not previously profess the faith, and are not fit to be the same day added to a cliristian church, and to continue in the breaking of bread. Acts ii. 41-43. Having made some remarks on Mr W.'s key for interpreting the New Testament on the subject of baptism, I think it needless to follow him in his use of that key in explaining the difierent passages; and the rather, as I have repeatedly handled these passages elsewhere. * I shall therefore conclude with a few short remarks on what remains. He blames the Baptists for totally disannulling the connection between parents and their children. By this he cannot intend their natural connection, or the duties arising from it. He must therefore mean a supernatural or spiritual connection. But what spiritual connection ha,ve children with their believing parents, if they are not elect or believing children ? And if they are, wherein does their spiritual connection with their parents difi'er * See M'Lean's Works, vol. i. and ii. ON" THE ABRAHAMIC COVEKANT. 85 iii. 29, 30, chap, x. 12, 13, Gal. iii. 13, 14. 3. Circum- cision was restricted to males, Gren. xvii. 10. But baptism is to be administered to all who believe, both men and women. Acts viii. 12, for male and female are all one in Christ, G-al. iii. 28. 4. Circumcision was annexed to the grant of the earthly inheritance. Gen. xvii. 8, and was a token of heirship or of interest in those temporal blessings which were promised to Abraham and his natural seed. But baptism has no respect to any thing of a secular or temporal nature, but represents or confirms to believers the spiritual, heavenly, and eternal blessings of the new covenant, answerable to the nature of Christ's kingdom, which is not of this world. 5. Circumcision laid the subjects of it under an obligation to conform to the whole system of Judaism as contained in the Mosaic law. Gal. v. 3, which left all those who sought to be justified by it under the curse, chap. iii. 10. But baptism represents the believer's freedom from that yoke of bondage. Col. ii. 12-15, his deliverance from the curse, and his justification by faith in Christ as the end of the law for righteousness ; while it engages him to die unto sin, and walk in newness of life, as being under law to Christ, Acts ii. 38, chap, xxii. 16, 1 Pet. iii. 21, Rom. vi. 3-15, Gal. iii. 27. Though circumcision had a secondary, hidden, or mystical sense, even as the earthly inheritance, and all the other types had, which were a shadow of good things to come ; yet its proper, literal, and direct sense was not the same with that of baptism ; for the apostle classes it with the latter, Rom. ii. 27, 29, and with the jlcsh, Gal. iii. 3, chap. vi. 12, 13, with which baptism has no concern, but belongs entirely to the spirit, representing simply and directly the spiritual blessings of the new covenant as they are clearly revealed in the gospel. Those who affirm that circumcision and baptism signify the same thing, may with equal propriety affirm, that because the paschal lamb typified Christ, therefore it signified the same thing to the I 86 REVIEW OF DR WAEDLAw's LECTURES Israelites that the Lord's Supper does to us, which is contrary to the express explanation of their different significations. See Bxod. xii. 24-28, and 1 Cor. xi. 23, 27. Further, he says, " 3. If the Abrahamic covenant was confirmed before of Grod in Christ, and is the everlasting covenant, under which we at present are; if circumcision, the sign and seal of this covenant of old, was administered by God's command to the children of those who professed the faith of this covenant, I ask, where is any change in its consti- tution, in this respect, pointed out ? when were children excluded, and by what law ? While there is abundant evidence of a change as to the sign, there seems to be none of a change, either in the thing signified by it, or in the extent of its application," p. 73, 74. I have repeatedly shown, that the covenant which was confirmed of Grod in Christ four hundred and thirty years before the law, was not the covenant of circumcision — that the circumcision of infants was not a seal of the everlasting covenant under which we at present are ; but the token of a peculiar covenant with the fleshly seed of Abraham, which is now done away. As to the question, " Where is any change in its constitution, in this respect, pointed out ?" I answer, that though the original promise made to Abraham of blessing all nations in his seed, which is Christ, has undergone no change, but was fulfilled in the coming of the promised Seed ; yet the covenant of circumcision, which included all Abraham's fleshly seed indiscriminately as such, is not merely changed in its constitution, but wholly set aside : and this is clearly pointed out, 1. By the abrogation of circumcision itself, which was the token of that covenant, and could not be dispensed with by any while that covenant stood, without breaking God's covenant, and being cut off from his people, Gen. xvii. 14, Exod. iv. 24-27 ; for circumcision and the covenant to which it belonged stood or fell ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 87 together. That baptism was substituted in the place of circumcision, as a seal of the same covenant, is a ground- less conjecture ; for, besides that the believing Jews were allowed to practise both for a considerable time, we no where find the apostles bringing it forward as an argument for setting aside circumcision, that baptism was substi- tuted in its place ; which doubtless they would have done in their disputes with the Jewish zealots, had they viewed it in that light. — 2. That the covenant of circumcision itself was set aside, is also evident from its promises. In that covenant Grod stipulated that he would be the Grod of Abraham's natural seed, and that he would give them the land of Canaan for an inheritance, Gren. xvii. 8. This he actually fulfilled to them as a nation, during the date of the typical economy. But now their peculiar national relation to God is dissolved, their title to the earthly pos- session vacated, and they have been long ago disinherited and cast out of that land : therefore the covenant itself, by which they were entitled to these peculiar privileges, must have come to an end. 3. As that covenant was made with Abraham's ^es/t^y seed, so their carnal descent from Abraham, entitled them to the privileges of it : But under the gospel every claim upon that ground is rejected. Matt. iii. 9. The apostles knew, or esteemed, no man a subject of Christ's kingdom, according to his fleshly descent from Abraham, but as being a new creature, 1 Cox-. V. 16, 17 ; and our Lord says, " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, John iii. 3. This shows that the covenant of circumcision with the fleshly seed of Abraham has no place under the new covenant; " For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love," or " a new creature," Galatians v. 6, chap. vi. 15. With respect to his other question, viz. " When were children excluded, and by what law ?" he should have 88 REVIEW OF BR WARDLAW's LECTURES mentioned expressly from what it is that the Baptists hold them as excluded. Is it from an interest in the original promise made to Abraham of blessing all nations in his Seed ? This is far from being their sentiment : On the contrary, they believe that all elect infants are interested in that promise, whether they are the children of believing or unbelieving parents, and are baptized or unbaptized ; which is more than many Poedobaptists will admit. Or does he mean, that the Baptists exclude children from an interest in the covenant of circumcision? This is only what the Poedobaptists themselves do in effect ; for whilst they assert the entail of that covenant on their children, they administer circumcision to none of them, though it be the only token of that covenant which Grod hath appointed, and though the neglect of it is expressly declared to be the breaking of that covenant, and to cut them off from any interest in it. Gen. xvii. 14. There is ground to apprehend, that if the covenant of circumcision were still in force, many of those who now strenuously contend for it, would not choose to adhere to it as a ivhole, but would find out abundance of arguments for changing its painful and bloody rite into something more easy and delicate ; even as they have not scrupled to change baptism into sprinkling, though the temptation was not so strong. But I suppose Mr W.'s question relates to baptism, and that he means to ask, " When were infants excluded from baptism, and by what law ?" To this it might be sufficient to answer, that it is time enough, in all reason, to show tvhen they were excluded from it, when it has first been proved from scripture that they were ever admitted to it, or that it was ever commanded to be administered to them. Yet it may further be observed, that if infants are not mentioned in the institution of baptism, or in the com- mission to baptize — if the characters by which its subjects are expressly described, will not apply to infants — and if, in the whole scripture account of its administration, we ON THE ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 89 find not a single instance of any infant being admitted to baptism ; this amounts to a sufficient exclusion of them from that positive institution. To this I may add, that they are excluded by the law which forbids adding to, or diminishing from, the word of Grod, and teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. But what follows demands attention. *' I now proceed," says he, " to call your attention a little to POSITIVE PROOF. I have said, that there does not seem to be any express evidence of a change, as to the extent of the application of the sign of the covenant ; let us now consider, whether there is not to be found, both in the prophecies which refer to New Testament times, and in the New Testament itself, direct evidence of the contrary ; that matters remain, in this respect, on their ancient footing," p. 75. Positive proof ! — direct evidence ! Of what ? That as to the extent of the application of the sign of the covenant, matters remain on their ancient footing. That is, all the infants of New Testament believers are to be baptized on the same footing on which all the male infants of ancient Israel were circumcised. If he can produce such proof and evidence of this as he here proposes, it wiU put an end to the controversy ; for I hope that the Baptists will not be so obstinate as to reject positive proof and direct evidence when it is laid before them. It is what they have been always calling for, but which no Poedobaptist has hitherto been able to produce, and many of them do not so much as pretend to do it. His first positive proof is from Jer. xxxii. 39, 40, *' And I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them ; and I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good." Now, allowing his explanation of this promise (which in some particulars might be justly i2 90 REVIEW or DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES disputed) we want positive proof that their children here mentioned signify their infant children ; for that is not the most ordinary sense of the word in Scripture, though it is the only sense that relates to the point in hand. Next, we want direct evidence, that the good promised to them and their children after them includes their baptism while infants ; or before they can give any evidence of their believing the gospel. To the same purpose he adduces Deut. xxx. 6, " The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy Grod with all thine heart," &c. This he connects with the foregoing passage as referring to gospel times, and says, " It seems to contain an intimation, that the same connection should then continue between the people of (xod and their offspring, which had existed from the days of Abraham," p. 76. The connection which subsisted between Abraham and his natural seed, the nation of Israel, entitled them to the fleshly circumcision in infancy ; yet, notwithstanding this connection and circumcision, the greater part of them turned out to be " stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears," Acts vii. 5L And if christian baptism proceeds on the ground of the same co7inection, instead of a spiritual connection in the faith, there is little reason to expect that the subjects of it in general will turn out much better than the natural seed of believing Abraham did. Their being the natural seed of believers, is no proper criterion by which to distinguish the children of God from the world. The pious example and religious instruction of their parents may be blessed to the con- version of many of them, and so may the preaching of the gospel be blessed to the conversion of the children of unbelievers ; and when this appears, both of them ought to be baptized ; but this proceeds altogether upon a different ground from the connection pleaded for. It is said that God hath promised to circumcise the heart of ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 91 the natural seed of "believers. Be it so ; whenever this appears to take place in any instance, no Baptist will object to their baptism. But they cannot receive this aa positive proof, that all the natural seed of believers either are or will be circumcised in heart, or that ani/ of them should be baptized previous to the visible evidence that they are thus circumcised. Another passage which he brings forward as direct evidence, is Isaiah Ixv. 23, " They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble ; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with thtm^'' which he explains thus : " The seed of the blessed of the Lord, i. e., the spiritucd seed of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And their offspring with them, i. e., connected with them in the promise of Grod's covenant, and partaking with them of his blessing," p. 77. If by Grod's covenant he means the new covenant, and that their offspring partake with them in its blessings, then he must consider them also as the spiritual seed. He does not, however, venture to affirm this universally, though the consistency of his argument requires it, but says, " The primary reference of the promise to the fleshly seed of believers, never implied the certain salvation of all their children" "Well then, let us suppose that this promise implies, that many of the children of believers, perhaps a greater proportion of them than of other children, shall certainly be saved ; what positive proof or direct evidence does this afford, that all of them, or indeed any of them, should be baptized in infancy ? Indeed, there does not appear to me, from all he has advanced, the least colour of proof for this. I have now followed Mr W. throughout his arguments for infant baptism, drawn from the covenant of circumci- sion and other passages of the Old Testament, which seem to be his main fort. * He next proceeds to consider the * See Appendix, Note B. 92 REVIEW OF DR "WARDLAW's LECTURES evidence that appears in tlie New. But first lie cautions us against imagining that the New Testament is so clear and express upon this subject as to be properly understood, unless we keep in view what he has advanced from the Old. His words are, " It appears to be of the last importance, in interpreting the New Testament, that we should understand and attend carefully to the state of things previous to it. The reason is obvious. The language of the New Testament, we should naturally expect to be, in some measure, modified by these existing circumstances; and the import of a variety of the expressions employed, we shall be unable rightly to appreciate, without taking into view a reference to what already existed, and was known ; and the existence and knowledge of which rendered greater enlargement and minuteness unnecessary. Bearing this remark in mind, along with the preceding passages of the Old Testament which relate to gospel times, let us consider a little the evidence that appears in the New," p. 78. There are, indeed, many references and alltisions in the New Testament to the state of things under the Old ; but it seldom refers us to the Old Testament as a key to its own meaning. Both Testaments mutually throw light on each other, but not to an equal degree. The Old Testament revelation is compared to a light shining in a dark place, and is represented as veiled in a great measure under figures and shadows ; while the New Testament revelation is held forth without a veil in great plainness of speech, and is represented as greatly excelling the former in point of light and clearness, with respect to every thing which relates to the faith and duty of christians ; nay, it is the very explanation of the Old Testament, by which its spirit and mystical sense is laid open. But Mr W. seems to reverse this. He thinks that it is of the last importance, in interpreting the New Testament, that we should under- stand and attend carefully to the state of things previous ON THE ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 93 to it ; because, he imagines, the New Testament does not enlarge on things with such minuteness as to make them sufficiently understood, but refers us to the Old Testament for an explanation of its sense, without which we should be unable rightly to appreciate the import of its expressions. If he means to apply this remark to the New Testament in general, he must view it as being, by itself, a very imperfect revelation ; but if he means it only of certain expressions, or of some allusions and references to the previous state of things under the Jewish economy, how comes he to introduce such a remark on the subject of baptism, and to represent it as of the last importance in interpreting the doctrine of the New Testament on that head ? Do we ever find either Christ or his apostles referring us to the Old Testament for an explanation of that ordinance ? Indeed, it would be very strange if they did, as there is no such thing to be found there. As to the prophetic passages which relate to gospel times, these are best explained by the New Testament itself, and by the scripture historical facts in which they began to be accomplished. We have no occasion, therefore, to bear his remark in mind when consulting the New Testament as to the proper subjects of baptism. I am persuaded that if Mr W. could have found the baptism of infants either com- manded or exemplified in all the New Testament, he would have spared this remark ; nay, I am confident that, on any other subject but this, he would not diflfer much from me as to the superior clearness of the New Testament revelation. If we enter upon the consideration of the New Testament evidence on this head, with a preconceived opinion, that though infant baptism be not mentioned there, yet it must certainly be implied, that very opinion, while it preoccupies- the mind, disqualifies us for judging of the evidence ; for, in that case, we do not consult the New Testament with a view to be determined by it, or to rest in its decision, but to confirm the opinion which we have already adopted. 94 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAW's LECTURES So Mr W. having formed his opinion upon what he conceives to have been the state of things under the Old Testament, particularly with respect to the covenant of circumcision, and the connection of the children with their parents in the national blessings of that covenant, he transfers these ideas into the New Testament state of things, and explains the passages relating to baptism accordingly ; nay, he even explains them by the ideas to which the Jews had been previously habituated. Thus on Acts ii. 38, 39, he says, " Peter addressed Jews, Their minds were habituated to the idea of the connection of their children with them- selves, in the promise of the covenant. It was an idea deeply rooted in their hearts. How, then, would they understand the apostle's words ? Certainly, in a sense consistent with their previous views, as intimating the continuance of the same connection," p. 81. According to this, the apostle, it seems, gave them no new information on this subject, but only confirmed them in their former opinion. Mr W. therefore must suppose, that when Peter says, the promise of the Spirit is " even to as many as the Lord our God shall call," he thought it superfluous to add, together with their infant children, because the Jews needed no such information. And when Luke says, " Then they that gladly received his (Peter's) word were baptized," verse 41, he thought it needless to add, with their infants, for the same reason. So likewise when he informs us, that when the Samaritans believed Philip, " they were baptized both men and women," Acts viii. 12, he had no occasion to mention the baptism of their infant children ; because, it seems, that was a thing of course, and always to be taken for granted. Thus he may easily assign a reason why the baptism of infants is never once mentioned in all the New Testament, by sup- posing it to be previously so well understood, especially by the Jews, that there was no occasion to take any notice of ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENAKT. 95 it ; though, I own, he may have some difficulty in applying this reasoning to Gentile converts, as the greater part of them had no previous knowledge of Jewish principles. The whole of his reasoning from the state of things under the Jewish constitution, from Scripture prophecies relating to gospel times, and from the previous opinions of the Jews (by all which he would have us to interpret the plain passages in the New Testament on this subject, and supply their deficiencies,) is so far from amounting to positive proof, or direct evidence, that it does not appear to me to carry any evidence at all in it of what he wishes to establish. I am of opinion, that by the same kind of reasoning, it might with equal plausibility be proved, that the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of this world. It might be argued, that though the kingdom of ancient Israel was a worldly kingdom, including their carnal seed, it was the kingdom of Grod : that the prophecies relating to the kingdom of Messiah frequently represent it as a worldly monarchy, like the kingdom of Israel under the reigns of David and Solomon : that the Jews in general interpreted these prophecies of a worldly kingdom ; their minds were habituated to this idea, and it was an idea deeply rooted in their hearts : they must therefore have understood John the Baptist, or Christ and his apostles, when preaching that kingdom, in a sense consistent with their previous views, as intimating a continuance of the same worldly kingdom as formerly, but now to be restored to Israel, and raised to a higher pitch of worldly power and prosperity than ever. Now, if what Mr W. has stated proves that the connection of parents and children has the same place in the kingdom of Christ, that it had in the worldly kingdom of the Jews ; then what I have just now stated will also prove, that the kingdom of Christ is of a worldly nature ; for such was the opinion the Jews had of it, and such it must be in reality, if it includes all the natural seed of 9S EEVIEW OP DE WARDLAW'S LECTURES believers. It may be said, that Christ expressly declares, " My kingdom is not of this world — now is my kingdom not from hence." True, but he has as expressly described his subjects : *' Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice," John xviii. 36, 37. And if men can get rid of this description of his subjects by reasoning from the covenant with the natural posterity of believing Abraham, they may also get rid of the account he gives of his kingdom, by arguments drawn from the worldly kingdom of Israel. Nor is this an ideal supposition ; it has been sufficiently verified in the history of what is called the Christian church. It has been said by Independent Poedobaptists, that though they baptize the children of believers, yet they admit none of them into church communion but upon a profession of their faith : but this only shows their inconsistency; for, according to the Scriptures, none have a right to baptism who do not previously profess the faith, and are not fit to be the same day added to a christian church, and to continue in the breaking of bread. Acts ii. 41-43. Having made some remarks on Mr W.'s key for interpreting the New Testament on the subject of baptism, I think it needless to follow him in his use of that key in explaining the different passages; and the rather, as I have repeatedly handled these passages elsewhere. * I shall therefore conclude with a few short remarks on what remains. He blames the Baptists for totally disannulling the connection between parents and their children. By this he cannot intend their natural connection, or the duties arising from it. He must therefore mean a supernatural or spiritual connection. But what spiritual connection have children with their believing parents, if they are not elect or believing children ? And if they are, wherein does their spiritual connection with their parents differ * See M'Lean's Works, vol. i. and ii. ON THE ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 97 from that which subsists between the whole elect of Grod, who are all connected with each other by virtue of their union with Christ, their common head ? If he means any other spiritual connection besides this, it must be some- thing peculiar to the natural relation, which, unless it be the benefit of parental instruction, I confess I do not understand. It is a fact which cannot be denied, that when Grod at first visited the nations to take out of them a people for his name, the children of unbelieving idolaters were saved through faith in Christ, whilst the children of believing Abraham were rejected through unbelief. I cannot thei'efore see that the children of believers are saved in any other way, or upon any other ground, than the children of unbelievers are ; or that they have any hereditary right to salvation, by virtue of their connection with believing parents, more than other children have. It appears to me, that they must be saved entirely of sovereign free grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, and that upon the same footing with others ; and I am of opinion, that to instil other sentiments into their minds, must have a very pernicious efi"ect, so far as they put any confidence in them. As to the instances of baptizing households, he does not find himself at all concerned about proving to a certainty, that there were infant children in any of the families referred to ; though he endeavours in a large note to establish that point as much as he can, p. 84-87, which shows, at least, some concern about it. For my own part, I never absolutely denied that there might be infants in these houses. The argument does not hinge upon this, but upon the accounts given of all those who were baptized, as being altogether inapplicable to mere infants. But Mr W. places the strength of his argument from these houses, in the connection which existed between parents and children in the Jewish church ; in Gentile proselytes being received into that church hy families or households ; and 98 REVIEW OP DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES in some expressions in the New Testament which he . imagines exactly correspond to the Old Testament state of things, such as those in Luke xix. 9, Acts xvi. 15, 31, 33, 1 Cor. i. 16. So that he explains these passages, not by the doctrine of the New Testament, or the history of facts recorded there, but by "connecting them with previous circumstances and prevalent ideas,^^ which, he thinks, rendered it needless to be very minute in specifying particulars, p. 84. This manner of reasoning, I think, after what I have already said, renders it equally needless for me to make any further reply. Only I would ask, whether Mr W. receives proselytes into the full communion of his church &y families or households as the Jews did, and upon the same grounds ? He thinks " that baptism is denominated by the apostle, in Col. ii. 11, 12, the circumcision of Christ — because otherwise, there is an awkward unmeaning tautology ; the circumcision made without hands, and the circumcision of Christ being made of the same import ; as if he had said — ye are circumcised with the circumcision of the heart, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of the heart," &c., p. 87, 88. In this method he might convert many hundred passages of Scripture into what he calls awkward and unmeaning tautologies. But would it not be a more decent treatment of the passage, as well as more agreeable to the sense, to understand the apostle as saying, that they were circumcised without hands, by the spiritual circumcision of Christ, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh ? Nothing can be plainer than that the circumcision made without hands is here termed the circuincision of Christ. But the ordinance of baptism is not administered without hands, nor does it put off the body of the sins of the flesh, though it is the sign of it. Mr "VV.'s design in explaining this passage of baptism, is to show, that baptism is substituted in the place of circumcision. I have no ox THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 99 objection to the sentiment, tlaat these two ordinances bear some general analogy to each other, if it is stated thus, That as, under the Old Testament, circumcision belonged to all the natural seed of Abraham, who were known to be such in infancy by their fleshly birth ; so, under the New Testament, baptism belongs to all the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ, who are known to be such by their profession of that faith. His last argument is from church history : — " To this connected chain of particulars I now add, as being, to my own mind, an invincible confirmation of the matter of fact, that infant baptism was practised in the time of the apostles ; the account we have in the history of the church of the prevalence of this practice in the times immediately following." And he cites Mr Walkers words, that " we have decisive historical proof, that little more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles, poedobaptism was of general 'practice in all the churches," p. 90, 91. Some of the apostles lived at least till the year of Christ 97, so that " a little more than a hundred years after that" brings it down to the latter end of the second century or beginning of the third, at which time it is admitted that we have the first express mention of infant baptism by TertuUian, though not in the way of approbation. But this was not the time immediately following the apostles' days ; and to afiirm, that, at that time, it was of general practice in all the churches, is not only a gratuitous assertion, but contrary to plain historical facts. That infant baptism was practised by some about the end of the second century, appears from Tertullian's opposition to it ; but had it been of general practice in all the churches, what occasion was there for Cyprian and sixty-six bishops to meet, about the middle of the third century, to give it the sanction of a council ? We have evidence that it was not universally practised even in the fourth and fifth 100 EEVIEW OF DE WAEDLAW's LECTURES centuries ; Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, Grregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, &c., though all born of christian parents, were not baptized till they arrived at an adult state. And, from such instances, we may justly presume that there were many more who were not baptized in infancy, though sprung from christian parents. It is said, that unless infant baptism had been practised from the beginning, it could not afterwards have been introduced without opposition or noise. We find that Tertullian opposed it, and it also appears that Boniface, bishop of Thessalonica, in his letter to Augustine, seems to be far from approving either of infant baptism or the business of sponsors. But granting that we had no account of any opposition being made to it, it does not follow that it must have been practised from the beginning. The communion of infants in the Lord's Supper was as early introduced, and as extensively practised for six hundred years, as their baptism was, and, I may add, with as much reason ; yet we read of no opposition made to it ; was it thereforc practised from the beginning ? Many superstitious inventions began very early to creep into the church, and many more were afterwards added both by the Grreek and Roman churches ; but must every one of them, to whose introduction we read of no opposition, be considered as of divine institution? He says, "There are allusions to infant baptism previous to the time" of Tertullian, p. 93. But no man can show, with any certainty, that the figurative expressions of Iren^eus, or of Clemens of Alexandria, have the least allusion to infant baptism. I shall only add, that some of the most learned Poedobaptist writers, and who were well acquainted with church history, have given it as their firm opinion, that the two first centuries either knew nothing at all, or very little, of infant baptism, and that Tertullian is the first that mentions it. * * Mr Booth has collected a number of quotations to this ON THE ABRAHAillC COVENANT. 101 Before I conclude, I cannot help remarking, that though Mr W., in order to establish infant baptism, leads us back to the XTii. of Genesis, and carries us down through the state of things under the Old Testament, by the help of which he endeavours to explain some passages in the New ; yet throughout the whole of his connected chain of parti- culars, he never takes the least notice of Christ's commission to his apostles on this subject, excepting once that he barely mentions it. Whether it was that it did not occur to him, or that he thought it was not to his purpose, I will not take it upon me to say ; but one would naturally think, that, on the subject of baptism, it could scarcely escape him. He indeed says, " I have left unnoticed a number of the smaller branches of the argument." But surely he cannot rank the Commission among these, as it is the very law and rule of that ordinance. I hope that, should he ever write upon the subject again, he will take this law of the institution under his consideration, and explain it (if he thinks it needs explanation) not by the Old Testament, but by the doctrine and practice of the inspired apostles to whom it was immediately delivered, and who were made able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit. I am persuaded that, in this method, he would find more satisfaction to his own mind than in all the circuitous arguments he has advanced, to prove what is no where mentioned in all the word of Ood. As to what he says in his Appendix respecting what is called the mode of baptism, I need make no reply, as I have sufficiently handled that point elsewhere ; and especially, as I find nothing in his Appendix that in the least invalidates what I have advanced. He thinks that, while the Scriptures seem to place the import of the ordinance in the nature of the element employed ; it is purpose from Pcedobaptist "writers in his Pcedobaptism Examined. Vol. ii. chap. ii. k2 102 REVIEW OF DR WARDLAw'S LECTURES by the Baptists placed principally, and by some of them indeed, almost exclusively, in the mode in whicli the element is used, p. 127. But this is a mistake ; for the Baptists do not place the import of the ordinance, either principally or exclusively, nor indeed at all, in the mode in which the element is used ; but in the spiritual thing signified by that mode of applying water which Christ hath expressly enjoined, viz., baptizing or immersing disciples in it ; and which therefore cannot be altered, without altering his institution. They lay no greater stress on the mode of baptizing than they do on the mode of receiving the Lord's Supper, which I am persuaded Mr W. would not consider as properly received without eating and drinking ; nay, I am confident that he would not look upon it as received at all without this. Some affirm that baptism may be administered either by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, these being only different modes of the same ordinance ; but where do we find, in all the word of God, any solemn positive institution left so vague as this as to its mode ? Immersion is not a mode of baptism, but the very thing itself. Pouring or sprinkling are words never used in Scripture in relation to baptism. The generality of Poedobaptists, who have considered this subject, freely admit, that immersion was the primitive manner of administering this ordinance ; and that it was what our Lord enjoined, and what his apostles practised. Mr W. thinks he has an inviolable confirmation of infant baptism, as a matter of fact, from church history. Let xis see then what account it gives of immersion and sprinkling. Some time after the death of the apostles, when baptism came to be considered as absolutely necessary to salvation, the sick who were desirous of baptism, that they might not die without it, were indulged with sprinkling on their beds instead of immersion. This, from the necessity of the case, was considered by some to be equally effectual with their immersion in the baptismal font; but others were of a ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 103 different opinion, and considered it as imperfect. With this exception, immersion continued to he the universal practice in all the churches. In the Greek church it has continued from the beginning unto this day. The church of Rome retained it for thirteen centuries, and then sprink- ling was introduced into common use first in France, and afterwards into other Popish countries. In England, sprinkling commenced in the time of Queen Elizabeth, but came not into common practice till the reign of James I. The Westminster Assembly of Divines com- pleted this innovation, by converting the baptismal font into a bason, which admits of no other baptism but that of the clergymen's fingers. This, I am informed, was the first time that ever that implement was used (unless, per- haps, in a case of necessity) either by Papists, or any other denomination of christians whatever. These are facts which are recorded in church history, and fully admitted by the most intelligent Pcedobaptists, many of whom highly disapprove of the alteration of immersion into sprinkling or pouring. The reasons assigned for this alteration of Christ's institution are, coldness of climate — tenderness of infants — the efficacy of the ordinance not depending on its form — Grod will have mercy and not sacrifice — the power of the church to alter ceremonial appointments — sprinkling more easy, safe, convenient, decent, and modest than immersion, &c. To admit that immersion was the primi- tive form of the institution, and yet to assign such reasons for altering it, is, in fact, to impeach the Divine Lawgiver himself, as if he were deficient in wisdom, mercifulness, and propriety in his appointments. Mr W. thinks it in the highest degree hn'prohable that immersion was ever used in the apostle's days, and he musters up a catalogue of the various inconveniencies and troubles which, he conjectures, would have attended such a practice, and so thinks it inconsistent with Christ's yoke 104 REVIEW OP DR WARDLAW'S LECTURES which is easy. Such observations require no answer when the question respects an institution of Christ. Is there nothing in Christ's yoke so uneasy to flesh and blood as immersion ? But Mr W. wishes to cut deep on this sub- ject, and therefore says, " It must unquestionably be attended with risk to the health ; " and concludes by observing, " That the practice of immersion, in many of its occurrences, cannot but be inconsistent with a due regard to the feelings of delicacy and decorum. In this light, indeed, I look upon the baptism of females, in almost every instance, in the manner in which it is ]3ractised, by persons of the other ses, in presence of a mixed company of spectators. But there are particular cases, not merely supposable, but actually and necessarily occurring, in which these feelings must be severely wounded indeed," p. 144, 145. If the Baptists pay no due regard to the feelings of delicacy and decorum, but wound them severely in their manner of baptizing the female sex, they must be a people who are lost, in a great measui'e, to all sense of shame. It is well known that insinuations and aspersions of this kind will have more weight with many than the clearest Scripture evidence in favour of immersion. To reproach the Baptists with indecency is but a small matter ; but to represent this indecency as inseparably connected with immersion, is in fact (whatever he may think of it) to throw a slur upon the sacred institution of Christ. And if he view immersion in such a dangerous and shameful point of light, what must he think of circumcision, upon which he founds his main plea for infant baptism ? Few Pcedobaptist writers, who have considered this subject, have hitherto ventured to stake the credit of their judg- ment and integrity on a denial that immersion was the original institution. They, in general, only plead, that sprinkling is more safe and convenient, and may answer the design of the ordinance equally well. I am therefore ON THE ABRAHAMIC COVEKTANT. 105 obliged in charity to suppose, that Mr W. is persuaded to the highest degree of absolute certainty, that no such thing as immersion was ever instituted by Christ, or practised either by John the Baptist or the apostles ; for, upon any other supposition I cannot reconcile his reproachful man- ner of treating it with the opinion which I ever wish to retain of him. I give him great credit for his abilities, and think he has put as plausible a face upon infant bap- tism, as an untenable cause could possibly admit. And though he has gi'ounded his arguments chiefly on the prin- ciples of the Jewish constitution ; yet I am persuaded, that, if infant baptism were out of view, he would not pursue the same strain of doctrine on any other subject. LETTERS ADDEESSED TO MR JOHN GLAS, IN ANSWEB TO HIS DISSERTATION ON INFANT BAPTISM, WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1776. PREFACE. To assign reasons, or make an apology for publishing the following letters, is altogether needless. If I have truth on my side, the importance of the subject, and the general inattention paid to it, especially in Scotland, will sufficiently justify me : if I have not, all apologies are vain. It is indeed a pretty common observation, that little benefit or edification results from religious controversies. This is held as an indisputable maxim by those who are settled on their lees, and wish not to be disturbed ; whose cool indifi"erency indicates their having little at stake, or whose unlimited charity is equally courteous to truth and error ; yet I cannot be persuaded that this sage maxim admits of no exception. The most important revolution that ever happened in the world, was brought about by means of controversy, disputes, and contention * ; and afterwards, when Antichrist had slain the witnesses, quashed the controversy, and cursed all around him into implicit faith, these horrid chains of darkness were again burst asunder by a free enquiry into the Scriptures, and a contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. * Acts ix. 22, xvii. 17| and xix. 8, 9. 110 PREFACE, But whatever may be said of controversy, it may be presumed, that the person who can stand neutral in all religious disputes, must either have no creed at all, or hold it very cheap. As the controversy about baptism has been agitated occasionally in other parts of the world for these fifteen centuries past, I have not the vanity to imagine that anything advanced in the following letters will finally decide the matter ; for I am fully persuaded, that there are other principles of opposition to truth in human nature than simple ignorance. A publication in behalf of the Scripture ordinance of baptism, I believe, is a perfect novelty in Scotland. Many tracts have been published on the other side of the question in this country, which one would think were altogether needless, as hitherto there was no appearance of opposition. This, however, may be accounted for, if we may suppose that these authors were apprehensive of some defect in the Scripture evidence for infant baptism, and found it necessary to supply that defect by argument, though a little reflection might have convinced them that the only evidence of a positive institution is the clear expressed will of the institutor. My present controversy is chiefly with Indepekdents, who profess to believe, that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and that the carnal birth does not distinguish its subjects, nor entitle to spiritual privileges : these especially will discern the propriety of the arguments, and feel their weight. As for the national church, I have little quarrel with her on this head, it being equally reasonable that the PREFACE. Ill children of the flesh should be counted for the seed, as that a nation of this world should he counted a visible church of Christ. For whilst it is supposed, that the kingdoms of this world, which assume the name Cheistian, do, in some sense, succeed the Jewish Theocracy, and are interested in the covenant of circumcision, it will be hard to convince them, that the command to circumcise Jewish infants does not equally warrant the baptizing of theirs. I hope the reader will not satisfy himself with carping at occasional inadvertencies, but candidly consider the scope and force of the arguments, and especially the Scriptures adduced in support of them. If what I have advanced in these Letters have a tendency to free any of the subjects of Christ from human inventions, and rouse their attention to the unerring rule, my end is gained, Glasgow, 1766. LETTER I. SIR, It is now a considerable time since I read and considered your excellent Treatise, entitled, The Testimony of the KiNa of Martyrs, &e., which I take to be a most judicious and Scriptural illustration of our Lord's good confession, which he witnessed before Pontius Pilate con- cerning his kingdom, as distinguished from the Jewish Theocracy, the kingdoms of this world, and the false churches that now bear that form. Holding the analogy betwixt type and antitype in your eye, the Scripture evi- dence beams in upon you from every quarter to support the main point ; whilst you, unshackled by human systems, admit it in its genuine and simple meaning. The reading of this excellent treatise gave me vast satisfaction, and prepossessed me with a favourable bias in behalf of your other writings : supposing you still to pursue the principles upon which you set out, I was un- willing to admit any such sense of your words as seemed to deviate from them. Thus you may see with what favourable impressions I proceeded to peruse the rest of your works ; and indeed I was not disappointed in many* of your tracts, which contain a plain and Scriptural view of the doctrine, order, and worship of the apostolic churches, till I arrived at your third volume, where I found a piece on Catholic Charity, and a letter entitled, The Rule of Forbearance * I say many, because there are several things exceptionable, and particularly a little tract in the second volume, entitled. Salvation to a Believer's House. l2 114 LETTERS TO MR GLAS Defended, in both which you seem to me to confine the apostolic directions respecting forbearance, to the peculiar disputes that arose betwixt the Jews and Grentiles about the lawfulness of meats and days. When I compared this with what you had advanced before on that head, in the Testimony of the King of Martyrs,* I could not but observe a manifest inconsis- tency betwixt them. However, I was unwilling to judge rashly in this affair, thinking it unlikely you should pub- lish contradictory principles in one and the same edition of your works. But, proceeding to your fourth volume,f I found A Dissertation on Infant Baptism, which I considered with care and attention ; and the rather, as I was never fully satisfied with any thing I had formerly read on that sub- ject ; and being desirous of further light into it, I had jsome hope you would produce such evidence in its behalf from Scripture, as would remove my scruples, establish me in the received opinion, and enable me to bring my infants to baptism in faith. But how great was my disappoint- ment when I found, that your main arguments for the baptism of infants stood in opposition to the Scriptures, as well as to the leading sentiment contended for in the Testi- mony of the King of Martyrs ! As the Scripture view of baptism has hitherto been but little attended to in Scotland, and as you have contri- buted your part to strengthen the prejudices of men against it, insomuch that some of your adherents have boasted of this Dissertation as unanswerable, I shall, according to my ability, follow you step by step through the whole of your arguments, and accommodate my answers to the nature and manner of them, without either artfully evading their force, or wilfully perverting their meaning. I shall conclude this introductory epistle, by stating * Glas's Works, vol. i. p. 123, 124, first edition, t P. 192—210. ON BAPTISM. 115 what appears to me to be the Scripture view of baptism. And, 1. Baptism is an ordinance, instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ, under the new and better covenant, which belongs only to the apparent subjects of that covenant, upon the profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him ; being a sign and representation to them of the cleansing efficacy of his blood, and regenerating operations of his Spirit, and so of their having communion with, and conformity to him in his death, burial, and resurrection, by dying unto sin and living unto righteousness. Matt, xxviii. 19, Acts viii. 37, Eom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 12. 2. The name unto which believers are to be baptized, is that of the Father, Son, and Holy Grhost, Matt, xxviii. 19. 3. The action termed baptism is immersion, or dipping of the body in water, as appears from the proper accepta- tion of the Greek word, and from the circumstances of our Lord's baptism. Matt. iii. 16, and those of the eunuch's, Acts viii. 38, 39, as also from the allusions made to it as a burial and resurrection, Roig. vi. 3, 4, Col. ii. 12. Now, whether infants are the proper subjects of this ordinance or not, shall be considered in the subsequent letters. Meantime, I am, Sir, Your, &c. 116 LETTERS TO MR GLAS LETTER II. SIR, In the introduction to your Dissertation on Infant Baptism, you make an observation on several ques- tions and disputes about baptism. But I have no concern with any thing there, excepting the last paragraph, where you observe, That " the denying of infant baptism comes of making the salvation by baptism to lie in something else than the thing signified ; even that, whatever it be, which distin- guishes the adult Christian from his infant : though our Lord expressly declares, that we must enter his kingdom even as infants enter it. The first opposition that we hear of to infant baptism, turned salvation upon an entire sort of believing, whereof infants are incapable ; whereas there is not any true faith, or sincere confession of the faith, but that alone which acknowledges that salvation lies only and wholly in the thing signified in baptism. And if we en- quire how that thing saves us ? our Lord answers, Just as it saves our infants. The denial of infant baptism must have always proceeded from a disbelief of this." To this I answer, — 1. That if we maintain that infants obtain salvation by the sovereign free grace of God, through the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ, without regard to any outward ordinance, how does it follow that their salvation lies not only and wholly in the thing signified to the adult in baptism, but in something else? 2. If we deny infant baptism, because it is neither com- manded nor exemplified in Scripture ; because infants can OK BAPTISM, 117 give no evidence that they are the proper subjects of bap- tism, and because it cannot be a sign to them of the thing signified ; will it therefore follow, that when they become visible believers, and can discern baptism to represent sal- vation by the death and resurrection of Christ ; I say, will it then fairly follow that their salvation must turn upon something else than the death and resurrection of Christ, which is represented to them in that ordinance, or upon any thing about themselves distinguishing them from in- fants ? Certainly it will not : that which gives the answer of a good conscience to the adult believer in baptism, must be the very same thing with that which saves infants. 3. If an explicit profession of the faith^ a discerning of the thing signified, and an engagement to put off the body of the sins of the flesh, be qualifications which turn the salvation of the adult upon a difi^erent footing from that of infants, or the thing signified in baptism ; then, by necessary consequence, these things are not to be required in the adults, either in order to baptism or the Lord's supper. But if you require these things in adults, you must either admit that your charge against the Baptists is groundless, or that you are guilty of the same thing. 4. Though we own that the thing signified in baptism saves infants just as it saves adults, yet we deny infant baptism; for we distinguish betwixt the thing signified and the sign signifying ; the former is bestowed upon all the elect of God, whether adults or infants; the latter "belongs to those who appear to be such, and can discern its meaning, who are only the adult. Again, we distin- guish betwixt the objects of God's everlasting love and the visible subjects of gospel ordinances ; the former are known with certainty only to Grod ; the latter are known to men by the visible personal characters whereby he hath pointed them out in his word. To affirm, then, that the denial of infant baptism must have always proceeded from a disbelief that salvation lies 118 LETTERS TO MR GtLAS only and wholly in the thing signified in baptism, is both an uncharitable and groundless assertion, 5. This accusation might with equal colour of reason be retorted upon the Poedobaptists : for they require the faith and profession of the parent in order to warrant the baptism of his infant. Baptists require a personal pro- fession, while Poedobaptists sustain a vicarious one ; but as this last is also something " else than the thing signi- fied," and which the adult Christian performs for his infant, so there is the same ground for the above assertion in this case as in the other. The only way therefore to get rid of this charge, is to pay no regard to any profession of faith in order to baptism. 6. Infant baptism was at first introduced upon the supposed necessity of it to salvation, which certainly was making salvation to lie in the outward ordinance rather than in the thing signified thereby ; at least it was making the thing signified to be unavailable without the sign. But men had not then learned to confine the salvation by baptism to that, whatever it be, which distinguishes the infants of believers from those of infidels; though indeed they were at no loss ; for the ancient necessity of baptism to salvation, is by far a better argument than the modern covenant holiness, or salvation to a believer's house. Nor can I see how infant baptism could ever take place upon such arguments as are mostly used by Protestants in support of it at this day ; and therefore I think it not very grateful in modern Poedobaptists to condemn the original principle from which their favourite institution received its existence. I am, Sir, Your, &c. ON BAPTISM. 119 LETTER III. SIR, I HAVE been carefully considering the first section of your dissertation, which contains a scheme of the controversy, and state of the question ahout Scripture precept and example. You say, " The whole plea against infant baptism comes to this, That there is neither particular express precept nor indis- putable example for it in the New Testament, where bap- tism is inseparably connected with a profession of the faith, which infants are not capable to make." Ans. Though our whole plea came only to what you mention, it would be sufficient to refute infant baptism : for when we consider how particular and express Grod's injunctions were, with respect to every circumstance of the old covenant rituals, we can never imagine that such an important ordinance of the new covenant would be left, as a matter of doubtful disputation, to be gathered only from dark and inconclusive hints, or dubious consequences. But the truth is, there is neither precept nor example, direct nor indirect, particular nor general, expressed nor implied, in either the Old Testament or the New, in favour of infant baptism ; so that our plea against it comes to more than you imagine. " All this (you say) may be owned, at the same time that the inference from it is denied." Here then you give up with express precept and indis- putable example ; but then you deny the inference, viz., That infants ought not to be baptized ; because you think that, by the same argument, we might debar women from 120 LETTERS TO MR GLAS the Lord's supper : for you say, " We can no more show, by express particular precept, or indisputable example, that Christian women are included in the precept, Do this in I'emembrance of me, and Drink ye all of it, than we can prove, by such precept or example, that Christian infants are comprehended in the precept, Baptizing them'* And then you make no scruple to assert, That we have the same evidence for infants being members of Christ's body, as we have of believing women being such. But to this it may be answered, 1. That Christian women are manifested to be subjects of gospel ordinances by a personal profession and character, answerable to what the Scripture requires ; but infants, as they can make no such profession, so the fleshly birth, be it of whom it may, can not denominate them subjects of baptism, any more than it can evidence their being born again. 2. The Scripture expressly tells us, That there is no distinction of male and female among those who are one in Christ Jesus, Gal. iii. 28, whilst it makes a very wide distinction betwixt the natural and the spiritual seed, and shows, that the former, as such, have no right to the pri- vileges of the latter, Rom. ix. 6, 7, Grab iii. 29. Now, if the Scripture denies that there is any distinction of sexes in the one body of Christ, it is certainly wrong in you to make such an unscriptural distinction in order to confound a real one, which still subsists betwixt infants and adult visible believers, with respect to gospel ordinances, as both the visible characters required, and the nature and design of these ordinances show. 3. You cannot but be sensible, that the precept, Let a man examine himself and so let him eat, &c. (1 Cor. xi. 28), includes both sexes ; for the word there translated Man, is not avTjg, which is restricted to the male sex in distinction from the female, but av^puTog, which is the common gender, and comprehends both male and female, ON BAPTISM. 121 except where some particular circumstance in the text restricts the sense. Here then the precept for eating the Lord's supper is as expressly directed to Christian women as it is to men. But I might have spared myself this remark ; for I am persuaded that the weakest woman that reads her English Bible, can be at no loss to see that the word Man frequently comprehends both sexes. *' Now (say you) as soon as we begin to seek a warrant for any such thing in this manner, we must depart from the principle that every opposer of infant baptism sets out upon, viz., That such an express precept, and such a plain example, is necessary to show the warrant for it." Ans. So it seems you are obliged to depart from precept and example at the very outset of your journey. I am not at all surprised you should depart from the principle we set out upon ; but I must observe that in so doing, you have been obliged also to depart from the prin- ciple which you yourself set out upon when you left the national church. In your speech before the Commission of the Greneral Assembly, you give the following reason for not subscribing the Formula, viz., " because I cannot see precept or example in Scripture for the government ©f this national church by kirk-sessions, presbyteries, provincial and national synods. And if it should be my opinion, that it requires precept or example in Grod's word for such a government, to warrant me to declare that it is founded in that word ; — I see no pro- position in the public standards of the church that con- demns this." * Now, Sir, I ask, "Why do you depart in stating the controversy about infant baptism, from that very principle, without which (by your own confession) you have no warrant to declare that it is founded on the word of God ? You take notice of another troublesome principle of the Baptists, viz., " That baptism is inseparably connected in * Glas's Works, vol. i. p. 221. 122 LETTERS TO MR GLAS the New Testament with a profession of the faith, which infants are not capable to make." You might have answered this as the former, by telling us. That we have no instance in Scripture of women mak- ing an express profession of their faith before their receiv- ing the Lord's Supper ; and why should we require it of infants before baptism ? But this would be too bare-faced, and therefore you say, " It may be owned that baptism cannot be administered to any, but upon a confession by which the baptized can be called disciples according to the Scriptures : for it can Well be said, that infants are to be baptized upon a profession of the faith by which the Scrip- ture warrants us to account them disciples with their parents, as well as to look on them, with their believing parents, as holy and of the kingdom of heaven, or the true church, into which all Christians are baptized." The necessity of a profession in order to baptism, it seems, may be owned : but how can it be owned, without denying baptism to those who cannot make a profession ? For this you have a curious salvo at hand, without which you would never have owned it, viz.. Though infants can- not profess the faith, yet their parents can do it for them ; and this warrants us to account them disciples, and baptize them. This is indeed strange reasoning. Disciples are made by teaching : Believing parents are taught : Therefore, their children are disciples, and may be baptized. But there is no affinity between the conclusion and the premises, and so it amounts only to a bare assertion or begging of the question. However, by granting that a profession is necessary to infant baptism, you entirely overthrow what you charge upon us in the introduction, else you are guilty of the same thing. For if you will not baptize infants, without the profession of the parents, then it is evident that you ON BAPTISM. 123 hold something necessary to baptism whereof infants are incapable, even that^^ro/ession which the parents make in their stead, and that faith of which it is the profession. May we not then with equal justice retort, That the re- quiring such a profession of the parent in order to the baptism of his infant, comes of making the salvation by baptism to lie in something else than the thing signified ; even in that, whatever it be, which the adult Christian must perform for his infants, and which gives them a right to baptism in distinction from the children of infidels. But I must take notice of your Scripture proof for the discipleship of infants. "For when the Judaizers sought to have the Gentile Christians circumcised to keep the law, as necessary to ■ their salvation by Christ, Peter said to them, ' Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples.* But the Judaizers were seeking to have this yoke laid upon the infants of the believing parents ; and therefore Peter, who received the command to baptize disciples, took that designation to comprehend infants, and called them disciples with their parents." But though it be granted, that the infants of believing Gentiles would have been circumcised with their parents according to the law of circumcision, yet it is by no means evident that Peter comprehended these infants in the de- signation disciples ; for what other manner of expression is it natural to think the apostle would use upon this occa- sion, though infants had been excepted in that designa- tion? If we look into the context, we shall find, that those whom he terms disciples, are characterized in such a manner as will not apply to infants : " And certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren," &c., Acts XV. 1, so they were brethren capable of being taught. " God which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us ; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by 124: LETTERS TO MR GLAS faith. Now, therefore, why tempt ye Grod to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples," &c., ver. 8-10. Now, can any thing be more plain, than that the apostle's argument against circumcising the Gentile disciples, turns upon the eyidence of their having received the Holy Ghost, and of having their hearts purifir. 217 because of tJiem., as concerning the flesh, Christ came, "Rom. ix> 5, of whom springs the New Testament church, his seed, Isa. liii. 10, 11, God's children, Heb. ii, 13. Christ was a Son of the Jewish church ; unto them he was in a pe- culiar manner " a Child born, and a Son given," Isa. ix, 6 ; but unto the New Testament church he is promised as (o ntaiTi^ fiiXKovTog aiuvog) " the Father of the future age," ver. 6. So that what the apostle argues, (Gral. iii. 29), " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed," will in like manner hold here ; if they are Christ's children, then are they the children of ancient Israel, seeing Christ sprung from that nation as the seed of Abraham ; and they are as properly so called, as Christ's throne is styled " the throne of his father David," Isa. ix. 7. Luke i. 32. Gentile believers are never spoken of as fathers, but as CHiLDBEN ; and the apostle represents them as naturalized and adopted children into the commonwealth of Israel, to which they were formerly strangers and aliens, Eph. ii. 12 -21. He also represents them as branches of the wild olive tree, and graffed among the natural branches, (viz., the be- lieving Jews,) into the good olive tree, and with them par- taking of its root and fatness, and standing therein by faith, Rom. xi. 17-25. For these and other reasons that might be mentioned, old Israel are called the fathers of New Testament believers, whether they be Jews or Gentiles ; and such, on the other hand, are called their children and children's children in the prophecies. In a word, these promises are made to old Israel as fathers respecting their children, viz., such of their natural seed as should believe the gospel, together with all such as should be adopted into the household of God from among the Gentiles. But to return to our author. Obs. 4. " He here supposeth that his disciples might have justly inferred from this revealed truth " Of such is the kingdom of God," that they should not hinder these little children from being brought unto him, although it be not V 218 A DEFENCE OP said in the Old Testament scriptures, that such little chil- dren or any other little children, were to be brought to him in the days of his flesh ; nor do we find he had before told it to them." I have answered this already, and shown that he had before told it to them. See Mat. sviii. 2-5, and its paral- lels ; and this the author also acknowledges ; * so that our Lord was not so obscure a teacher, nor did he leave so much to be made out by the dint of their reasoning faculty, and fallible inferences, as this writer imagines. But what he adds deserves our particular notice — " And we may, with the same justice and propriety, infer from the same truth, that the little children distinguished from others as the little children brought to Christ were, on account of their connection with believing parents, should be baptized in his name ; seeing baptism is appointed by him to be a sign and token of a person's belonging to the kingdom of God as it appears in this world." That is, in short, if the disciples might infer from what Christ had plainly told them, that they ought not to forbid infants to be brought unto him ; then may we, with equal justice, infer from what is no where told us, that they ought to be baptized : For it ought to be noticed, that this last inference is drawn from the following groundless fancies, viz., 1. That infants belong to the kingdom of C4od as it appears in this world : 2. That such infants are distinguished from others by their connection luith believing parents : and 3. That baptism is the sign of a person's belonging to the kingdom of God as it is visible. The first two of these I have already confuted. The last seems to throw a reflection upon our Lord for not causing these infants to be baptized ; seeing (if we believe our author), he had appointed it to be the token of their belonging to his kingdom, as it appears in this xvorld. But what passage in all the word of God declares this to be the signification of baptism ? "When I look into the New * Page 8. believers' baptism. 21B Testament for the signification of that ordinance, I find that it is a sign or token of the remission of sins through the blood of Christ, Acts ii. 38, chap. xxii. 16 — of the sense of this communicated to the conscience, 1 Peter iii. 21, Heb. X. 22 — of our fellowship with and conformity to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, by dying unto sin, and living unto righteousness, Rom. vi. 4-7, Col. ii. 12 — and of our resurrection from the dead unto eternal life, 1 Cor. xv. 29. But there is not the least hint given in all the scriptures, that it is " appointed to be a sigti and token of a person's belonging to the kingdom of God, as it appears in this world." It cannot indeed be administered to any till they appear to men tp belong to the kingdom of God by the profession of their faith : but it is not the token or sign of this appearance ; but of the spiritual, eternal, and invisible blessings of the kingdom, as has been shewn. It is a most unworthy view of this ordinance to hold it only as a token or sign of appearances or visible things. Sorry am I, that those who have separated from the na- tional church upon the doctrine of the kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world, and in order to follow the footsteps of the apostles and first churches, should yet fail so far short even of the national doctrine itself, as to the signification of the very first ordinance of Christ's kingdom. The Assembly's Shorter Catechism admits that baptism " doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and par- taking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's," Quest. 94 ; and although I am not very fond of human standards, yet I would recom- mend to him. Quest. 165 of the Larger Catechism upon this subject, particularly its scripture proofs, that, before he pretend to teach others, he may himself yet learn from these systems he hath set aside, which be the first princi- ples of the oracles of God with respect to the signification of baptism ; for it plainly appears he hath lost sight of its meaning altogether. 220 A DEFENCE OF To make baptism a sign or token of our being visible subjects of the kingdom, or a figure of our being visibly saved, * is not only a style unknown in the scriptures, but a sentiment in every respect absurd, as it makes it a sign of what is as visible as itself, and so an useless sign ; a sign too of that which is but the appearance of another thing, viz., of our being real members of the kingdom as it is invisible ; and so he makes it a sign of that which, in itself, is of little consequence ; for what does it avail our visible subjects of the kingdom, or visibly saved, if we are not really so ? No wonder those who have such unworthy views of this divine ordinance, should hold it as a matter of indifference whether they themselves have been baptized according to their own doctrine or not. f But, in opposi- * Page 24, 25. t A certain preface writer, who seems to be much displeased ■with all the Independents who follow not with him in his unifor- mity, among other things, blames some of them for "forbearing and calling hrethren, those who deny infant baptism." — Pref. 10, Glas^s Testimony, last edition, p. 27. They may defend themselves from this charge as they are able ; but certainly they are as consistent in this, as he is in adopting and sustaining for baptism the sprinkling of the antichristian church, contrary to all the scripture grounds upon which he pro- fessedly holds it. I am credibly informed he has nothing to say for this, but that baptism being administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it must for that reason be valid, ba the administrator parent, or subject, what tliey will. But if the naming, or calling over them this name, sanctifies an unscriptural baptism, then the sons of Sceva may be justified in their attempt to cast out devils, since they also made use of the name of Jesus whom Paul preached. Acts xix. 13. He will not plead that the clergy of the national church have any better authority to baptize than those exorcists had to cast out devils, since he considers them as worshippers of a false God, and to be the locusts which ascend out of the bottomless pit, whose king is Abaddon or AppoUyon, and whose commission is only to hurt men, Rev. ix. 3-12. See Glass Works, vol. ii. p. 399-403, first edit. Neither can he, con- sistently with his principles, admit, that the infants sprinkled in the national church are the children of believing parents. Per- believers' baptism. 22-1 tion to all this, baptism is a sign or token of a person's belonging to that true church which Christ hath loved, and for which he gave himself, " that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," Eph. V. 25, 26. Further, the baptism of infants is so far from being a just and proper inference from any thing contained in this passage, that it is a clear example of the contrary ; for here are children brought to Christ, declared of his kingdom and blessed, and thus became visible subjects ; yet we read haps he will tell us, that though the vessels of the temple were profaned at Babylon, yet they were afterwards used in the Lord's service : and so the sprinkling of improper subjects by the locusts of the national church, must still be held sacred among Christians, and sustained for scripture baptism ! ! ! Giving a sketch of Mr Glas's leading sentiments with respect to the subjects of the kingdom of Christ, he says, " That men (accord- ing to John i. 13), do not become sons or children in this kingdom by blood, or descent from religious ancestors — but wholly of GOD, through the power of his word — merely by the induence of the word of God upon their consciences, coming to them not in word only, but with power, and with the Holy Ghost, and with much assurance," &c, &c. — Pref. p. 11, 12. Yet, in opposition to this, I suppose he will agree with Mr Glas, that infants are born holy, and of the kingdom of heaven ; and that they must be looked upon as sons or children in this kingdom by their connection with religious ancestors or parents, and not through the power of the word, or the influence of it upon their consciences. He professes to be extremely happy in his present connection ; yet he discovers not a little uneasiness to find men in any measui-e professing the truth without acknowledging Mr Glas as their teacher, and giving him the glory ; as if that author had been the original inventor of the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven, and had by patent monopolized it to himself and his party. It would not be difficult to shew, that there are few sentiments of any conse- quence in Mr Glas's works, that are not to be found in the writ- ings of other clergymen before his time ; and I am sure the best of his sentiments are to be found in the scriptures, which, blessed be God, lie open to every one. I do not say this to depreciate Mr Glas's writings, to which I myself have been indebted in many things : but to expose the vanity of glorying in men. 2 u 222 A Di?P ENCE OF nothing of their baptism. We are sure that Christ did not baptize them, for he baptized none, John iv. 2, and it is certain that his disciples had not baptized them formerly, else they would not have forbid their being brought to Christ ; nor did our Lord command them then to baptize them, though he declares them of his kingdom, and blesses them. Hence we learn, that infants may be acknowledged to be of the kingdom of God without baptizing them. " Conclusion. What are we, then, that we should with- stand Grod, by refusing baptism to the children who are declared by our Lord to make up the kingdom of God, as it appears in this world ?" — This conclusion (as he calls it) is very awful, and had need to be well supported. Lotus therefore recapitulate the different suppositions upon which the charge of withstanding God is founded. And, first, he supposes from our Lord's words, that he meant we should suppose that the little children who belong to his kingdom may be distinguished from other little children who do not belong to it ; because he says, ' Of such is the kingdom of God.' — Next he supposes him to mean (though there is not the least hint of it), that this distinction is known by their natural connection with believing parents, for this good reason, because he knows of no other way one little child can be distinguished from another : Upon this head he also conjectures, that Jesus refers us to the prophecies to find out his meaning, and that these prophecies respect the carnal seed of New Testament believers. — Lastly, he sup- poses him to mean, that infants belong to the kingdom of God as it appears in this world, into which hypocrites do enter, though Jesus tells us in this and the parallel places, that they belong to that kingdom into which none can enter without being converted. — From all this flimsy cob-web, which he hath spun out of his own imagination, he draws an inference, that infants ought to be baptized ; though we do not find that either Jesus or his disciples baptized these or any other infants, or gave the least hint of any such believers' baptism. 223 thing. Then, as if he had demonstrated his point as clear as a proposition in Euclid, he asks, "What are we that we should withstand Glod ?" But may I be permitted to ask, "What is he that he should father his own dreams upon the scriptures? Surely he has not duly considered the re- peated prohibition, and its dreadful sanction, recorded in Deut. iv. 2, Prov. xxx. 6, Rev. xxii. 18. In his conclusion he also says, " There appears from this to be no room for the disciples of Christ to inquire whether there were little children in the households that were bap- tized by the apostles, when the heads of them made profession of the faith of Jesus." — But I cannot think that what he has already advanced is so exceedingly conclusive, as to preclude all farther inquiry into that matter. We have no occasion absolutely to deny that there were infants in those houses (though it is at best but a mere conjecture) ; for the scripture sometimes mentions all the house, when only the adult part of it is intended. Thus it is said, all the house of Millo gathered together and made Abimelech king, Judges ix. 6, yet none will affirm that infants had any hand in this. In like manner, when it is said. He " feared God with all his house," Acts x. 2 — " they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house," chap. xvi. 32 — " he rejoiced, believing in Grod, with all his house," ver. 34 — " Crispus believed on the Lord with all his house," chap, xviii. 8, we are sure, that, if there were any infants in those houses, they must be excepted in such passages, for this plain reason, that infants can neither be said to fear God, hear the word, believe, or rejoice in it. And if they cannot be included in the all who believed, &c., neither can they, by any rule of reasoning, be included in the all who were baptized ; for that word is not more com- prehensive in the latter than in the former case, and the connection demonstrates that the same persons are intended in both. If any, however, will contend, that the word all sig- 224 A DEPEITCE OF nifies every individual in those houses, without exception, we have no objection ; but then they must at the same time allow that every individual of them were believers, and this leaves no room to suppose that there were infants in those houses. The author, therefore, may choose any of these suppositions he thinks proper, it being of no consequence in this argument. He hath, however, taken the easiest method of getting over those houses of any writer I ever read on the subject. His talent lies in suppositions : and as one supposition is as easily made as another, he takes it for granted that our Lord's words, Mark x. 13, 14, clearly sup- pose that there were infants baptized in these houses upon the profession of the parents ; the very stating of which is a sufficient answer. Others, however, convinced that no argument for infant baptism can be drawn from those houses, whilst some stub- bom texts stand in the way, have, without much ceremony, violently bended them to their own purpose, I shall give a few instances. The sacred historian tells us, that Corne- lius was " A devout man, and one that feared God with ALL HIS HOUSE," Acts X. 2. Not SO, says Mr Huddleston ; none in Cornelius's house feared God but himself. * — Of the same house of Cornelius, together with some of his kins- men, it is written " The Holy Ghost fell on all them which HEARD the word," ver. 44, and Peter says, " God purified their hearts by faith," chap, xv, 9. But the above author tells us, that there is no account " of the house of Cornelius, hearing, believing, or receiving the Holy Ghost," f and that *' it cannot be affirmed in the fear of God, that he had any house else but little children." J Of the Jailor and his house it is also written, that Paul and Silas " spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his HOUSE, chap, xvi. 32. This he also flatly contradicts, by denying that " Paul and Silas had any other hearers from the Jailor's house besides himself." J] We are further told * Hudd. Letters, p. 54. t Ibid, t Page 22. || Page 56. believers' baptism. 225 that the Jailor " rejoiced believing in Grod with all his HOUSE," ver. 34, but Mr Glas assures us there was no such thing ; that none in the Jailor's house believed in God but himself, and that his rejoicing was not in Grod, but in the whole house. * After such bold attacks as these upon the word of Grod, to make way for this human invention, we need not wonder at any thing, however ridiculous and absurd, that may be advanced upon the subject. Our author's dreams and con- * His words are, " It is said, ver. 34, that he believed ; and there is no mention of any other believing but himself. The text says, That he believed God, rejoicing in the whole house ; riy aXkictcaro itavoiyj ; as Rom. xii. 12, th\ iXvidi ^ai^omi, " rejoicing in hope." This joy is his who fell down betbi-e Paul and Silas — It was he that " rejoiced believing in God," Glas'^s Works, vol. ii. p. 129. — But in opposition to this uncouth criticism, I shall demon- strate, even to the conviction of the English reader, that the adverb iravoi')(^i (of irag all, and oynog house) is the same with 6\)v Travri Of)Qi> with all the house. This is clear from its undeniable sense, in other passages where it occurs. The Seventy used this word in Exod. i. I , " Now these are the names of the children of Israel which came into Egypt, {^tyagoi; iravoivi, i. e.) each man with his whole house." Or, shall we say, according to this criticism, that only the eleven patriarchs came into Egypt ; that this journey was theirs, and that their families were left behind them ? The only other place where I have met with this word is in Josephus, Antiq. B. IV. chap. iv. Sec. 4, where, speaking of the law respecting the offerings allotted for the priest's maintenance, he says, it was ap- pointed "that they, (^-ravof^i) with their whole familes, might eat them in the holy city." Should any one still imagine that these offerings pertained only to the priest himself; that this eating was his, and that none of his family partook with him, I refer him to the law itself, of which Josephus is speaking, " In the most holy place shalt thou eat it — I have given them unto thee, and to thy sons, and to thy daughters with thee, by a statute for ever : every one that is clean in thy house shall eat of it," Num. xviii. 10-20. Thus it is clear beyond all dispute, That our translators have given the true meaning of this word, and that when a man does any thing vccvoi^i, he does it in concert with a whole house, who are equally engaged therein with himself. 226 A DEFENCE OP * jectures are almost innocent when compared with these ; for though it is very unbecoming to give way to groundless conjectures, when the question is about what saith the Lord, yet it is not near so shocking, as flatly to contradict the plain and express testimony of the word of God. But I have enlarged too much upon this head, and shall now proceed to PART II. " Christ's commission to his apostles, ' Go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' is to be understood according to the prophecies that went before concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and the children who should make up the Messiah's kingdom as it appears in this world." That the commission, Mat. xxviii. 18, 19, was everyway agreeable to the prophecies respecting the calling of the Gentiles, and the children that should make up the Mes- siah's kingdom, is freely granted ; and I refer you back to the view I have given of these children, and the sense in which they are so called. But when he says, " the com- mission must be understood according to the prophecieSy* I am much mistaken if he does not mean that we must explain the commission by these prophecies, or take the prophecies as a key to our Lord's words, which I absolutely deny. We could no more understand the plainest of these prophecies than the eunuch did, were it not for the public interpretation of the inspired apostles. The calling of the Gentiles appears to us now to be plainly prophesied of, because we have the New Testament key ; but the apostle always speaks of that event as a mystery hid from ages and generations, and which in other ages was not known, Eph. iii. 5, 6, Col. i. 26, and so we see how ignorant the believers' baptism. 227 first Jewish converts, and even the apostles themselves, had been about that matter, Acts x. 28, 34, 35, 45, chap. xi. 2, 3, 17, 18. We are not aware how much we are beholden to the New Testament explication of the prophecies, and are ready to wonder at the stupidity of the Jews ; but it is more wonderful to see men, who acknowledge the New Testament to be the accomplishment and explication of the Old, still overlooking that explication, and advancing their own fancies upon the prophecies in its stead ; and, what exceeds all, making the Old Testament a key to the New. It is by this method that national churches and covenants have been founded on scripture. The Seceders can find even their party with the bond for renewing the covenant, prophesied of in Isa. xix. 18,* and they can tell us with as good a grace as our author, that 2 Cor. viii. 5, is to be understood according to such prophecies. The prophecies in general do not admit of a strict and literal interpretation, when applying them to the affairs of Christ's kingdom, as they are clothed in language bor- rowed from the types ; for this would lead us into the very errors of the Jews, and judaizing professors, who minded earthly things, among which was their being of the stock of Israel. Hence the necessity of attending diligently and adhering strictly to the apostolic explication of the prophecies, as well as types of the Old Testament. We cannot therefore go at first hand to the prophecies, in order to explain the New Testament by them ; on the contrary, we must enter them with the New Testament key, by which they are opened to us in express quotations, doctrine, or the history of facts ; for the inspired and able ministers of the New Testament teach without a veil, and use great plainness of speech, 2 Cor. iii. 12, 13. This being the case, I lay down the reverse of our author's position and maintain, * See Mr Moncriefifs Sermons on the Duty of National Covenanting. 228 A DEFEKCE OF That the prophecies which went "before concerning the calling of the Grentiles, and the children who should make up the Messiah's kingdom, must be understood according to, or explained by, our Lord's commission to his apostles in connection with the subsequent revelation. The best commentary upon our Lord's commission to his apostles, is their practice in executing it, of which we have an account in the history of the Acts, Facts are always the plainest and most convincing arguments. 1. Jesus commands them to " Go, and teach all nations;'* or, as Mark hath it, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," chap. xvi. 15. Accordingly we find them going about every where teaching or preaching the gospel, first to the Jews, and afterwards to the Gentiles of all nations ; and it was by this teaching alone that they made disciples. 2. He commands them to baptize them, viz,, those whom they should previously teach, or make disciples by teach- ing ; for Mark hath it, " He that believeth, and is baptized." Let us now see if they always observed this order, viz., of baptizing only thoss whom they had first taught or made disciples. Peter first preaches the gospel to the Jews, *' then they that gladly received his word were baptized," Acts ii. 41. Philip, in the first place, preaches the gospel to the Samaritans, and then " when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus, they were baptized both men and women," chap. viii. 12. The same Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch, but it was not till he professed the faith, that he baptized him, ver. 35, 37, 38. Peter first taught Cornelias, his house and friends, and it was not till the Holy Ghost fell upon them, and they magnified God, that they were baptized, chap. x. 44-48. Paul and Silas first spake the word of the Lord to the Jailor, and to all that were in hie louse, and when they believed it, they were baptized, chap. believers' baptism. 229 xvi. 32-34. In like manner, " many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and" then it follows, they " were bap- tized," Acts xviii. 8. These instances demonstrate, that the apostles adhered strictly to the order of the commission ; and I make bold to challenge all the Poedobaptists in the world to produce one single instance wherein they deviated from this order, or baptized any till they were previously made disciples by teaching. 3. They are commanded to teach the baptized disciples, rjjfs/c, to observe (keep or obey) all tilings whatsoever he had commanded them. This last teaching is not only expressed by a different word in the original, but differs in various other respects from the first, and so is not a tauto- logy. The first has for its object all nations ; the last only the baptized disciples gathered out of the nations. — The design of the former is to make disciples, or beget unbe- lievers to the faith ; that of the latter is to instruct believers how they ought to walk and please Grod. — The subject matter of the first is the gospel ; that of the latter, Christ's laws and ordinances. That the apostles always timed this last teaching accord- ing to the order stated in the commission, is also plain from the whole of their practice. As they never baptized any but such as were first made disciples by preaching the gospel to them ; so neither did they ever teach men to obey the laws of Christ till they were baptized disciples. They never supposed that any one could obey the gospel, till once their minds were principled by the truth ; nor did they make any account of that obedience which does not spring from love, a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. Wherever we find them inculcat- ing the observance of all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded, they address themselves only to disciples, and draw the reasons and motives of their exhortations from the principles of the gospel, which such are sup- posed already to believe. To evince this, I might cite X 230 A DEFENCE OF all the commandments and exhortations in the New Tes- tament. * Thus it is clear, that the apostles executed the commis- sion in all its parts, and in the very order in which it was delivered to them ; and it would have been preposterous, as well as direct disobedience in them, to have done other- wise ; for indeed, that order is founded as well in the nature of things, as in positive institution ; and cannot be deranged or inverted, without throwing the whole into confusion and absurdity. We have no occasion therefore to go to the prophecies for explaining the commission. This would be to use the light of a candle to let us see the meridian sun. It is sufficiently plain of itself ; and if any possibility of doubt should remain, the apostolic practice entirely re- moves it. * As the Lord's Supper is among the all things which the bap- tized disciples must be taught to obsei've, it is plain, that none are proper subjects of baptism, but such as may immediately after receive the Lord's Supper. Mr Huddleston says," This objection takes its rise from this notion, That none are capahle of being inemhers of the body of Christ, but those who are capable of being members of those churches which are formed to show forth this body." Lett. p. 77- — Ans. Not so, but it takes its rise from this notion, That none are capable of baptism but such as are also capa- ble of being the same day added to a visible church, and so of continuing in the apostles doctrine, and in fellowship, and in break- ing of bread, and in prayers, Acts ii. 41, 42. Baptism is the sign of the new birth, and the Lord's supper of feeding upon Christ the true bread ; and so the connection between these two ordinances, and the things signified by them, is as immediate and necessary, as that between a person's having life and his talcing food to pre- serve it. If therefore, persons appear to be born of the Spirit, and have the sign thereof in baptism, how come they to be denied the sign of their spiritual nourishment in the Supper. What can this represent but children in a starving condition ? It is admitted that baptism belongs to none but such as are visible subjects of the kingdom of God ; and I lay it down as an axiom, which I am confident none can overthrow, viz.. That the Lord's Supper belongs to all the visible subjects of the kingdom of God imme- diately upon their being baptized. believers' baptism. 231 Further, the prophecies concerning the children who should make up the Messiah's kingdom, as it appears in this world, must be understood according to this commis- sion, and the subsequent revelation given to the apostles for executing it. But this commission respects no visible children but such as are capable of being taught, or made disciples by teaching; and to this agree the prophecies respecting them, " All thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children," Isa. liv. 13, which our Lord explains thus, " every one that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me," John vi. 45, for they are all the children of Grod by faith in Christ Jesus, Gal. iii. 26. The apostles acknowledged none as visible children of God, but such as professed this faith. Such also are the children who are to be baptized according to the commission ; for it docs not say, Baptize little chil- dren first, and teach or disciple them afterwards ; but on the contrary, it runs, " Teach all nations, baptizing them — He that believeth, and is baptized :" and with this the whole of the apostolic practice, as also their doctrine about baptism, corresponds ; " For (says the apostle) we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus : for as many of us as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ," Gal. iii. 26, 27. Enough, I am persuaded, has been said to convince any simple and candid person, that the commission has no respect to the baptism of Infants, and that such a practice is every way incompatible with it, as well as with the pro- phecies which relate to it. But I must take notice of some of our author's fancies on this head. He gives us two views of the commission — 1. As it respects teaching — 2. As it respects teaching and baptizing. A most curious distinction indeed ? As if the apostles were to teach some whom they were not to teach and baptize, and teach and baptize others whom they were not to teach. His intention, however, is to show that the commission 232 A DEFEN-CE OF warrants the baptism of those who are not taught. Upon the first part of this imaginary distinction, he says, 1. " This commission, as it respects teaching or preach- ing, is to be understood according to the prophecies that went before concerning the calling of the Grentiles." This he grounds on Acts xii. 44-47, where the apostles cites Isa. xlix. 6, to show the Jews, who did not regard the com- mission or the authority of Jesus, that he was warranted from their own scriptures to preach the gospel to the Gren- tiles. But were we to understand the commission only according to this prophecy, then the apostles would have had no commission to teach the Jews ; for this prophecy, as quoted by the apostle, speaks only of the Grentiles : whereas they were commissioned to teach all nations, both Jews and Clentiles ; to preach repentance and remission of sins, in Christ's name, among all nations, beginning at Jer- usalem, Luke xxiv. 47. To some of them was committed the gospel of the circumcision, as unto Peter ; to others the gospel of the uncircumcision, as unto Paul, Gfal. ii. 7, and accordingly they preached the gospel, to the Jews first, and also to the Gentiles, Rom. i. 16. This, then, is a wrong view of the commission, because partial. After all, what concern has it with infant sprinkling ? I suppose we must gather this from his second view, viz., 2. " This commission, as it respects teaching and bap- tizing, must be understood according to the prophecies concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and the children who should make up the Messiah's kingdom, as it appears in this world." For this he cites Acts ii, containing Peter's discourses to the Jews. But how does Peter's teaching the Jews show he was commissioned only to teach the Grentiles ? Or how does it show, that teaching and baptizing respects infants ? To discover this we must have recourse, after all, to the author's paraphrase, giving such a sense of ver. 38, 39, as he owns the apostle himself did not understand or intend ; and no wonder, for indeed it is a very strange one. believers' baptism. 233 — " Cliange your views of the Messiah's kingdom — for the promise of a standing in his kingdom, as it appears in this world, is unto you, and to your children, and to them that are afar off, belonging to any nation in the same way that it is unto you ; that is, to them and to their children : in this way it is unto those whom the Lord our Grod shall call out of every nation ; for the Q-entiles are to have the same privileges with the Jews in the kingdom of Jesus." The repentance which our author here calls the Jews to, is such as they did not need : it required no change in their views of the Messiah's kingdom to believe, that they, as the children of Abraham, and their carnal seed, should have a standing in it, for this was the view they all along had of it ; but when John the Baptist preaches the kingdom of the Messiah, he calls them to repent of such views, " Begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father ;" (Luke iii. 8), or in other words. We have a be- liever to our father : for this can procure you no standing in the Messiah's kingdom. Agreeably to this the apostle says, " Henceforth know we no man after the flesh ;" i. e., We esteem no man a subject of Christ's kingdom by his carnal descent from Abraham, or by any thing that consti- tuted him a member of, and entitled him to, the privileges of the Jewish church — " Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is (or, let him be) a new creature, 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. Again, the promise which he makes them of a visible standing (as he calls it) is very different from that which Peter here mentions, which is the promise of the Holi/ Ghost spoken of by the prophet Joel ; see ver. 16-22. Further, the children here mentioned are supposed, by our author, to be infant children, for such only can answer his purpose ; but the apostle is here speaking of the same children that are spoken of in Joel, viz., their sons and their daughters who should receive the Spirit and prophecy. Mr Huddleston observes on this passage, that " Peter says, the promise is unto yoic, i. e., all gladly receiving the word. 2 X 234 A DEFENCE OF From these you he distinguishes their children, and con- nects them in the promise ; and their childi-en sure must be all the children that could not he included in the preceding you, so all their little children." * But he might also have told us, that the Jews had infant children who cast out devils ; for our Lord asks them, " By whom do your chil- dren cast them out V Mat. xii. 27. Here the children are distinguished from those whom our Lord addresses, and cannot he included in the preceding j/oier, and so, according to this author's logic, must be " all their little children." Mr Sandeman, however, seems to have had a very just view of the children here spoken of, where he says, " The promise is only to as many as the Lord our God shall call ; and none can appear to us to be the called of God, but such as appear to believe the gospel which Peter preached, and to comply with his exhortation to repentance." f Lastly, he makes Peter tell the Jews, that " the Gentiles were to have the same privileges with them in the kingdom of Jesus :" — "Whereas this was more than he probably knew himself, till it was afterwards revealed to him ; nor was it, to his purpose in calling the Jews to repentance, who were not yet able to bear that truth. In short, the author has so framed his paraphrase, as to lead one to think, that Peter was addressing Baptists instead of Jews, and that he was calling them to repent and baptize their infants ! and yet after all, we find none baptized there but they that gladly received his word, and were that same day added to the church, ver. 4L Permit me now, in my turn, to paraphrase these two verses. The promise of the Holy Ghost, spoken of in Joel, is unto you, Jews, and to your children, even your sons and daughters who shall prophesy, ver. 17, and it is not only to you who dwell at Jerusalem, but also to those of you who are afar off from thence dispersed among the nations ; yet not * Letters, p. 20. t Appendix to Letters on Theron and Aspasio, Vol. ii, p. 333. believers' baptism. 235 to all the Jewish nation, but to the remnant according to the election of grace (Rom. ix. 27, chap. xi. 5), which in the prophecy are styled " the remnant whom the Lord shall call," Joel ii. 3, so this promise is even to as many of you, and your children, both here and elsewhere, as the Lord our Grod shall call, and to none else of you ; for he giveth the Holy Ghost only to such as obey him, chap, v, 32. Repent therefore, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall re- ceive the gift of the Holy Grhost, according to Glod's promise. He owns we " say just things concerning the two cove- nants, viz., the law or Sinai covenant, and the new or better covenant ; and the two seeds, viz., the natural seed of Abra- ham, and the spiritual seed of Christ, who are also called the seed of Abraham, as being connected with Him who is of the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, the great pro- mised seed." — Had the author considered properly what he is here saying, he might have seen, that by this concession he hath entirely given up the point, and cut himself oat from every ground to stand upon ; it being impossible for him to hold these distinctions consistently with the prin- ciples he lays down for infant baptism ; for he gives the very same place to the fleshly birth in the kingdom of Christ tinder the new covenant, that it formerly had in the earthly kingdom under the old covenant. He makes it as good an evidence of their being Christians, as it was formerly of their being Jews : nay, he makes it of greater avail now than under the old covenant ; for then it could not distin- guish the spiritual seed of Abraham ; but now (according to his doctrine), it points out those whom we are to reckon the true holy seed, and heirs of spiritual, everlasting, and heavenly privileges. Mr Huddleston asserts, " That the fleshly seed of New Testament believers are really the spiritual seed of Abra- ham j" * but he denies, that they are distinguished by the * Letters, p. 73. 230 A defUncb ot fleshly birth, and says, "Believers' infants are distinguished by that same thing which distinguishes themselves to be the spiritual Israel, viz., the confession of the mouth to salvation." * Do infants then confess the faith with the mouth ? No. — How then are they distinguished ? By the confession of another. — Very well : and does this confession respect all infants ? No. — How then do we distinguish the infants whom this confession respects, from other infants ? By their being the infants of the professor, or springing from him by natural generation. Thus we see it lands in the natural birth at last ; and if this be not confounding the apostolic distinction of the covenants and seeds, I know not what is. But then our author says, we " confound the distinction that is betwixt the spiritually holy nation ; which consists of the saved out of all nations, with the kingdom of God as it appears in this world : and in this way deceive the hearts of those who believe without proper evidence, and blind the minds of them who receive not the simple sayings of the Son of Clod ;" and for this distinction he cites Mat. xiii. 47-50, which speaks of the good and had fishes ; to this he might have added, Mat. xxv. 1-14, which speaks of theiOTse dM^ foolish virgins. As the author's whole scheme of reasoning rests entirely upon an improper use of this distinction, which is to be met with almost in every page of his book, I shall consider it particularly. 1. "We maintain, that the true kingdom of G-od consists of the whole body of the elect, whether Jews or Gentiles, infants or adults, who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and who shall all be certainly and finally saved. This is that society which the scripture calls the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are enrolled in heaven, Heb. xii. 23, the whole family in heaven and in earth, Eph. iii. 15, the one body, having the one spirit, and * Page 74. believers' BAPTisjr. 237 of which Christ is the head, chap. iv. 4, chap. v. 23, and which is commonly called his invisible hingdwn or church. Into this kingdom no hypocrite or unclean thing can enter, Rev. xxi. 27. 2. We maintain, that this kingdom appears in this world unto men, in the open profession of the faith of Jesus with its correspondent fruits, and in no other way ; but as men do not always speak as they think, and as good actions may often proceed from bad principles and motives ; and further, as we neither can nor are allowed to judge the hearts of men, hence hypocrites and unbelievers may enter into the appearance of this kingdom in the world ; and so our Lord represents it in this view, as consisting of wise and foolish virgins, good and bad iBshes, &e. To this view of the kingdom belongs the churches of the saints, each of whom are a visible representation, of that one body which is invisible. But to the point : 3. Those whom the scripture points out unto us as be- longing to Christ's kingdom, as it appears in this world, must also be looked upon as belonging to the holy nation of them that are saved. "We are obliged by the word of God to esteem none brethren, but such as profess the faith, and walk accordingly. We are also bound by that same word to esteem every one who professes the faith of Christ, and appears under its influence, to be not only in appear- ance, but in truth and reality the elect of Glod, and to love them as brethren for whom Christ died. We are not allowed here to make any distinction between those who belong to the appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world, and those who belong to the spiritually holy nation of them that are saved. (1.) Because we cannot do it. This distinction is knowK only to God, He alone knows whom he hath chosen, and who are his ; he also searcheth the hearts, and trieth the reins of the children of men, and can discover the most hidden hypocrisy under the disguise of the fairest appear- 238 A DEFENCE OF . ances ; and it is he alone that will at last make a final separation of the sheep from the goats, and gather out of his kingdom every thing that offends. But for us, we can make no such discrimination. Many may obtain salvation whom we cannot esteem saints ; and some, whom we must look upon as such, may finally fall short of it. (2.) Because it is contrary to the fervent charity enjoined in the gospel, for us to attempt to distinguish between the visible and real subjects of Christ's kingdom. Charity rejoiceth in the truth, and respects our brethren as real believers, not as nominal ones only. We love them in the truth, as knowing the truth, and for the truth's sake dwell- ing in them, 2 John ver. 1, 2 — as brethren for whom Christ died, Rom. xiv. 15 — as members of that one body whereof Christ is the head, and for which he gave himself an offer- ing and a sacrifice to God, Eph. iv. 4, 15, 16, chap. v. 2. It is only in this view we can love them with a pure heart fervently. Every thought of them that falls short of this view, without visible evidence, is that evil-judging which is opposed to charity, and an assuming Christ's prero- gative, Rom. xiv. 4, 10, James iv. 12. (3.) The inspired apostles, though they had the gift of discerning spirits, in respect of doctrine, yet they never dis- tinguish those who belong to the appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world, from such as belong to the holy nation of the saved, but speak of them always as one and the same, or (to use our author's phrase), confound them. They address all to whom they write as elect, saints, re- deemed, and saved. Paul says, that the vessels of mercy which Grod had afore prepared unto glory, are, "Eren us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Grentiles," Rom. ix. 23, 24 — he includes the professing Ephesians with himself, as redeemed and adopted, according as they were predestinated and chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, Eph. i. 4-8 — he tells the Thessa- lonians, that he knew their election, 1 Thes. i. 4 — and believers' baptism. 239 declares that the Hebrews were come unto the general assembly and church of the first-born which are written in heaven, Heb. xii. 22, 23. Peter, writing to the strangers scattered abroad, addresses them as " Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctifica- tion of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," 1 Pet. i. 2, and calls them " a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people," chap. ii. 9. Yet notwithstanding all this, we learn from these same writings, that hypocrites and false profes- sors had crept in even among them. Shall we therefore infer, that the apostles deceive the hearts and blind the minds of men, because they do not distinguish between the apparent and real subjects of Christ, or, in other words, because they were not omniscient ? We indeed know, that there is a distinction between the appearance and reality of true religion ; but the practical use of this is, not to judge our brother, but to judge and examine ourselves, 1 Cor. xi. 28, 31, Gal. vi. 3, 4. It is evident, then, that this distinction which our author harps so much upon, has nothing to do with the controversy about baptism ; for as baptism belongs only to Christ's visible subjects, so all who have this appearance must be esteemed by us his real subjects, and as belonging to the spiritually holy nation of them that are saved : for this plain reason, becavise it is the appearance of that very thing. What an unworthy view must our author have of the subjects of baptism, and even of his own brethren, when he distinguishes them from the spiritually holy nation of the saved, and cannot look upon them as belonging to it ! What can be the foundation of his charity to them ? Do the scriptures ever enjoin us to love a mere appearance without supposing its invisible reality ? But our author, that he may avoid confounding matters, takes special care all along, to let us know, that he does not mean the reality, 240 A DEFENCE OP but only the appearance of things : and so he is contending for a mere shadow, a thing of nought. He conies next to what is commonly called the mode or manner of baptism ; but I shall defer the consideration of that, till I have discussed his arguments about the subjects, and proceed at present to PART III. *' The household of Lydia were baptized when she made profession of the faith of Jesus," Acts xvi. 13-15. .His meaning is, that her household were baptised upon her single profession of the faith, without being either taught, or making a profession themselves ; and his reason for this supposition is, that it is not particularly mentioned. But by the same rule of interpretation, we may deny that she professed the faith herself before baptism ; for neither is that particularly mentioned in so many words. Rom. x. 10, however, is to him a sufficient proof, that she must have confessed the faith with her mouth ; and if so, he can- not in justice blame us, though we should refer him to the commission as a proof that her household were taught and believed, before they were baptized ; especially, when this is corroborated and explained by the whole practice of the apostles, and the instances of aU the other households which they baptized. He cannot but allow, that it is a good and safe rule to make the scripture its own interpre- ter, or to explain the more concise and obscure passages by such other passages relating to the subject as are more full and explicit ; and if he admits of this rule in every other case, he ought certainly to show cause why it cannot be admitted here. I appeal to himself, if he has not purposely singled out this account of Lydia's household in distinction from all the rest, as affording him, from its silence, the greatest believers' baptism. 241 scope for conjecture. Surely that must be a bad cause which obliges men to shun the light, and avail themselves of obscurity, and so oppose what the scripture says not, to what it positively and repeatedly declares. Taking ad- vantage then of the silence of this passage, he conjectures, that Lydia's household was all made up of little children ; and then she must have been an extraordinary woman indeed, to have managed her public business of selling purple, together with a family of helpless infants, for it does not appear she had a husband at that time. If it be supposed she had servants to assist her, then, for any thing we know, these may have been her household accord- ing to the frequent use of that word in scripture; see Gen. xvii. 27, 1 Kings i. 9, 11,2 Kings vii. 9, 11. But our author imagines they were infants, because when she invites Paul and his companions to her house, she uses this argument, " If ye have judged me faithful ;" whereas had they been adults, she must have said, If ye have judged MS faithful, else she must have had " a high sense of her own importance, and a great penury of brotherly love." But perhaps she knew that she had the only right, both by the law of God and man, to invite them to her own house, and that in her own name too, as she was the mis- tress and head of it, as well as proprietor of all the entertain- ment therein ; and perhaps she did this in the kind simpli- city of her heart, without imagining what bad construction would be put upon this act of love 1724 years afterwards. Supposing her thoroughly instructed in the Christian law of esteeming others better than ourselves, and in honour preferring one another," Rom, xii. 10, Phil. ii. 3 (for which she had as yet very little time), yet it could never enter into her head, that that law set aside her civil superiority of mis- tress over her servants, or her natural superiority of a parent, even over her adult children ; see Eph. vi. 1-3, 5-8. Nor otir occurring sometimes in the compass of two verses, and distinguished as three different successive actions to be performed with the same thing, which demon- strates that they are not of the same import. Thus, the LXX in Lev. iv. 6, 7, " And the priest shall (bapsei) dip his finger in the blood, and (prosranei) sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, and before the veil of the sanctuary, and shall (ekchei) pour out all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt- offering." Now, had the priest presumed to convert bapto here into sprinkling or pouring, he would have perverted BELIEVEES' BAPTISM. 259 the whole of this typical institution, been guilty of rebellion against the Lord, and might justly have expected immediate vengeance : and shall we think that the words of our Lord's commission are less plain and determinate than those of the law, and that we are at greater liberty to quibble upon, and alter them at pleasure. The translators, in other cases, have rendered the pri- mitive word hapto by the English word dip, wherever it occurs in the New Testament ; see Matt. xxvi. 23, Mark xiv. 20, Luke xvi. 24, John xiii. 26, Rev. xix. 13, and had they in like manner translated it when expressive of this ordinance, every one would have known what action our Lord enjoins, when he says, baptizing them. They would then have seen, that men could no more be baptized by sprinkling or pouring, than they could eat the Lord's Supper by seeing or smelling. 2. Neither sprinkle nor pour will make sense, when substituted in place of the word baptize. They will not construe with (Iv) in, or (g/'s) into, one of which is always affixed to the word baptize, when the thing into which men are baptized is mentioned. For instance, John bap- tised (Jv rw lophoLvri) in Jordan, or [iig rov lopdav-rjv) into Jordan, Matt. iii. 6, Mark i. 9, we have also (sv hhan) in water, {iv 'jt-jfiaTi ay/w) in the Holy Grhost, Matt. iii. 11, (s/? ro'j MotSfiv) into Moses, 1 Cor. x. 2, {ug Xpigov) into Christ, Gral. iii. 27, Rom. vi. 3. This, then, being the uniform style of the original, let us try what language it will make with sprinkling or pouring — " Teach all nations, pouring them (s/;) into the name, &c. — And were poured of John in Jordan — I indeed powr you in water — he shall pour you in the Holy Grhost," &c. This is strange style, and does not make sense ; for it conveys an idea as if the persons themselves were poured as liquids into any thing. The like observation may be made on the other passages where baptism is mentioned, such as, " He that believeth and is poured, &c., Mark xvi. 16. — " Into 260 A DEPEifrcE or what then were ye poured ?" Acts xix, 3, &c., which answers only to liquids, not persons. But if we substitute the word dip or immerse, which is the true English of the Greek word, then the sense is clear. Neither will sprinkle answer for the word baptize ; for how would it sound to say, " Sprinkle them in water, sprinkle them into Jordan," &c. ? This conveys the idea of any thing thrown in small scattered portions into water, and cannot suit persons. The translators were sensible of this impropriety ; and therefore, instead of in or into, they have given us xuith, * to make it agi*ee with sprinkling, except in such places as it would not answer, such as Matt. iii. 5, Mark i. 9, Rom. vi. 3, Gal. iii. 27, Acts xix. 3, and yet the original words are the same in the other passages as in these. Thus it is evident, that pouring or sprinkling, if substituted for baptism, are both contrary to scripture, and all propriety of speech. 3. The circumstances of our Lord's baptism, and of the eunuch's, shew it to have been immersion. Jesus was baptized of John [n() into Jordan, Mark i. 9, for he went up out of the water, and so must have been down in it. Matt. iii. 16. With regard to the eunuch, nothing can be plainer. They came first (s'T/ n vdup) to, or upon a certain water, Acts viii. 36, and this is all the length that some will allow them to have come ; but, the text adds further, " and they went down both (ng ro bdup) into the water," verse 38, where Philip baptized him ; and when this was performed, we have them coming (ejc rou 'jbaro?) " out of the water," verse 39. 4. The places which John chose for baptizing prove it to be immersion, viz., Jordan and Enon. His reason for choosing the latter place, we are expressly told, was " because there was much tuater there," John iii. 23, which could only be necessary for immersion. Some, however, * Ef cannot be rendered with in the case of baptism, because the other word ils cannot be so rendered. believers' baptism. 261 have diminished the waters at Enon into small shallow rivulets, to prevent immersion if possible ; and no doubt they would have done the same with Jordan, if they were not more afraid of a sneer, than of wresting the scrip- tures ; for they would rather turn the whole country into a dry parched wilderness, than suffer John to immerse any. But that we may swell these waters at Enon again to a proper depth, let it be noticed, that the words vdara uoXXa much water, or mantf waters, are the same that are used in Rev. i. 15, chap. xiv. 2, chap. xix. 6, which do not signify the purling or murmuring of shallow brooks or rivulets, but the boisterous roaring of great waters like those of the sea, for it is compared to the voice of mighty thunderings ; and that the land of Canaan was abundantly supplied with deep waters, is evident from Deut. viii. 7. 5. The allusions which the apostle makes to baptism point out the manner of the action. Christians are said to be baptized into the death of Christ, to be buried with him by baptism, and therein also to be risen with him, Rom. vi. 3, 4, Col. ii. 12. But if there were no kind of burial in baptism, how could it be alluded to as the sign of our burial with Christ ? In whatever sense we are buried, it cannot be in baptism, if there is no burial there ; nor can there be any propriety in mentioning baptism as the sign of a resurrection, if no such thing is to be seen in it. But when we consider that baptism is a burial in, and a resurrection from, water, the similitude is striking, and these passages clear and simple. Here our author tells us that " they are baptized into the truth testified by the Three that bear record in heaven concerning Jesus. This makes baptism (he should have said sprinkling or pouring) a proper representation of his death and resurrection, and of guilty men's having fellow- ship with him in his death and resurrection." That is, in short, the thing signified makes any kind of sign a proper representation of it ! and, by the same rule, he 262 A DEFENCE, &c. might have told us, that we eat Christ's iJesh and drink his blood by faith, and this makes any other kind of sign, as well as eating the broken bread and drinking the cup, a proper representation thereof. But the main thing we should attend unto is the will of the Great Institutor, who hath expressly appointed the sign to be baptism or immersion, and not sprinkling or pouring ; any other sign than this, be it what it will, is not his ordinance, either in name or thing, and therefore can in no respect be a proper representation, but a human invention, whereby the law of Christ is made void. I am, Dear Sir, Yours, &o. APPENDIX DEFEIVCE OF BELIEVERS' BAPTISM, APPENDIX. It may not be improper to add a few more strictures on what Mr Huddlestou and others have advanced, which did not fall in my way in answering the " Remarks." It is but too common for persons when they cannot confute their antagonist by fair reasoning, to betake them- selves to reproach and invectives ; and hence it is that the charge of self-righteousness is brought against us for denying infant sprinkling. Mr Grlas says, that " The denial of infant baptism comes of making the salvation by baptism to lie in something else than the thing signified, even in that, whatever it be, which distinguishes the adult Christian from his infant, though our Lord expressly de- clares that we must enter his kingdom even as infants enter it." — "This (says Mr Huddleston) interferes with every argument brought to support the denial of infant baptism.* — Our denying infant baptism because we can- not see them of the true Israel, will be followed with this consequence, that we have something about us which shews us of the true Israel, that has no respect to our infants entitling them to our regard as such Israelites; f — and this is influenced by the notion that we become members of this Israel by some ability which distinguishes us from our helpless infants. J — The true reason for not admitting infants to baptism is, the effect of making our salvation to lie in that which distinguishes us from them."§ This argument (if it may be called one) reminds me of what Archbishop Tilotson says of transubstantiation ; * Letters, p. 36. t Ibid, p- 37- t Ibid, p. 38. § Ibid, p. 40. 2a 266 A DEFENCE OP " It will suffer nothing to be true "but itself." But how does all this prove that Christ hath commanded infants to he baptized ? The question about their baptism must be determined by scripture, and not by the self-righteous disposition of those who deny it ; for suppose all the deniers of infant baptism were nothing but a parcel of self-righteous Pharisees, it would no more prove infant baptism, than Mr Huddleston's holding it in connection with the Church of Rome * will prove the contrary. Self- righteousness can find access upon either side of this con- troversy. It has a deeper root in our hearts than to shift its quarters upon our changing sides in an argument, and can find its account even in contending for the truth. I have, however, in my second Letter- to Mr Grlas, demon- strated that this charge is false so far as it relates to our reasons for denying infant baptism, which is all that be- longs to the merits of the cause. We firmly believe, and readily acknowledge, that infants are as capable of the grace of Grod, or of salvation, as adults are, and that adults are saved by that very thing which saves elect infants ; but still we deny that infants are proper subjects of gospel ordinances, such as hearings the word, baptism, the Lord's Supper, &c. These ordi- nances were never intended for them in infancy, nor are they capable of any benefit from them. He owns himself that infants cannot understand or believe the gospel ; f nor can they discern the thing signified in baptism, for this is the same with understanding and believing the gospel. When we say that infants can reap no benefit by the ordinances, we do not mean that they cannot be saved, but only that these ordinances are not the means of edification to them as they are to adults. The benefit of baptism, as well as of the word preached, and the Lord's Supper, can only be enjoyed in understanding and believing what is * Letters, p. 34. f Ibid, p. 54, 57, 62. believers' baptism. 267 represented by them ; for as the evident end of these ordi- nances is to represent and set forth something to us for our instruction, edification, and comfort, these ends are gained only so far as the thing represented is discerned or believed, see Heb. iv. 2, Acts viii, 37, 1 Pet. iii. 21, 1 Cor. xi. 29.* We must not imagine that the water in baptism operates in the way of a charm, as the Papists believe of their holy water, or that the sacred name of Father, Son, and Holy Grhost is to be used as a spell, having no respect to the understanding of the subject. No ; it is an emblematical preaching to the judgment of the person bap- tized, and a comfortable pledge to him of the remission of his sins, and of his fellowship with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, for the strengthening of his faith, the confirmation of his hope, and so to influence his love to, and obedience of the gospel. Though infants can reap no benefit by gospel ordinances, of which they know nothing, yet they are at no loss, since the elect among them obtain that salvation represented by them, as well as the adult believer does. Adults have no ground to glory over infants on account of anything they do in the use of these ordi- nances, for the ordinances themselves hold forth no ground of hope to them but what is equally free and efficacious for the salvation of infants who are incapable of observing them. * This Mr Glas fairly owns, where he says, " For this is the nature of the ordinances of divine service in the New Testament, that they are not complete in the outward and visible action, which is no more but the mean of engaging us in, or of expressing outwardly, the nature of the ordinance, which is spiritual and invisible : Thus baptism is not complete in the washing of the body with water, without the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience, which is the substance of that ordinance, as we may see from Peter's words, 1 Pet. iii. 21. — And so when a be- liever of the gospel eats of the bread, and drinks of the cup, with- out feasting with God, as has been said, upon Christ's sacrifice, we may say, he did not eat the Lord's Supper." Glas's Works, vol iv., p. 174, 175. 268 A DEFENCE OF We are charged with laying a self-righteous stress on the profession of the faith ; but a profession must at least be so far necessary to baptism as to satisfy the baptizer (who cannot search the heart) that the person is a proper subject of that ordinance. And in this we agree with Mr Glas, who says, " By this profession only we (who cannot search the hearts of men) are capable to know the members of Christ in this world ; — whilst that appearance is to be seen in any person, there we must see a member of the body of Christ. — So far then as any continue in the con- fession of the word of the tnith of the gospel, as it is the word of Grod, and as it sanctifies them, distinguishing them from the world — so far they are proper objects of that love which he requires towards the known elect in his new commandment." * Now this is the place we assign to a profession, and is all the stress we lay upon it with respect to baptism. We find that Philip demands it of the eunuch to clear his way for baptizing him. Acts viii. 37, and Mr Grlas says that baptism " cannot be adminis- tered to any but upon a confession, by which the baptized can be called disciples according to the scripture." To set aside the profession of the faith by which alone we can discern who are disciples, (i. e., persons instructed or taught in the truth, as the word imports) would be to overthrow at once the whole grounds of separation from the world, or any method by which it could be efi'ected. Mr Huddleston himself owns, " that a profession of faith before baptism does not indicate our disaffection to the salvation represented therein." f A condescending concession indeed ! How, then, comes self-righteousness to be connected with this profession in the Baptists more than in others ? Because, says he, we " deny that this profession gives our infants the same appearance of being in a state of salvation, and the same title to baptism it gives us ; for while this is the case with us, it is impossible * Glas's WorkSj vol. iv., p. 38, 128. t Letters, p. 39. believers' baptism. 269 we should not have some self-righteous stress resting upon our profession." * This is a very strange reason indeed ! He blames us for laying too much stress upon a profession, yet when he comes to explain himself, the blame falls on the opposite side. We hold that a profession indicates only the faith or state of the individual person that makes it, and cannot answer for any other, however nearly related to him by blood ; whereas Mr Huddleston thinks that a man's single profession is sufl&cient to denominate the whole of his house holy and of the kingdom of heaven, and so subjects of baptism. Now, I think it requires very little penetration to determine which of us lays the greatest stress upon a profession. Should a man's house, for instance, consist of ten persons, our author would lay ten times more stress upon the parent's profession than we can admit of. It is certain the scripture lays more stress upon Adam's sin, and Christ's obedience, than upon the sin or obedience of any other individual that ever existed; and I leave you to judge, whether he does not lay something of a similar stress upon the parent's pro- fession. Does he not make the parent a representative of his house in the faith and profession of the gospel, even as Christ is of the whole household of faith in his finished work ? Yet this is the man that charges self- righteousness upon those who dare not in their consciences build such a fabric upon their profession ? But I cannot think he grounds this charge of self- righteousness solely upon this foundation. What he intends to insinuate is, that we deny that infants are capable of salvation, and his reason for this can be no other than our denying them to be capable of baptism ; for he does not appear to understand how those who deny their baptism can believe their salvation. Hence it is that he puts the question, " Upon what does the author rest his opinion, that there are elect infants to obtain this * Letters, p. 39. 2a2 270 A DEFENCE OP salvation in infancy ?" * Remove the baptism of infants, and tlie very basis upon which he rests his opinion of their election and salvation is overturned. Deny this, and it appears to him " a denying that any infants can appear from scriptiire to be elected to this salvation." f When we see the author gravely and earnestly combating his own shadow, in order to prove, what was never denied, that infants as well as adults are of the kingdom of heaven, ;j; what propriety can we see in all this reasoning, if it be not his opinion, that to deny the baptism of infants, is the same as to deny their being of the kingdom of heaven ? Now, if we trace this sentiment to its source, we shall find it proceeds from his making baptism necessary to salvation ; for if he cannot see how the salvation of infants can be held without baptizing them, then their baptism and salvation must be so inseparably connected in his mind, as that a denial of the former, necessarily implies to him a disbelief of the latter. This is the only foundation upon which his charge of self-righteousness can stand consistently. It is indeed the old argument upon which infant baptism was at first introduced, and upon which the Papists and many ignorant Protestants hold it to this day ; and hence we may account for the solicitude of parents to have their children christened (as they call it) when in danger of death. Now, if this be not placing salvation in something else than the thing signified by baptism, it looks too like it. The author perhaps will be loath to admit this ; but (to return him his own words with a little variation), " there wants but a suitable occasion, with all his caution, to make this fully manifest. Men are more ready to place that confi- dence in baptism which belongs to the thing signified, than directly to own it ; nay, they show themselves very unwilling to own it, whilst all their reasoning for infant baptism, from first to last, serves to demonstrate it. Let * Letters, p. 37. t Ibid, p. 37- J Ibid, p. 39. believers' baptism. 271 the pretended friends of divine sovereignty be gravely told, that their little children may be members of the kingdom of heaven, and saved without their faith, and even without baptism, and it may open a view to the hypocrisy of their friendship." This author asks " Whether or not does the appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world include every age, as well as sort of men, that shall obtain salvation through his sufferings, death, and resurrection ?" * To this I answer, Though all the true subjects of this kingdom appear at one time or other in this world (their bodies being as visible as those of others), yet they are not all visible to us in that respect which denominates them Christ's subjects ; of such are elect infants, who cannot, and many adults who do not, give proper evidence to us thereof ; so that here is an age, as well as sort of men, which do not belong to the appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world, and yet obtain salvation through his death and resur- rection. These we call the unknown elect, and agree with Mr Grlas in distinguishing the known elect from them by the profession of the faith. The appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world includes no age or sort of men of all the innumerable company that shall be saved, but such as confess the faith, and give evidence to their fellow men that they know the truth. But we cannot say how great a multitude may be saved that are not included in the appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world, both infants and adults. It is probable the greatest number of his subjects are not included in that appearance. He asks further, " upon what we rest our opinion that there are elect infants, since we do not allow that they are visible subjects of the new covenant 1" f Ans. We rest our opinion and firm belief, that there are elect infants, not upon their being the children of * Letters, p. 37. t Ibid^ p. 37. 272 A DEFENCE OF iDelievers, nor upon the faith and profession of their parents, nor upon any passage of scripture that inseparably, con- nects the salvation of a man's house with his own salva- tion ; but upon the scripture doctrine of election itself ; which election, the apostle says, took place before men were born, Rom. ix. 11, before the foundation of the world, Eph. i. 4, so that there must be elect infants, else there would be no elect at all, for all mankind are infants before they become adults. Election is not influenced by their having done good or evil, but is according to the sovereign good pleasure of Grod's will, who hath mercy upon whom he will, Rom. ix. 11, 15, 18, and hence we conclude that it will stand as firm and sure with regard to that part of the elect who die in infancy as with respect to those of them who survive the infant state, and shew their calling and election by their love and obedience to the truth. But were it our opinion that election went upon what dis- tinguishes the adult believer from his infant, or anything done by man (whatever it be), then we must either deny the salvation of those who die in infancy, or hold with the Papists, that baptism saves them, or with the author, that they are saved by the faith of their parents. Our Lord says expressly of little children, that " of such is the kingdom of heaven," Mark x. 4. This clearly shows that there are elect infants ; and, for my own part, I am much inclined to judge favourably of the state of all infants dying in infancy. He observes that the churches are exhorted to " bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Eph. vi. 4, which does not suit with their being considered out of the Lord."* It is indeed the indispensable duty of Christian parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, i. e., to give them such correction and instruction as the Lord hath enjoined in his word. They are their peculiar charge by the very * Letters, p. 31. believers' baptism. 273 law of nature ; and the gospel obliges Christian parents to study the good of their souls as well as of their bodies, to set a godly example before them, and to instruct them in the doctrines of the Christian faith : but how does this duty of the believing parent prove that his children are in the Lord, or the proper subjects of baptism ? "Were not the apostles commanded to teach all nations the doctrine of the Lord ? And did this not suit with the nations being considered otit of the Lord ? Is a parent free from all obligations of duty to his children unless he can con- sider them as saved ? The apostle, addressing those who were married to unbelievers, says, " What knowest thou, 0 wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, 0 man, whether thou shalt save thy wife ?" 1 Cor. vii. 16, even so it may be said in this case, What knowest thou, 0 parent, whether thou shalt save thy child ? When this appears to be the case by the profession of their faith, then must they be considered as in the Lord ; then may they be baptized, but not before. But Eph. vi. 4 is foreign to the point, for it speaks not of infant children, but of such as are capable of admoni- tion : the word voudidia signifies to fix instruction upon their minds. In ver. 1, these children are exhorted to obey their parents in the Lord ; and in ver. 4, fathers are for- bid to provoke their children to wrath, but to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ; so that here are exhortations to the mutual duties of parents and children, even as of husbands and wives, masters and servants, &o., which shows that the children here intended are not mere infants, but believing children, visible members of the churches, and capable of receiving and obeying the word of exhortation, which he enforces by its being the first commandment with promise, verse 2, 3, and a duty well pleasing to the Lord, Col. iii. 20. As to the expression in the Lord, it does not intimate any peculiar spiritual connection betwixt a parent and his children : 274 A DEFENCE OF Christians are exhorted to marry only in the Lord, 1 Cor, vii. 39, wives to submit to their own husbands in the Lord, Col. iii. 18. This phrase signifies, either that they should obey their believing parents who are in the Lord, and so it is an additional motive of obedience ; or, that they should obey in the Lord their parents, i. e., in the fear of the Lord, manifesting their subjection to him in so doing, and then it agrees with the exhortation to servants, Col. iii. 22, 23, Eph. vi. 5-8. The argument from circumcision seems to be almost given up by the Scots Independents, The anonymous writer of the Remarks, has not so much as mentioned it, and Mr Huddleston has sapped the very foundation of it, where he says, " The promise which is to believers and their children, belongs to the covenant made after those days ; and it was never said to Abraham, thou shalt be saved and thy house." * Here he fairly owns, that the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham, was not the same with the new covenant to which baptism belongs, and consequently he cannot argue from the circumcision of infants under the former, for the baptism of such under the latter. But whilst he distinguishes the cove- nants, he confounds the distinction of the seeds, and so makes baptism to belong to the natural seed of believers, even as circumcision belonged to the fleshly seed of Abraham. " As to what is observed (says he) of natural and spiritual, parents and children are alike, both natural and both spiritual, f — The fleshly seed of New Testament believers are really the spiritual seed of Abraham." J When we remind him, that the spiritual seed, or sons of Grod, under the New Testament, are described as " bom, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of Grod," John. i. 12, 13 — that " the children of the flesh are not the children of Grod, but the children of the promise ai-e counted for the seed — even the called, * Letters, p. 63. f Ibid, p. 45. % Ibid, p. 73. believers' baptism. 275 not of the Jews only, but also of the Grentiles, Rom. ix. 3, 24 — that therefore we cannot henceforth know any man after the flesh, or by his descent from religious ancestors, as in the Jewish church, but " that if any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature," 2 Cor. v. 16, 17, to these, and such passages, he replies. Will the infants of believers being born of the flesh, prevent their being typified by Israelitish infants? Could these infants typify any other sort of persons but what are born of the flesh ? I suppose believers are the same way born of the flesh that their infants are ; were they not therefore typified by Abraham's fleshly seed ?" * This approaches very near to a burlesque of these passages. But the Holy Glhost, in denying that the spiritual seed are the children of the flesh, or born of blood, &c., does not mean that they come into the world in a different way from others, or that they are without natural parents ; but the meaning is, that their natural birth, be it of whom it may, can neither constitute them the spiritual seed, nor distinguish them as such to us. The covenant of circum- cision was made with the fleshly seed of Abraham, and 60 their natural birth, by which they descended from him, sufficiently distinguished them in infancy as the subjects of circumcision ; but the new covenant to which baptism belongs, respects only the spiritual seed who are born again ; and as these are not known to us till they pro- fess the faith, it is demonstrably clear that they cannot be baptized in infancy. Thus stands the argument from circumcision, which, with the distinction of the covenants, I have fully handled, in my seventh Letter to Mr Grias. Nothing can be more agreeable to scripture than what Mr Glas advances upon the distinction of the fleshly and spiritual seed, throughout the greatest part of his writings. The whole of his excellent treatise on the kingdom of Christ as not of this world, is founded upon that distinc- * Letters, p. 73. 276 -A- DEFENCE OF tion. There he tells us that " the earthly birth, or that birth after the flesh, availed much in the state of the church erected at Sinai, as to the enjoyment of the privi- leges of it. But now, our Lord says to Nicodemus, Ex- cept a man be born again (or from above) he cannot see the kingdom of Grod," &c. * Would not any one think that he here sets aside the fleshly birth, or connection with believing parents, as of no account in the kingdom of Christ ? But it seems he meant no such thing ; for, by his rule of distinguishing the infant subjects of the king- dom of heaven, he gives as much place to the fleshly birth as ever it had in the Jewish church, and so builds again the things which he destroyed. But if his adherents will still maintain that he keeps this distinction clear and consistent, I should be glad to be informed wherein it lies. The distinction does not lie in this, that the holiness of believers' children comes not by natxiral generation, for neither did that of old Israel come by natural generation, but by a covenant separating them and their seed to be a peculiar people to the Lord : — Nor does it lie in this, that the word of Grod declares the infants of believers holy ; for so does it declare those of old Israel : — Neither does the distinction lie in this, that the fleshly birth does not entitle to the spiritual privileges of Christ's kingdom ; for neither did it entitle to the temporal privi- leges of the earthly kingdom. Old Israel obtained the earthly inheritance by the covenant made with their father Abraham, Gen. xv. 18, abstract from this, they had no claim to it upon the footing of their birth or righteous- ness more than any other people, Deut. ix. 4-6. Wherein, then, did the fleshly birth avail more formerly than it does now ? or what is the foundation of the above distinction ? If his arguments for infant pouring (so he leads us to call it) hold good, it undeniably follows that the earthly birth, or that birth after the flesh, avails more in the kingdom of * Glas's Works, vol, i., p. 53. believers' baptism. 277 God, than ever it did in the state of the church erected at Sinai; for then it could only distinguish the fleshly seed of Abraham, who were typically holy, and entitled to the temporal privileges of the earthly kingdom ; whereas, under the gospel he makes it to distinguish the spiritual seed of Christ, who are truly holy, and entitled to the spiritual and everlasting privileges of the kingdom of heaven. ^ I shall conclude these miscellaneous observations with a word or two upon Dr Stuart's Sermon on the Kingdom of Christ. * Speaking of the distinction of Christ's subjects from the world, he says, " They are such as know the Father as he hath discovered him ; — receive and are firmly persuaded of the divine authority in Christ's words ; — are brought into a delightful and complacential union with one another ; — are preserved in this, and in union with God, by the words of Jesus ; — through these too partake of his ineffable joy." f Distinguishing them from the subjects of the earthly kingdom by the nature of their birth, he says that John gives an account of the way that subjects were born to God under the law, John. i. 10-14, but that the new and heavenly birth by which men enter into the kingdom of God, is set forth in Christ's discourse with Nicodemus, chap. iii. 1-6. ;|; He dis- tinguishes also their holiness : " Israel indeed was a holy nation ; but the national holiness of Israel was only outward and typical. They were a holy people by virtue of their descent from the sons of Jacob, and by virtue of their observation of the covenant made with them at Sinai. But the holiness of Christ's kingdom is the substance of this. All his subjects are really and inter- nally, as well as outwardly, holy." § He denies that they can be distinguished without charity ; " Outward appear- * When the Author wrote this, Ur Stuart was not a Baptist, but he became one soon after. t Page 4. I Page 8, note. § Ibid. 2b A DEFENCE OF ances, -which fall short of proving persons possessed of charity, shall no more mark them ottt as once the sub- jects of the kingdom of Grod." * He rejects the dis- tinction between the subjects of Christ's kingdom as it appears in this world, and the spiritually holy nation of them that are saved, as a distinction only suited to a national church. " The apostles describe the kingdom of Christ by names, privileges, and characters, which do not l>elong, nay, are opposite to those which belong to the kingdoms of this world. They write to every particular congregation or church, and of them, as consisting of these, all of whom, without exception, they judged to be the children of God, chosen, redeemed, called, and separated from the world. None, it is evident, were Christians in the sight or opinions of the apostles, who tiiey were not bound to think, and did not think, Chi-istians in God's sight." f I confess I was much edified and delighted with his description of Christ's subjects, and my heart warmed in love to the author for the truth's sake, which he so clearly and boldly maintains through the most of that Sermon. But how great was m}^ disappointment when I advanced to page 43, and found him distinguishing the subjects of Christ's kingdom by characters very different from the above ! No sooner does he turn his thoughts to infant l^aptism, than his views of the kingdom are immediately corrupted, and losing sight of the grand hinge of the difference, he descends into mere trifling with the national church about sjjvtisors, bastards, and foundliiKjs ; as if * Page 5. t Page 8, 9. His brother, the anonymous Kemarker on Scriptiu'e Texts, is, however, of a very difierent opinion, and charges those wlio hold the above sentiment with " deceiving tlie hearts of those who believe -without proper evidence, and blinding the minds of those who receive not the simple sayings of the Son of God." But perhaps this is one of the things on which they have agreed to differ. believers' baptism. 279 the distinction between Christ's sulijects and the world stood in the faith of their parents, or the legitimaci/ of their carnal birth. Alas, what a falling oiF is here I He cannot admit of sponsors, " because all the lines of argument in fav^our of infant baptism issue from the faith of the parent as their centre ; but this device supposes the contrary, at least its doubtfulness." * Yet the device of sponsors is far more ancient than the device of the parent's faith, though both of them are devices equally void of ■ foundation in the Word of God, as marking the baptized with the sign of the cross, and giving them a mixture of milk and honey, a practice at least full as ancient as infant baptism. After all, what is the parent in this case but a sponsor for his child in the strictest sense of the word ? Are the subjects of the kingdom of heaveu, then, to be distinguished by the faith of proxies ? Does this distinc- tion correspond with any of the above ? Or rather,, does it not overthrow them, and make all that has been said upon the subject much ado about nothing ? Again, it infant baptism rest entirely on the faith of the parent, then neither he nor his brethren can be sure they have obtained Christian baptism, unless they know their parents were believers. As to bastards and foundlim/s, where do we find the New Testament distinguishing the subjects of baptism from these ? Does the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the carnal birth make any diiFerence in the kingdom of Christ ? The Jews, indeed, claimed a relation to G-od as his children, from their being Abraham's seed, and not born of fornication, like the unlawful issue of ido- laters ; but our Lord repels their claim upon that footing, and gives them to understand, that unless they believed, continued in his word, loved him, and did the works of Abraham, neither the faith of Abraham their father (however distinguished), nor the legitimaci/ of their carnal * Page 43, note. 280 A DEFENCE OF birth as descended from him, could avail them any thing, as to the enjoyment of the privileges of his kingdom, John viii. 31-48. Upon the whole, we may affirm, that no man can hold the distinction of the kingdom of Christ from the Jewish theocracy and kingdoms of this world, in any consistency with the arguments for infant baptism. This point, however trivial it may appear to some, is of such a nature as to affect all our ideas of that distinction, and leaven the whole. For, if we once admit the notion, that the subjects which compose this kingdom, may be known or distinguished by any thing, be it what it will, which comes short of their manifesting their being of the truth, believing it, loving it, hearing Christ's voice, and following him, this single sentiment, if followed out, will infallibly lead us to blend the kingdom of Christ with the world, even in its visible appearance, and make all we advance to the contrary a jumble of inconsistencies. STRICTURES MR CARTER'S REMARKS, IX A LETTER TO MR RKHAKUS OF LYNX 2b2 STRICTURES, &c Dear Sir, In Mr Carter's Remarks on your Observations on Infant sprinkling, I find very little argument. Others, however, may be of a very different opinion ; and hence it may be proper to say something by way of reply. Neither my time at present, nor the bounds of a single sheet, will per- mit me to enter fully into the subject ; and there is the less occasion, as you inform me that you intend to pub- lish. His Letter I. is taken up with his own vindication. I hope you will do him all manner of justice. In Letter II. he still contends that the words bapto and baptizo signify any mode of washing, particularly sprink- ling and pouring, but he has not produced one passage where they must necessarily be so understood. Neither Mark vii. 4, nor Luke xi. 38 mention what he calls un- baptized hands. There is no such expression in all the scriptures, that I know of ; and though there were, it would not favour either sprinkling or pouring, for hands are not ordinarily washed in such ways. He surely knows that nipto is the word for washing hands, Mark vii. 2, 3, and that the baptism, ver. 4, is such as was performed on cups, brazen vessels, tables, or beds, which is expressed, Lev. xi. 32, by putting them into water. Though the Jews held things unclean which really were not so, yet they are not blamed for using a different mode of cleans- ing from that prescribed in the law for things ceremonially polluted. The divers baptisms mentioned Heb. ix. 10, 284 STEICTtTEES ON must signify the clivers bathings prescribed both to priests and unclean persons, on different occasions ; because the apostle distinguishes sprinkling from these baptisms by another woi'd, ver. 13, and the law distinguishes dipping, sprinkling, and pouring, as three different actions. Lev, iv. 6, 7. — If the lavr does not command one man to take another and plunge him under water, must it follow that Christ does not command one man thus to baptize another? — I know not where he finds the scripture using the (derivative) word haptizo, " when only part of the body was washed." If you do, pray dash out this, and conceal my ignorance. The primitive bapto is indeed used to ex- press the dipping (not the washing) of a finger, Luke xvi. 24, and an hand, Matt. xxvi. 23, but these may be as effectually dipped as the whole body. In Letter III. he insists that the promise, Acts ii. 38, 39, is the promise made to Abraham, because the Apostle mentions that promise on another occasion, chap. iii. 19- 25 (strange logic indeed !) — and because the blessing of Abraham includes the promise of the Spirit, Gal. iii. 14, as if that was the only promise of the Spirit which Peter could refer to in Acts ii. ! Yet Peter speaks not a word of the promise made to Abraham in the whole of that dis- course, but cites at large the promise of the Spirit from Joel — shews its begun accomplishment in what was then seen and heard, and applies it to the Jews nearly in the very words of that Prophet — comp. ver. 39, with Joel ii. 32. — By the children he understands infants, but neither the promise to Abraham, nor that in Joel, speak of infants. " They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham," Gal. iii. 7. " They ivhlch be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham," ver. 9. And they " receive the promise of the Spirit through faith," or be- lieving, ver. 14. In Joel there is no mention i made of any children, but the sons and daughters, who should prop/ie^y upon receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit ; and MR carter's remarks. 285 these are evidently the children the apostle speaJcs of, — By " aU that are afar oj-]" he understands Gentiles. But whether Peter by that expression intends Gentiles (which, from many considerations, is not likely), or only dispersed Jews, it makes all one as to the argument, since he restricts the promise to those only whom the Lord shall call ; and none can appear to us the ealled of the Lord but such as comply with his call to faith and repentance. Nor do we read of any who were baptized on that occasion but such as gladly received Peter's word, ver. 41, he says, — Letter lY., " The apostle's words (1 Cor. vii. 14) plainly imply that, in consequence of one of the parents professing the Christian faith, their children are holy ; whereas, if both were unbelieving, their children would be unclean." But his words imply no such thing. The apostle says nothing of the lawful children of two unbelieving parents, nor does he give the least hint that such are unclean. Neither does he make the holiness of the children a con- sequence of one of the parents professing the Christian faith ; but of the unbelieving parent being sanctified. " The unbelieving wife (says he) is sanctified by the hus- band ; else were your children unclean ; but now" (since the unbelieving party is sanctified) " are they holy." Now what kind of holiness is it, that thus depends upon the holiness of an unbeliever ; " Not an holiness of nature (says Mr Carter) but an holiness in themselves, i. e., an holiness of state derived to them from the believing parent's covenant, or that new covenant in which the believing parent is interested ; and therefore a further holiness thd^n that of the unbelieving parent." But where does the apostle thus distinguish the holiness of the children from that of the unbelieving parent ? If the children's holiness is derived from the believing parent's covenant, the holiness of the unbeliever must be more immediately so ; because it is the medium through which, the holiness of the children is derived, and without 286 STRICTURES OK which they would be unclean, " else were your children unclean ;" and therefore the children's holiness cannot be a further holiness than that of the unbelieving parent through which it comes, but must of necessity be of the very same kind ; for new covenant holiness can never de- pend in any sense upon the sanctification of an unbeliever ; nor does it depend upon the sanctification of the believing parent himself, nor even upon the legitimacy of the natural birth. The bastard children of unbelievers may have new covenant holiness, and the legitimate children of believers may want it. I do not say that the holiness of the children is origi- nally derived from the holiness of the unbelieving parent. The holiness of both is oi^iginally derived from the ordi- nance of Grod, making the one a lawful wife to the believer, and consequently the other a lawful issue, which was not the case under that law whereby old Israel was separated from the nations. This is the only sense which suits the apostle's argument, and the scruples of the believing Cor- inthians. Mr Carter's account of the children's holiness agrees neither with the holiness of the old nor new covenant, but is only a piece of corrupted Judaism. I must not stay, however, to examine it. He says, " The state of the un- believing parent neither is nor can be declared holy ;" yet the apostle declares that the unbelieving wife {riyiagai) is made holy ; must she not therefore be holy ? and what more is declared of the children ? Goodwin's remark upon the use of hagia instead of kathara is mere trifling. His Letter V. begins with the argument from Mark x. 13, 14 ; where I find nothing worth noticing except the fol- lowing quotation : — " By such we must understand little ones properly so called." — Granted — " but not all such, since the persons who brought these infants or little ones to Christ, were, without doubt, his followers^ or such as ME carter's remarks. 287 had an high veneration for him — they were Jews, not heathens," &c. All this may he very true, for anything I know ; but where do we learn that (rajv roiovruv) of such, has any the least reference (ro/s '7r^os(ps^ovffiv) to those who brought them ? The words are not, of the children of such, as brought them ; but of such [vaibim) little children is the kingdom of God ; i. e., the kingdom of Grod includes such young subjects as these. Here is no distinguishing of children by the character of their pai'ents. Nor does this passage aiford the least warrant for baptizing them, but the contrary. They were not brought to be baptized. Jesus himself did not baptize them, for he baptized none, John iv. 2. Nor did he command his disciples to do it ; nor would they have forbidden infants to have been brought unto him had they been accustomed to baptize such. — The kingdom of God here evidently means his invisible kingdom, for it is such as none can enter, but those who receive it as little children, ver. 15, or are converted and become as little children, Matt, xviii. 3. Whereas many enter his visible kingdom who are not really converted, Matt. XXV. 1-13. Yet to this last only does baptism be- long, for this good reason, because it is not administered by Christ himself, who knows whom he hath chosen, but by fallible men, who can judge only by outward appear- ance. It is of little consequence whether we grant baptism to have come in place of circumcision or not, provided we keep clear the distinction between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise, which distinction runs through the whole New Testament, and is particularly stated Rom. ix. and Gal. iii. and iv. This distinction cuts down at once all the arguments from circumcision. With this scripture distinction in our eye, we may freely admit, that as circumcision belonged to all the ficshly seed of Abraham under the old covenant, who were known to be such by their natural birth ; so does baptism belong to all the 288 STKICTURES OTT spiritual seed of Abraham under the new covenant, when they appear to be such by the confession of their faith in Christ. Mr Carter endeavours to confound this distinction ; " Where (says he) does the Holy Crhost apply the term carnal seed to the infants of believers ? Is not carnal always used to denote the character of adults who live ac- cording to the desire of the flesh, and of the mind ? This distinction, therefore, the carnal and spiritual seed of Christians, is totally without foundation,'" p. 48, 51. — The term carnal is frequently applied to things as well as persons; see Rom. xv. 27, 1 Cor. ix. 11, 2 Cor. iii. 3, Heb. vii. 16, and ix. 10. Wben applied to adults, it generally marks something bad in their character or con- duct, bvit not always to that extent he mentions ; for it is applied to Christians, 1 Cor. iii. 1, 3, 4. But the expres- sion he excepts to is carnal seed ,• and where does he find this used to denote the character of adults in distinction from that of infants ? Were there none of believing Abraham's children a carnal seed in their infancy ? How then were they " the children of the flesh," Rom. ix. 8, " horn after the flesh," ClaL iv. 23 ? But he has mistaken us altogether ; for we do not divide the infant ofi"spring of -Christians into their carnal and spiritual seed. We affirm that, as the seed of Christians, they are all carnal, because in this respect Christians are only the fathers of their jlesh, or carnal part, in distinction from God, the father of .spirits, Heb. xii. 9. " That which is born of the flesh is flesh," or carnal, let it spring of whom it may, John iii. 6. Purther, we affirm, that the infants of Christians are, in their first birth, " Shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin," Psalm li. 5, and are " by nature the children of wrath even as others," Eph. ii. 3. The first state even of the children of God is carnal, and this commences with their very existence, and continues till they are changed. In both these senses they may very properly be called their MR cartee's remarks. 289 carnal seed. But it is quite improper to call the believing children of Christians their ^/Mniwa^ seed ; for, ViS believers, they are the children of God, Glal. iii. 26 — the seed of Abraham, ver. 29 — the children of Jerusalem which is from above, the free woman, chap. iv. 26, 31. And, in this respect, not the children, but brethren of their be- lieving parents. — Indeed, if the parents are instrumental in begetting them to the faith, they may in that sense be called their children, as Timothy was Paul's son, 1 Tim. i. 2, and the Gralatians his little children, Gal. iv. 19. But this relation is not peculiar to parent and child, nor can it take place in mere infancy ; besides, the children may sometimes be instrumental in converting their parents. Letter VI. contains some testimonies from the ancients ; but as he " cannot feel himself in the least moved by the authority of such ancients to believe that immersion was the practice of the apostles of Christ, who enjoined the churches to do all things decently," p. 17, he cannot with any good grace urge their authority upon us for Infant Sprinkling, contrary to the commission and uniform prac- tice of the apostles, supposing there were any such au- thority to produce before the latter end of the second century, which I believe there is not. I shall therefore proceed to Letter VII,, wherein he handles the Argument from the baptism of whole houses. In reply to the quotation from my pamphlet, he charges me with " begging the question, or taking for granted the point in debate," p. 72. In answer to this charge I shall state the question, and see which of us has begged it. The question or point in debate, if I mistake not, is this, Whether there were any infants baptized in those houses? I denied there were — 1. Because in all the accounts of those houses, there is not a word said of infants or of their baptism ; for this I re- ferred to the passages themselves. — 2. Because it is affirmed 2 c 290 STBICTUEES ON of all that were baptized in those houses, that they believed, rejoiced, ^'c. This also I rested upon the authority of these accounts, which was the best I could produce. I know nothing, therefore, which I have taken for granted, except it be this, that infants cannot be said to believe, rejoice, 8fc., and for this I shall only appeal to common sense.— ^ It might reasonably be expected that the Poedobaptists, however firmly persuaded of their favourite point upon other grounds, would candidly give up those houses as un- serviceable to their cause ; but instead of this they, with much confidence, beg one question after another in every step of the argument. — 1. They beg leave to assert that there were infants in those houses ; and — 2. They beg also to be excused from proving it, thinking they have sufficiently acquitted themselves when they put it upon us to j^rove the negative. Should we tell them there are many houses without infants, and that therefore their assertion is at best but uncertain — Should we come a little closer to the point, and remind them that the scripture informs us all in those houses heard the word and believed, which infants were not capable of, and that therefore their assertion is evidently false, they will then — 3. Beg to have it granted that it was only the parent, not the house, that believed and rejoiced ; or, if that will not do, that the word all signifies only the adult part of a house, and that the other part consisted of infants. Should we, for argument's sake, grant them the unscriptural supposition, that there were infants in those houses, they have still — 4. To beg the question as to their baptism. How so ? Is it not said ex- pressly that ALL in those houses were baptized ? True ; but they have already begged that the word all might signify only a part, i. e., the adult part of a house, there- fore it can conclude for the baptism of none else ; so that to make out the baptism of these imaginary infants, they are obliged to reverse their former petition, and to beg they may be comprehended in the word all, from which they MR caeter's remarks. 291 bad before begged to exclude them. In short, when all in the house are said to believe, they restrict it to adults ; but when all in the same passage, and in the very same house, are said to be baptized, they extend it to infants : Why ? Because they take it for granted that there were infants in those houses, and that they were proper subjects of baptism, which is the very point in debate. I am afraid there is something worse than begging the question in this manner of arguing. It looks too like handling the word of God deceitfidly. Mr Carter's question (p. 72), must be answered by him and his friends — we have nothing to do with it. I shall put it with a very little variation, and let him answer it if he can : " By what rules of just and fair interpretation can " the Poedobaptists " prove that the same mode of expression which " they explain in one sense when used of a house believing and rejoicing, " must be understood in a different point of view, when applied " to the same house baptized ? " If in the former " case " it can be referred only to " adults, " why, in the latter, must it be stretched any farther ?" I am. Dear Sir, Yours, with all due respect. Edinburgh, March 27, 1783. A LETTER COREESPONDENT; That all the Arguments for Infant Baptism are rendered null by Poedobaptists themselves ; and that ther^ can be no positive divine institution without ex- tress SCBIPTCRE PRECSPT Or EXAMPLE. 2 c 2 A LETTER TO A CORRESPONDENT, &c SlE, Thoxjgh you admit that the Scriptures clearly support our sentiments respecting the baptism of believers, as it is evi- dent that those who were at first baptized must have been adult proselytes from Judaism or heathenism to the Chris- tian faith ; yet still it is your opinion that the baptism of their infants, though not espressly mentioned, is a thing very probable ; and you think that the arguments which have been advanced for infant baptism,, by such a vast number of the most judicious, learned, and pious writers, if they do not altogether convince us, should at least make us less confident in our opposition to that practice. I am not in the least disposed to dispute either the learning or piety of those who have appeared as advocates for infant baptism ; and could I believe that it is a ques- tion of such an intricate nature as to require profound learning or distinguished abilities to determine it, I should certainly be very difiident of my own judgment. But if infant baptism be really a positive institution of Christ, it can require no such singular qualifications to discern it ; and if it is not, then all the learning and reasoning in the world, however ingenious, can never convert it into one. It is very remarkable, that though Poedobaptists of all denominations agree in the general conclusion, viz., that infants ought to be baptized, or, at least, that there is no harm in it ; yet they are far from being agreed as to the premises from whence they infer that conclusion; for there 296 EXAMINATION OP THE AKGUMENTS is scarcely an argument whicli has been urged by any of them in support of it, but what has been contradicted by others of them, or considered as inconclusive and foreign to the point : if you doubt the truth of this you may at- tend to the following particulars :— I. The Poedobaptists differ widely among themselves about the grounds of the right which infants have to baptism. Some found it upon the universality of divine grace : others, upon the commission to disciple all nations. But many reject these grounds, and place it upon the law of circumcision, which they think warrants the baptism of the infant seed of New Testament believers. Others doubt this, and affirm that it comes in place, or is rather a continuation of Jewish proselyte baptism ; while others deny that there was any such baptism pi'evious to the Christian era. Some ground it upon the entail of the covenant of grace on the natural seed of believers, at least during their infancy, and which gives them a right to baptism as being born holy and members of the true church for which Christ gave himself. Others deny this, and af- firm that it is by baptism they are brought into the bond of the covenant of grace, and constituted members of the true church. — Some place the right of infants to baptism on the engagement of a surety or sponsor, and many on the faith of the immediate parents, or, if these last happen to be ungodly, on the piety of their more remote ancestors, which they think conveys the right to several succeeding generations; but how far this extends they are not yet agreed. Others deny any right derived from parents or ancestors, and place it on the faith and consent of the church, and some even on the authority of the Christian magistrate over his subjects. There are numbers who ground it on the supposed faith of the infant itself, which they presume it possesses in the seed, though not in the fruit ; and Luther owns " that little children should not be baptized at all, if it be true that in baptism they do not RESPECTI5TG INPANT BAPTISH. 297 believe." Those who adopt this opinion seem to give up every other ground for infant baptism, for they admit that nothing solid can be replied to the Baptists, without main- taining either that infants have faith before baptism, or that in baptism they are regenerated and believe. In short, the various grounds upon which the right of infants to baptism has been placed, are not only contradictory in their own nature, but have actually been contradicted by Poedobaptists themselves, one class of them overturning the hypothesis of another. II. The Poedobaptists are not agreed as to the sense of the scripture passages from which infant baptism is in- ferred, nor as to the justness of the inferences or con- clusions drawn from them. I shall take notice of those passages on which the main stress is laid. Gren. xvii. 7, " I will establish my covenant between me- and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a Grod unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Many Poedobaptists, not understanding that this covenant with Abraham had a twofold sense ;: one literal and temporal, relating to his natural seed, the other spiritual and eternal, respecting his spiritual seed,. have applied it indiscriminately to the natural seed of New Testament believers. But others of them admit this dis- tinction, and maintain that, so far as this was a promise of spiritual blessings, it did not respect the natural seed of Abraham as such, but only his spiritual seed, 6y faith ; that in this view only does it include believing Glentiles, Gal. iii. 26, 28, 29,. but not the natural seed of any as such. Matt. iii. 9, Eom. ix. 8, 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. See Zanchius, De Nat. Dei, L. iv. c. v. § 5, Mr Baxter's Disputat. of right to Sacrain. p. 114, 115, Assem. of Divines^ Annotat. on Rom. ix. 8, Beza's Annotat. on G-al. iv. 24, Venema, Dissertat. Sacrce, L. ii. c. ix. L. iii. c. ii.. Mr Williams' Notes on Morrice's Social Religion, p* 312-317. 29S EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMEKTS Gen. svii. 12, " And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your genera- tions," &c. From this command to circumcise the infant male seed of Abraham, it is commonly argued that the natural seed of believers should be baptized in infancy. But many Poedobaptists do not consider this argument as conclusive : Lord Brooke says, — " The analogy which baptism now hath with circumcision in the old law, is a fine rhetorical argument to illustrate a point well proved before ; but I somewhat doubt whether it be proof enough for that which some would prove by it ; since besides the vast differences in the oi'dinauces, the persons to be cir- cumcised are stated by a positive law so express that it leaves no place for scruple. But it is far otherwise in baptism, where all the designation of persons fit to be partakers, for aught I know, is only such as believe. For this is the qualification that, with exactest search, I find the scripture requires in persons to be baptized ; and this it seems to require in all such persons. Now, how infants can be said to believe, I am not yet fully resolved." Discourse of Epis. Sect. ii. chap. vii. p. 97. Venema, having observed that it is a received hypothesis that bap- tism succeeded in the place of circumcision, says, — " But what then ? Must I therefore allow, or does it thence follow, that the design and the end of baptism, and of cir- cumcision, were the same ? Certainly by no means. For according to the different nature of the economies, there ought to be a different aspect of the sacraments, and a different end. — Circumcision, according to a twofold cove- nant, internal and external, which then existed, had like- wise a twofold aspect, spiritual and carnal. The former referred to the internal covenant of grace ; the latter to a legal, typical, and external covenant. That was con- cerned in sealing the righteousness of faith, as the apostle asserts (Rom. iv. 11) ; this in the external prerogatives of Judaism, and in confirming external benefits. That was RESPECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 299 peculiar to the believing Israelites ; this was common to the whole people. — This twofold and different aspect of circumcision being supposed and admitted, the whole ques- tion will be, — Whether baptism answers to both, or only to one of those different appearances ? Whether it suc- ceeds to circumcision absolutely and in all respects, or in a restricted sense, and in some only ? Which controversy cannot be determined, but from a comparison of both economies, a contemplation on the nature of each sacra- ment, and indeed the clear doctrine of scripture." And having observed that the scripture nowhere affirms that baptism holds the place of circumcision, and that Paul in Col. ii. 11, 12, only asserts that baptism answers to spiritual circumcision, he proceeds thus ; " and seeing I perceive none [no reason] produced for a perfect similitude, it is my intention to establish an imperfect likeness, in order to make it appear that baptism succeeded circumci- sion, not according to an external, but only an internal and mystical consideration. The genius of the new economy affords the first and the clearest reason ; seeing a sacrament of it cannot be foreign from its nature. Now that is spiritual, abhorrent of an external covenant, as I have endeavoured to demonstrate ; wherefore it answers only to the spiritual part of the old economy." From these considerations he concludes that " to settle the ex- ternal aspect and end of baptism, a comparison of it with circumcision avails nothing at all." He also observes that " our sacraments do not belong to any external cove- nant, as under the former dispensations, but to the internal covenant of grace : which positive institutes no one can rightly or lawfully use, besides a true believer, who is in- ternally a covenantee." Dissertat. Sacra', L. ii. c. xv. See also Dr Erskine's Theolog. Dissertat. p. 78-80. Matt, xxviii. 19, " Gro ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" &c. Many of the Pcedobaptists 300 EXAMINATION OF THE AEGUMENTS contend that infants are included in this commission ; that the word (j^adrinuffaTS, signifies to 7nake disciples, and that infants are to be made disciples by baptism, and to be taught afterwards. But a great many of the most learned and judicious Poedobaptist writers reprobate this gloss ; I shall instance only in three of them. Mr Baxter says, — " As for those that say they are discipled by bap- tizing, and not before baptizing, they speak not the sense of that text ; nor that which is true or rational, if they mean it absolutely as so spoken ; else why should one be baptized more than another ? — This is not like some oc- casional historical mention of baptism, but it is the very commission of Christ to his apostles for preaching and baptizing, and purposely expresseth their several works, in their several places and order. Their first task is by teaching to make disciples, which are by Mark called believers : The second work is to baptize them, whereto is annexed the promise of their salvation ; The third work is to teach them all other things which are afterwards to be learned in the school of Christ. To contemn this order is to renounce all rules of order ; for where can we ex- pect to find it if not here ? I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from this text, that it is one sort of faith, even saving, that must go before baptism, and the profes- sion whereof the minister must expect." Disputat. of Eight to Sacr. p. 91, 149, 150. Dr Ridgley, having cited the words of the commission, says, " I am sensible that some who have defended infant baptism, or rather attempted to answer an objection taken from this and such like scriptures against it, have en- deavoured to prove that the Glreek word signifies to make persons disciples — and therefore they suppose that we are made disciples by baptism, and afterwards to be taught to ■observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded. — But I cannot think this sense of the word so defensible or agreeable to the design of our Saviour, as that of our RESPECTINa INFANT BAPTISM. 301 translation, viz. : — Go teach all nations ; which agrees with the words of the other Evangelist, Go preach the gospel to every creature. And besides, while we have re- course to this sense to defend infant baptism, we do not rightly consider that this cannot well be applied to adult baptism, which the apostles were first to practise : for it cannot be said concerning the heathen, that they are first to be taken under Christ's care by baptism, and then in- structed in the doctrines of the gospel by his ministers." Body of Div. Quest. 166. Dr Whitby thus comments upon this passage, " Teach all nations. MadrjTsuiiv here is to preach the gospel to all nations, and to engage them to believe it in order to their profession of that faith by baptism ; as seems apparent. — 1. From the parallel commission, Mark xvi. 15, Go preach the gospel to every creature ; he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. — 2. From the scripture notion of a disciple, that being still the same as a believer. — If here it should be said that I yield too much to the Antipoedobaptists — I desire any one to tell me how the apostles could, fiadrirsusiv, make a disciple of an heathen, or unbelieving Jew, without being [lOL&riroi, or teachers of them ? whether they were not sent to preach to those that could hear, and to teach them to whom they preached that Jesus was the Christ, and only to baptize them when they did believe this ?" &c. Matt. xix. 14, " Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me : for of such is the kingdom of God." Much use has been made of this passage in sup- port of infant baptism ; but several Poedobaptist writers admit that it is of little or no service to the cause. Mr Poole's Continuators on the place give this caution, — " We must take heed we do not found infant baptism upon the example of Christ in this text ; for it is certain that he did not baptize these children. Mark only saith. He took them into his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed 2 D 302 EXAMINATION OF THE AEGITMENTS them." Dr Doddridge says, — " I acknowledge these words of themselves will not prove infant baptism to be an insti- tution of Christ." Note on the place. Dr Whitby, hav- ing attempted to shew that these words are fitly used at the celebration of infant baptism, adds, — " But, say the Antipa?dobaptists, Christ neither did baptize them, nor command the apostles to do it. Ans. That is not to be wondered at, if we consider that — Christian baptism was not yet instituted ; and that the baptism then used by John and Christ's disciples was only the baptism of re- pentance, and faith in the Messiah, which was for to come, Acts xix. 4 ; of both which infants were incapable." Annotat. on the place. With this Mr Burkitt's note agrees almost verbatim. But here a question occurs, — How are infants more capable of Christian baptism than they were of the baptism of John ? Is it because Chris- tian baptism requires neiiher faith nor repentance as that did ? Or are infants mentioned as subjects of the one any more than of the other ? Acts ii. 39, " The promise is unto you and to your chil- dren, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." These words have also been frequently urged in favour of infant baptism ; but many learned Poedobaptists deny that they have any relation to that subject. Thus Dr Hammond says, — " If any have made use of that very inconcludent argument [viz., from Acts ii. 39], I have nothing to say in defence of them — the word children there is really the posterity of the Jews, and not peculiarly their infant children." Woi^ks, vol. i. p. 490. Limborch, having shewn that the apostle by Tsxva did not mean infants, but children or posterity, con- cludes thus, — " Whence it appears that the argument which is very commonly taken from this passage for the baptism of infants is of no force, and good for nothing ; because it entirely departs from the design of Peter. It is necessary, therefore, that Poedobaptism should be sup- RESPECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 303 ported by other arguments." Comment, in loc. Dr Whitby on the place says, — " These words will not prove a right of infants to receive baptism. The promise here being that only of the Holy Ghost, mentioned ver. 16-18, and so relating only to the times of the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, and to those persons who by age were made capable of these extraordinary gifts." Acts xvi. 15, " When she was baptized and her house- hold."— Ver. 33, " And was baptized, he and all his, straightway." — 1 Cor. i. 16, " I baptized also the house- hold of Stephanas." As many of the Poedobaptists take it for granted that there were infants in those households, so they conclude that they were baptized : But here again their Poedobaptist brethren consider this argument as alto- gether uncertain. As to the household of Lydia, Dr Whitby paraphrases the passage thus, — " And when she, and those of her household, were instructed in the Chris- tian faith, and in the nature of the baptism required by it, she was baptized, and her household." Limborch on the place says, — " Whether any infants were in her house is uncertain. An undoubted argument, therefore, cannot be drawn from this instance, by which it may be demon- strated that infants were baptized by the apostles. — -There might be [little] children in these families ; yet the Holy Spirit furnishes me with no solid argument whereby I can demonstrate it — it does not expressly say there were any children in them : And though this should be granted, yet we are not informed that they were baptized together with their parents ; on the contrary, all those who were baptized are said to give thanks to God, which children could never do." Of the Jailer and his house it is said, — " He rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house. Acts xvi. 34. On which Mr Henry observes, — " There was none in his house that refused to be baptized, and so made a jar in the harmony ; but they were unanimous in em- bracing the gospel, which added much to the joy." With 304: EXAMINATION OF THE ARGXJMEIfTS respect to the household of Stephanas, Dr Hammond says, — " I think it unreasonable that the apostle's bare mention of baptizing his household should be thought competent to conclude that infants were baptized by him, when it is uncertain whether there were any such at all in his house," Works, vol. i. p. 494. Indeed it appears clear there were none such in his house ; for the apostle in the same epistle says, — " Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted them- selves to the ministry of the saints," 1 Cor. xvi. 15. On which place Dr Doddridge remai'ks, — " This seems to imply that it was the generous care of the whole family to assist their fellow Christians ; so that there was not a member of it which did not do its part." 1 Cor. vii. 14, " The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband ; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." This text is strongly urged by many as a decisive proof of infant baptism ; but there are also many learned and judicious Poedobaptist writers who differ from them, both as to the sanctification of the unbelieving parent, and the consequent holiness of the children, and deny that it has any relation to baptism. In opposition to that external covenant holiness which many plead for, Velthuysius says, — " Some think, by that holiness men- tioned in 1 Cor. vii. 14, is to be understood such an ex- ternal holiness as was possessed by an Israelite and a Jew, even though his life made it appear that he was not a true Israelite, whose praise is not of men, but of God. Now those who are of this opinion suppose that there is a kind of external covenant under the gospel ; on account of which covenant some are called holy, though nothing appears in their lives to prove them real saints. But I see no intima- tion of this external covenant in the whole gospel." Opera. Tom. 1, p. 801. To the same purpose Vitringa writes, — " "We would have it observed the apostle does net RESPECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 305 mean that all the children of believers and saints are truly partakers of the Holy Spirit, and by him ingrafted into the body of the church ; for there is no promise of this prerogative made to believing parents ; nay, rather, the events of every day teach the contrary — [therefore] the generality of our divines recur to an external holiness which has its original from an external covenant. So that the children of believers are holy, because being separated from the world, they live and are educated in the com- munion of the external church. Like as the Israelites in former times, being chosen out of the other nations of the world, are called a holy nation, Exod. xix. 6, though a very great part of them was impure ; and their children are denominated a holy seed, Ezra ix. 2, comp. with Neh. ix. 2. — But this is inconsistent with the clear doctrine of the divine word, and absolutely contrary to the genius of the new covenant. — So far from an external holiness of this kind having any place under the New Testament, that, on the contrary, this is the prerogative of the New Testa- ment or Covenant, that no one belongs to it, except he be truly sanctified : no one is called holy except he be truly considered as internally holy ; and in this consists the difference between the Old and the New Covenant — that this is entirely spiritual, entirely internal." — But after all we must remember that Vitringa was a Poedo- baptist, and therefore, though he denies that there is any external covenant holiness under the New Testament ; nay, though he denies that the apostle means that all the children of believers are truly holy as being partakers of the Holy Spirit, or that there is any promise of this pre- rogative made to believing parents ; yet he adds, — " The infants of believing parents are therefore called holy, be- cause we justly presume that they are sanctified by the Holy Spirit in their parents. For seeing God has con- ferred his grace on the parents, or on one of the parents, by a judgment of charity we presume, that he will afford 2 D 2 306 BXAMINATION OF THE ARGFMEWTS the same grace to the infants as long as the contrary is not manifest to us." Observat. Sac. L. ii. c. vi. § 25-28. — " "We justly presume — by a judgment of charity we presume" Presume what ? " That infants are sanctified by the Holy Ghost in their parents." Does the apostle say so ? No. Is there any promise to that effect ? No- Then to presume it, and to act upon it, is indeed ^reswmp- iion, mere presumption, and nothing else. As to the sanctijication of the unbelieving parent, and the consequent holiness or cleanness of the children, many of the Poedobaptists agree with our view of both. Take the following for a specimen : " The apostle does not mean the sanctification of a married person, by which he becomes truly righteous and holy ; but that by which the use of marriage may be honourably enjoyed." Justinianus : apud Chamierum, Panstrat. Tom. iv. 1. v. c. x. § 47. — •' The sanctification intended relates to marriage." Sal- mero, Ibid. — " The children are called holy in a civil sense ; that is, legitimate, and not spurious — As if Paul had said. If your marriage were unlawful, your children would be illegitimate. But the former is not a fact ; therefore not the latter." Suares and Vasques, Ibid. — " Hath been sanctified ; that is, legitimated, so that their maniage is lawful. This the apostle proves from the natural effect. For if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified, i. e., legitimated by the wife ; and if the un- believing wife be not sanctified or legitimated by the husband, your children are unclean ; that is, they were bom of an unlawful marriage ; rather of an illicit com- merce. But now are they holy ; that is, legitimate, not bastards, or born of uuchastity." Dietericus ; apud Wolfium, Curce, in loc. — " We attribute this sanctification, that is cleanness, not to the faith of the believing yoke- fellow, but to the marriage, by reason of the appointment of Grod; with Hierome, who saith, because by God's appointment marriage is holy ; and Ambrose, who hath RESPECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 307 it thus, the children are holy, because they are born of lawful marriage. — Nor is any other holiness or cleanness of children meddled with, than that which agrees also to unbelieving parents ; for to them no other agrees, than that which is by lawful marriage, Musculus. — " The unbeliever is said to be sanctified by marriage with the believer ; not as to the person, which is not sanctified, except by faith ; but as to use, and conjugal intercourse. — Paul here treats concerning a mutual participation of such holiness as depends upon conjugal custom, as Chry- sostom teaches; a holiness which the believing and unbelieving partner have in common between themselves. "Whence it follows, that these things have been rashly and violently applied by Calvin, Beza, Parseus, and others, to a natural or original holiness of children born of believers." Calovius' Biblica Illustrata. Many other Poedobaptist writers agree in this sense of the passage. Indeed, I know of no Scripture text which has been adduced to prove infant baptism, which many of the most judicious Poedobaptists themselves have not considered either as entirely foreign to the point, or at least very doubtful. * III. Those who practise infant baptism differ much from each other in their opinion as to what benefit infanta derive from their being baptized. The Romish and Grreek churches hold it to be necessary to their salvation. Protestants in general deny this, though many of them lean to that side. The church of England affirms, that by it they are made the members of Christ, the children of Grod, and the inheritors of the kingdom of heaven : others deny that baptism makes them such, but only seals and confirms these blessings to them. — Some maintain that it initiates them into the true invisible church ; others, * Several of the foregoing quotations from foreign Poedobaptist writers, I have selected from Mr Booth's Pcedobaptism Examined. 2d edition, a book which I recommend to your perusal. 308 EXAMIN-ATION OF THE ARGtTMENTS into the visible church ; while many insist that they are' naturally members of the visible church by being born within the pale of it, and that their baptism is only an acknowledgment of this. — Many consider baptism as sealing to infants the benefits of an external covenant, which they think is made with believers respecting their offspring, answerable to the covenant which Grod made with A-braham respecting his natural seed, though they are not agreed as to the nature of these benefits ; but others deny that any such covenant exists under the gospel. Vitringa says, " The sacraments of the New Covenant are of such a nature, as to seal nothing but what is spiritual ; nor are they of ant advantage, except with regard to those who really believe in Jesus Christ." Many of them are quite undetermined as to the efficacy and usefulness of infant baptism. Mr Booth has produced three of their celebrated writers who acknowledge this. Witsius says, " The question relating to the efficacy and usefulness of Christian baptism, in reference to the elect infants of parents who are in the covenant, is peculiarly arduous and abstruse ; and as of old, so very lately, it is embarrassed by the subtilty of curious disputes," Miscel. Sac. Tom. ii. exercit. xix. § i. Mr Jonathan Edwards speaks to the same purpose, *' Grod's method of dealing with such infants as are regularly dedicated to him in baptism, is a matter liable to great disputes and many controversies," Inquiry into Qualijicat. for Commun. Appendix, p. 13. So also Saurin : " Does an infant participate in the blessings of a covenant, which he may perhaps reject when he comes to the age of reason ? Is baptism useless, then, till such as have received it shall perform the vows that have been made for them ? Why do not we wait then till that time before it be adminis- tered ? We do not pretend that these difficulties are insurmountable ; but we think that means more consistent than those which are commonly employed should be RESPECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 309 offered," Ahrege de la Theologie, p. 202. Nay, some of them do not view infant baptism as of any benefit at all. They consider it not as directly implying that the infants themselves have any interest in it, or in the thing signified by it ; but as part of the parent's own profession of Christianity. Thus it appears that the Poedobaptists are not agreed among themselves as to the grounds of the right which infants have to baptism ; nor as to the sense of the Scripture passages commonly alleged in support of it ; nor as to the benefit which infants derive from it. IV. The Poedobaptists universally admit, that there is no express ijrecept nor plain precedent for infant baptism in all the word of Grod. But to admit this (and admit it they must), is, in fact, to give up the cause. Baptism is confessedly not a moral but positive institution ; that is, it is not founded in the nature of things, like moral precepts, but depends entirely on the authority and revealed will of the Institutor. Now, if infant baptism have neither scripture precept nor example to support it, it can have no existence as a divine institution. But it may be proper to explain more fully the difference between moral and positive precepts, which I shall do nearly in the words of Poedobaptist writers. Moral duties are founded not merely in external com- mands, but in the nature and reason of things. To love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves, are duties arising from the character of God, and our re- lation to him and one another, and so right and fit in their own nature antecedently to any external command. But positive institutions are founded solely in the will of the Institutor. To eat of the tree in the midst of the garden was in itself altogether indifferent, till it became sinful by the Divine prohibition. So circumcision, and the various rituals of the Mosaic law, had no foundation in the nature of things, but became duties merely by positive institution. 310 EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS Yet we are not to consider positive institutions as mere arbitrary impositions ; for Grod appoints nothing but for some wise reason, and for some good end ; but then it is not the reason or end but the authority which makes the institution ; and therefore though we should not under- stand the reason of this or that appointment, yet if we see the command we must obey. Again, moral doctrines and duties may be deduced and inferred from others of a moral nature, and all of them from their first principles. Thus love is the principle re- quired in the moral law, and from this we may justly infer a prohibition from working any ill to our neighbour, as being contrary to the nature of love (Rom. xiii. 10), and also a command to do him all the good that properly lies in our power, for that is nothing but the natural and practical exercise of love. So that a genuine inference from a moral principle, and relating to things of a moral nature, has all the certainty of the principle itself. But with regard to positive institutions the case is quite different : For as they depend wholly upon the will of God, so they cannot be deduced or inferred from any thing known to us, abstract from the express declaration of his will. Such laws admit of no commutation, mutilation, or alteration by human au- thority ; because in them we see nothing beyond the words of the law, and the first meaning, and the named instance. It is that in individuo which God appoints, fixing it so and no more, and no less, and no otherwise : For when the will of the Lawgiver is all the reason, the first instance of the law is all the measures, and there can be no product but what is just set down. No parity of reason can infer any- thing else ; because there is no reason known to us but the will of God, to which nothing can be equal ; which will being actually limited to this specification, this manner, this institution, whatever comes besides has no foundation in the will of the Lawgiver, and therefore can have no war- rant or authority. It is plain therefore, that as moral RESPECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 311 duties maybe deduced from moral principles and the reason of things, it is not necessary that every duty of nature in all its supposeable modes, occasions, objects, and circum- stances, should be expressly stated and particularly speci- fied, for that would be endless : But with respect to posi- tive institutions, as these depend entirely on the will of the Institutor, and cannot be deduced from anything else, so they can have no existence but by the express declaration of his will in their appointment, without which they can- not be said to be instituted, and so there can be no obliga- tion to observe them. Moral duties are of perpetual obligation, because founded in the nature of things, or the essential and unalterable distinction between right and wrong : But positive insti- tutions, beicg appointed only for a limited time, their obligation ceases when that time has expired. Thus cir- cumcision and the rituals of the old law were set aside at the end of the Jewish dispensation ; and so Baptism and the Lord's Supper will cease when Christ shall come again. But here it must be observed that our obligations to obey all God's commands, whether moral or positive, are absolute and indispensable ; and that commands, merely positive, admitted to be from Him, lay us under a moral obligation to obey them, an obligation moral in the strictest and most proper sense. Surely obedience to Grod's command is a moral excellence, though the instances of that obedience may lie in positive rites. A disposition to obey divine orders, either positive or moral, is part of that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. We may be saved without a sacrament, but we cannot be saved without a disposition to obey God's authority where- ever we see it. Positive precepts are the greatest and most perfect trial of obedience, because in them the mere authority and will of the Legislator is the sole ground of the obligation, and nothing in the nature of the things themselves ; and therefore they are the greatest trial of 312 EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS any person's respect to that authority and will. Whatever difference there is between moral and positive precepts, and however excellent the former are in themselves in comparison with the latter, the obligation is the same in both, viz., the command of Grod. "We shall now apply these observations to the subject in hand. The Poedobaptists admit that baptism is a positive institution. — They also admit (and I know none of them who deny), that a positive institution depends solely on the will of God the Institutor ; and so cannot be deduced or inferred from any thing known to us, besides the express declaration of his will concerning it. — Further, they are obliged to admit, that there is no express precept or example in all the word of God for infant baptism. Now, by these concessions they entirely, though unde- signedly, give up the cause of infant baptism ; for a positive institution for which there is neither express precept nor example, is an absolute contradiction, as no positive institution can have any existence but by the express declaration of the will of the Institutor, which is its very institution ; nor can we know any thing abou.t it unless it be expressly recorded or exemplified in the holy scriptures. Still, however, it is maintained, that though there is no express scripture precept or example for the baptism of infants, there are many other considerations from which it may be deduced or inferred. This is the common mistake in which all the Poedobaptists unite, and so depart from the true nature of the subject in question, which is a posi- tive rite, not deducible from any principle known to us, but depending entirely for its being, and all that relates to it, on the will of Grod ; consequently, not the subject of in- ference, but of express positive institution. Were it a natural or moral duty, it might be fairly argued from general principles, moral considerations, analogy, ex- pediency, fitness, or utility, because the known nature and BESPECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 313 relation of things furnish the proper data : Nay, a duty of this nature may he fairly inferred from many texts of scripture where it is not particularly mentioned, nor per- haps has entered into the thoughts of the inspired writers when penning these texts :• But as to baptism the case is quite different, it being a particular ritual institution which derives its whole being and authority from a posi- tive law respecting itself, and therefore can be deduced from no other principle whatever. Since therefore the Poedobaptists cannot produce a plain scripture precept or precedent for the baptism of infants, all their arguments in favour of it are quite inapplicable and to no purpose. Many Poedobaptist writers confess that " the scripture does not clearly determine the baptism of infants " — " that it is so dark in the scriptures, that the controversy is be- come so hard, as we find it " — " that it is not so clearly delivered, but that it admits of a dispute which has con- siderable 'perplexities in it. Therefore some of them wish to shift the state of the question, and turn the argumenj; upon another hinge. Thus Vitringa : — " He, in my opinion, that would argue prudently against the Ana- bap^sts, should not state the point in controversy thus, — Whether infants, born of Christian parents, ought 7ieces- sarily to be baptized ? but whether it be laiuful, according to the Christian discipline, to baptize them ? Or, what evil is there in the ceremony of baptizing infants ?" Observat. Sac. Tom. 1, L. ii. c. vii. § 9. Thus also an anonymous author, — " In the controversy about infant baptism the enquiry ought not to be, Whether Christ hath commanded infants to be baptized ? but, whether he hath excluded them from baptism ?" Cases to recover Dis- senters, Vol. ii. p. 405. This prudent manner of argu.ing, by shifting the en- quiry from a command or example to a prohibition, de- monstrates in the clearest manner to what a sad pinch the more thinking part of the Poedobaptists are reduced. To 2 E 314 EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS maintain the . baptism of infants as being either com- manded or exenvplified in scripture, is to place it upon a ground which they find to be altogether untenable ; but they think that if infants are not excluded from it by an express prohibition, there can be no evil in it, L e., it must be a thing perfectly harmless and indifi'crent ! And it will be granted that if they do not intend it as a divine institution, there can be no evil in bathing or washing in- fants as often as there is occasion for it, and as they are not excluded from this, it is perfectly laiuftd. But if they perform it as a religious act of divine worship, and ad- minister it in the sacred name of the Divine Three, then it involves in it a complication of evils. It is a profane abuse of the adorable name of the Trinity, and a misap- plication of the outward sign : It supersedes, or sets aside, the baptism of believers which Christ hath instituted, and so makes the commandment of Grod of none eflfect, by substituting a human tradition in its place, Matt. xv. 3, 6. And as it is founded upon the negative ground of its not being particularly and expressly prohibited, it esta- blishes a principle that will justify all manner of supersti- tion and will worship, which the Lord expressly condemns and rejects, saying, — " But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," ver. 9, see also Col. ii. 20, 22, 23. It is said that infants are not excluded from baptism : But does not our Lord commission his apostles to baptize persons of a certain description, viz., those whom they should teach or make disciples by the preaching of the gospel ? and is not the subject of that ordinance plainly described to be, he that believeth ? This certainly ex- cludes infants who cannot be taught or believe, and there was no necessity that he should further exclude them by a particular express prohibition ; for when the subjects of a positive ordinance are described, all who fall not under that description are of course excluded. RESPECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 315 Thus you may see that the arguments in favour of infant baptism have no tendency to make us less confident in our opposition to it. The Poedobaptists themselves destroy the force of one another's arguments ; for while they hold by one general conclusion, they differ as to every part of the premises whence it should be drawn. I am, Your, &c. BAPTISM MUST PRECEDE VISIBLE CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP. IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND. BAPTISM MUST PRECEDE, M. Sir, While you seem to admit that the scripture warrants the baptism of none but believers, you cannot be reconciled to our making it a term of communion. Your words are : — " But granting your view of baptism to be perfectly agree- able to the original institution, yet still I think you lay an undue stress upon that ordinance when you make it a term of communion. As it must be admitted that there are many sincere Christians who are differently minded from you on that subject, I cannot help thinking that your refusing communion to such, merely on that account, is contrary to charity, and making a positive institution, or external rite, of as much importance as moral precepts, or the faith itself, wherein all true Christians are one, whereby it becomes an occasion of dividing the real chil- dren of God." It is very surprising that while you acknowledge bap- tism to be an ordinance of Christ, and even suppose that we observe it agreeably to his institution, you should yet object to us for refusing communion to such as, upon this supposition, are entirely without baptism, and have substi- tuted a human invention in its place. I must be so free as to tell you that this objection argues no great reverence for Christ's authority, or acquaintance either with the nature of true charity or church-communion ; but proceeds at bottom from an opinion that the institutions of Christ are not absolutely binding, but may be sacrificed to our good opinion of men. It is very remarkable that in pro- 320 BAPTISM MUST PRECEDE portion as that kind of charity you plead for bulks in your eye, in the same proportion does the importance and obli- gation of Christ's institutions sink in your esteem ; hence you distinguish his precepts into moral and positive^ as if the latter sort were not so much to be regarded as the former, nor his authority the same in both ; and you speak of baptism in particular in such diminutive terms, as too plainly indicate that the authority of its Institutor has not its proper weight upon your conscience. "Was it not the transgression of a positive law which introduced sin and death into the world ? You may approve of moral precepts upon the principles of pure Deism, as perceiving them founded in nature and reason ; but you cannot be influenced to this by Christ's authority, while you make light of his positive institutions, in which that authority appears more simple and conspicuous. We hold it as a fixed principle that there can be no real Christianity with- out charity ; but at the same time we are fully persuaded that true charity must ever consist with a strict and con- scientious adherence to all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded, and that no true Christian communion can take place upon the avowed principle that one of the least of his laws should be dispensed with in favour of any, however serious they may appear, and however much cause we may have to esteem them on other accounts ; for we can never be so certain of the Christianity of such as re- fuse to submit to Christ's ordinances, after they have been set before them, as we are of the ordinances themselves, and of the indispensable obligation that lies upon all Christians to observe them. We admit that there is but one faith essential to salvation, viz.. That Jesus is the Christ the Son of Grod, that he was delivered for the oifences, and raised again for the j ustification of sinners, * and that whosoever believeth this shall be saved : f But we think it no disparagement of this one faith to maintain * John xs. 31.— Rom. iv. 24, 25. f Rom. x. 9. VISIBLE CHTTKCH-FELLOWSHIP. 321 that there is also one baptism which corresponds with it, * and which, by the will of its Institutor, is inseparably connected, at least, with the scriptural confession of that faith, f and so essentially necessary to the visible com- munion of saints. Besides these general hints, we offer the following reasons for holding believers'-baptism as a term of visible communion. I, Baptism is of indispensable obligation upon all Christians who can possibly obtain it, because Christ hath commanded it, and because he had sufficient power and authority to do so. (1.) That Christ hath instituted baptism admits of no doubt ; for he says, — " Go teach all nations, baptizing them ; ^ whicli is not only a command to his apostles to baptize, but to those wliom they made disciples to be bap- tized; § for how could the apostles administer baptism if none were obliged to receive it ? The same command we have in Mark xvi. 16, " Gro ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." The obligation to be baptized is the same hei'e with the obligation to believe the gospel ; for it is not simply said, " he that believeth," but "he that believeth, and is baptized;" so that what- ever difference there is between these two in other respects, there is none in point of obligation. It can admit of no doubt that our Lord means baptism in luater; for so his inspired apostles understood him, as appears from their practice. Acts viii. 38, how else could the forbidding of water be a withstanding of Grod ? \\ This command is not limited to any particular nation ; for he bids them " teach all nations, baptizing them." Nor is it confined to the apostolic age ; for he promises to be with his disciples in observing it, " alway, even unto the end of the world.''^ ^ * Eph. iv. 5. t Mark xvi. 16. | Mat. xxviii. 19. f See Acts ii. 38, x. 48, and xxii. 16. || Acts x. 47, and xi. I7., ^ Matt, xxviii. 20. 322 BAPTISM MUST PRECEDE (2.) That Christ had sufficient power and authority to institute baptism and every other ordinance of the gospel, and an indisputable right to our obedience, cannot possibly be denied by any Christian. The Father declares him to be his beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased, and com- mands us to hear him. * He hath loved the Son, and given all things into his hand ; f he hath put all things under his feet, and given him to be head over all things to the church ; J and upon this supreme power and authority with which he is vested, he grounds the com- mission to disciple and baptize : " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Gfo ye, therefore, disciple all nations, baptizing them," § &c. To dispute Christ's power to make laws, or his rightful title and claim to our obedience, is in fact to deny that he is the Christ, and to renounce Christianity altogether. His having all poiuer in heaven and in earth, excludes not only all rival, but conjunct authority, either in angels or men, to set aside, dispense with, alter, or add to his laws, he being the alone Sovereign and sole Lawgiver of his church. Accordingly, the latter part of the commission runs thus : " Teaching them" {i. e., the baptized disciples), " to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." || They were to teach them to observe only what he had commanded ; and not their own inventions, or the traditions and command- ments of men ; % — to teach them all things whatsoever he had commanded, without keeping back, making light of, or dispensing with any of the least of his commandments.** Now, if Christ has instituted baptism as a standing ordinance to the end of the world, if he had sufficient power and authority to do so, and if neither angels nor men have any right to dispense with, or alter his institu- tions, then the baptism of believers must be of indis- * Chap. xvii. 5. f John iii. 35. % Eph. i. 22, 23. § Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. i| Matt, xxviii. 20. % Chap. XV. 4-G.— Col. ii. 8. ** Matt. v. 19.— Acts xx. 20, 27- VISIBLE cnuEcn-FELLOWsnip. 323 pensable obligation, and so essentially necessary to visible church communion. II. The order in which baptism stands in the com- mission, proves it to be an indispensable pre-requisite to church communion. It comes immediately after being made disciples by preaching the gospel to them, and before they are taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded. The supreme Lawgiver has expressly enjoined — first, to make disciples — then, im- mediately to baptize the disciples — lastly, to teach the baptized disciples to observe, keep, or obey his laws or institutions. It must be admitted, that church-fellowship and the Lord's Supper, fall under the last head ; and if so, then according to the order of the commission, men can no more be admitted to church-fellowship or the Lord's Supper before baptism, than they can be admitted to baptism before they are made disciples. III. The apostles strictly adhered to the order stated in the commission, and never admitted any to church- fellowship till once they were baptized. On the day of Pentecost, Peter — first preached the gospel, and exhorted the convicted Jews to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins * — " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized''^ | — Lastly, the baptized disciples were added to the church, and observed all things whatsoever Christ had commanded ; for it follows, " and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostle's doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." J Through the whole history of the Acts, we find them observ- ing the same order. They went about every where preaching the gospel — those who believed it were imme- diately baptized — of such baptized believers only did they form churches, and to such churches did they deliver * Acts ii. 14-40. t Ver. 41. J Ver. 41, 42. 324 BAPTISM MUST PRECEDE the ordinances to keep as they had received them of the Lord. * IV. This order is not accidental, hut founded in the very nature of things. Baptism is the sign of our spiritual birth, and entrance into the kingdom of God ; f but church-fellowship and the Lord's Supper represent us as already entered into his kingdom, and feasting upon Christ's sacrifice. ^ Now, as we cannot in the nature of things have a place in the kingdom of God before we enter it, nor feed upon Christ till once we are born from above, and possessed of spiritual life ; so, if there is any corres- pondence in the signs to what they respectively signify, we can with no propriety be added to a visible church, and partake of the Lord's Supper, till once we receive baptism, the sign of our regeneration and entrance into the kingdom of God. "Whether, therefore, we consider the order of our Lord's commission — the practice of his inspired apostles in executing it — or the nature and import of the ordinances themselves, it is clear that baptism must always precede admission to a church, or communion in the Lord's Supper. You will perhaps make a distinction between the insti- tutions of Christ and the terms of communion ; between our obligation to observe them ourselves, and our 7-ight to urge them upon others who may desire fellowship with us. But we can admit of no such distinctions ; for, 1. The very nature of church-communion requires that we should not only observe Christ's institutions ourselves, but also take heed that our brethren observe them like- wise. Christians separated from the world, and connected together in a church state agreeably to the word of God, have a peculiar relation to, and concern in each other. They are united together as members of one body, that they should have the same care one for another. § The * 1 Cor. xi. 2, 23. t John iii. 5. J 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. § 1 Cor. xii. 25. VISIBLE CHUECH-FELLOWSIIIP. 325 bond of their union is the truth, and mutual love for the truth's sake, as perceiving it visibly dwelling in each other, * by the confession of the mouth and obedience of the life. By this appearance they know one another to be the proper objects of that love which Christ has enjoined in his new commandment ; f and without it they could not possibly love one another for the truth's sake, or be united in the bonds of the gospel. They must therefore be deeply interested in one another's principles and conduct. Ac- cordingly, they are commanded to exhort one another daily, lest any of them be hardened through the deceit- fulness of sin ; | to look diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God, § to warn them that are unruly, &c., j| which implies that they have a mutual charge one of another, and cannot say, like Cain, " Am I my brother's keeper ?" — The discipline which Christ hath appointed in his house is strongly expressive of the mutual concern they have in one another's sentiments and practices. ^ It is intended to preserve purity of communion and the exercise of brotherly love, by enforcing obedience to his laws, re- claiming transgressors, and expelling impenitent and in- corrigible offenders. If Christ has given such a power to his churches, they must have an undoubted right to exercise it, and be culpable in neglecting it ; and so the whole church at Corinth are blamed for tolerating the in- cestuous person.** If a single private trespass, committed against a brother must, without repentance, exclude from the communion, according to Matt, xviii. 17, by what rule are we to receive into our communion such as neglect or despise a plain and public institution of the Lord Jesus Christ ? This would be to assume a dispensing power, to connive at their neglect, and to become par- takers of their sin ; nay, in many respects, we should be ^■- 2 John, ver. 1, 2. T John xiii. 34, 35. J Keb. iii. 13. § Chap. xii. 15. \\ 1 Thess.v. 14. f Matt, xviii. 15-21. ** 1 Cor, T. 2 r 326 BAPTISM MUST PRECEDE more guilty and inconsistent than they. More guilty, as knowing more of the obligation, nature, and importance of baptism than they are supposed to do. — More inconsis- tent, because, according to our principles, we must look upon them as entirely without baptism ; whereas they either consider themselves as baptized in infancy, or have no principle respecting that ordinance at all, as we pro- fess to have. Christ has committed his truths and ordi- nances to his churches to keep and hold fast till he come,* but not to dispense with in favour of any. We are there- fore not only bound tQ observe his institutions ourselves as individuals, but to take heed that every member of the body with which we are connected observe them also. 2. We hold every institution of Christ to be a term of communion ; because, should we avowedly dispense with any of them, we, by offending in one point, are guilty of all ; f i. e., we disregard the authority of Christ in one ordinance, which is the same in all, and so must be defi- cient in our regard to it in any. Hereby also we give up the general principle upon which we can consistently hold any of his institutions whatever as a term of communion. Should one who is of the Quakers' sentiments as to the Lord's Supper, apply for admission, with what consistency could we urge that ordinance upon him, after having dis- pensed with his baptism ? We could not show him from the word of God that the Lord's Supper was instituted by a higher authority, is more important and indispensable in its nature, more sacred in its signs, or significative of more valuable blessings than baptism is ; and therefore, to be consistent with ourselves, it behoved us to yield that ordi- nance also, and so all the rest which are founded solely upon Christ's authority. No scriptural reason can be as- signed for preferring the Lord's Supper to Baptism. To adopt the words of a sensible writer on this subject, — " When we consider how much more frequently baptism * Rev. ii. 25. t James ii. 10. VISIBLE CHURCH-FELLOWSniP. 327 is mentioned in the New Testament than the sacred supper; how often repenting and believing sinners are exhorted, by the apostles, to be baptized ; how soon that ordinance was administered to Christian converts after they believed ; what exhortations are given to professing Christians on the ground of their being baptized ; and when we reflect that the Holy Spirit commends them that were baptized by John, as "justifying Glod ;" while he severely censures others, as "rejecting the counsel of Grod against them- selves, * being not baptized of him :" f I say, these things considered, it is amazing to observe in what small esti- mation baptism is held by the generality of professors in comparison of the Lord's Supper ; nay, the positive con- tempt with which that divine ordinance is treated by many, calling it a non-essential external rite, a circumstaraial ceremony, a shadow, a mere outward form, &c. But to think that some professed Baptists themselves should treat it in the same profane manner, to justify their novel scheme of free communion, is really astonishing. ^ They may boast of their pretended candour, generosity, liberality of sentiment, and charity, in opposition to bigotry and narrow-mindedness ; but it does not appear, nor is true charity obliged to admit, that such truly fear Grod, regard his authority, or tremble at his word, who can knowingly, deliberately, and from avowed principle, make light of any of his acknowledged institutions, and assume a power to dispense with them. By making baptism a term of communion, you say, * See Mr Booth's Apology for the Baptists, p. 136. t Luke vii. 29, 30. J Several Baptist congregations in Eiighind admit unbaptized persons into their communion, and so are denominated free-com- munion Baptists. Mr Booth, in his Apology, has IVdly exposed the absurdity and inconsistency of such a heterogeneous com- munion, especially on the part of the Baptists ; though I think he pays too great a compliment to their sinceritij, conscientiousness, and integrity. 328 BAPTISM MUST PRECEDE " it becomes an occasion of dividing the real children of God." We admit the fact, but refuse the blame. We freely admit that there are multitudes of Clod's dear chil- dren unenlightened as to baptism; many of them have never attended to the subject ; and others, through the influence of custom and false instruction, have seriously taken up with infant sprinkling in its stead. It is also a fact, that whilst they and we continue in our present sentiments, we must remain divided as to visible church communion. But the question is, — Who are to blame ; those who observe and stand to the scripture rule, or they who do not comply with it ? And whether should Chris- tians unite in observing Christ's institutions, or in dis- pensing with them ? The very state of the question is a sufficient answer to such as hold the institutions of Christ of indispensable obligation. We are grieved to think that so many of the real children of God are living in the neglect of the very first ordinance of the gospel ; we endeavour to hold it forth to them consistently by our example, doctrine, and separate communion : we cordially invite them to fellowship with us in this, and all the other institutions of Christ ; according to the order in which he has placed them ; and we earnestly pray to their Father and ours, that he would dispel their ignorance, remove their prejudices, and subject their consciences to this and every other part of his revealed will ; but while they re- main in their present mind, we dare not meet them any nearer, nor step over the sacred boundaries which Christ hath marked out in his word, in order to give them the right hand of fellowship. Indeed the great body of Poedobaptists themselves act upon this principle ; for they will not receive any to communion with them in the Lord's Supper unless they consider them as having been baptized in some way or other. This, you will say, is contrary to charity. Christian forbearance, and the apostolic exhortation to " receive one VISIBLE CHURCII-PELLOWSIIIP. 329 another as Christ also hath received us to the glory of CtocI," Rom. XV. 7. It is indeed very opposite to that profane compliant charity so much cried up in the professing world, which has neither the word of G-od for its rule, nor the truth for its object ; which esteems conscientiousness in error equivalent to soundness in the faith, and legitimates a kind of Christianity which stands independent of keeping the commandments of Clod and the faith of Jesus : but it is perfectly agreeable to true charity, which consists in love to the truth, and to those who are of the truth for its sake, as perceiving it dwelling in them by its genuine effects. If we esteem all the commandments of the gospel to b^ plain, important, and indispensable ; if we see them to be effects of divine wisdom, benevolence, and love ; if we are persuaded that men's interest lies in observing them, and that there is danger in neglecting them ; then regard to the Divine authority, love to the truth, and charity to men, require that we dispense with none of them. If by Christian forbearance you mean, an agreement to differ quietly about the commandments of Christ, as not essential to church communion, there is no such thing enjoined in the scripture. It would be absurd to suppose, that Christ would give ordinances to his church, and at the same time a command to dispense with any of them. The mutual bearing with each other insisted on, Rom. xiv. and XV., has no respect to any of the precepts of the gospel, but to the peculiarities of the Mosaic law respecting meats and days. We are exhorted to forbear one another in love ; * but this does not respect any settled difference as to the common rule of our faith and obedience, but a just allowance for one another's weaknesses and imperfec- tions in coming short of the acknowledged rule, with the exercise of meekness, tenderness, and long-suffering towards each other in this imperfect state. * Eph. iv. 2. 2 F 2 330 BAPTISM MUST PRECEDE, &c. The exhortation, " Receive ye one another as Christ also received us to the glory of God," * does not signify that they should receive one another into church-fellow- ship disagreeing siboxit the institutions of the gosj^el, or thtit they should receive any into their communion xvithout baptism. The parties exhorted were believing Jews and Gentiles, who differed not about baptism, but about the peculiarities of Moses' law, as has been noticed. Christ had received the Jew observing that peculiar law, and indulged him in it for a time ; f he had also received the Gentile,- who was never under that law, and now for- bid to observe any such thing. In these peculiar circum- stances they are exhorted to imitate the example of Christ in receiving one another as he had received them both to the glory of God, without making any difference of Jew or Gentile. I am. Sir, Yours, &c. Edinburgh, 1786. * Rom. XV. 7- t Acts xxi. 25. — 1 Cor. rii. 18. AN ILLUSTRATION PROPHECIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, RESPECTING THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, NATURE OF THE BLESSINGS PHOMISEB TO THAT SEED. ILLUSTRATION IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND. Dear Sir, At your repeated solicitation, I send you my view of the prophecies concerning which you wrote me ; hut want of time, and the valetudinary state of my health, have prevented me from digesting it with that accuracy, or comprising it into the bounds I would have chosen. However, not to detain you with circumstantials, I shall state what I take to be the argument from these prophecies for infant baptism, and then give such an answer as may occur. The argument, I think, stands thus : " There are many promises in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament respecting Israel and their seed in con- junction with them, such as Psalm cii. 26-28, Isa. Ixv. 22, 23, Jer. xxx. 18-23, Ezek. xxxvii. 25, .&c., and as it cannot be denied that these prophecies have a respect to gospel times, they must point out a spiritual connection betwixt New Testament believers and their seed, in the great salvation ; and if so, then the infants of Christians ought to be baptized, even as those of old Israel were circumcised." Now, though the premises were admitted as here stated, yet the conclusion is far from being necessary or certain. Children may have the promise of salvation, and yet have no peculiar connection with their parents therein ; and they may even be connected with their parents in the promises, without any title to baptism in their infancy. 334 ILLTTSTRATION OF THE PROPHECIES Baptism proceeds upon evidence that the promises have begun to take effect in their calling, which is obtained from the confession of the mouth unto salvation, and can never go before this, according to the scripture. It is not like circumcision, which was connected with the fleshly birth, a thing visible in infants ; but it is connected with the evidence of the spiritual birth, which is not visible till they profess the faith, and thereby evidence them- selves the true children of Abraham, the antitype of these circumcised infants. So that you see, supposing I were to admit the principle, the inference of infant baptism will not follow. And here I would remark that when people are obliged to have recourse to the Old Testament to esta- blish a New Testament ordinance, it indicates that they think the New Testament not clear and express enough upon the point, or that they want to model it in some way which the New Testament does not admit of. It puts me in mind of the abettors of national churches and cove- nants, who, finding nothing of that kind in the New Testament, or at least not so clear as they would desire, betake themselves to the Old Testament, and bring their materials from the typical earthly economy, to erect a worldly kingdom to Christ, or rather to the clergy. These also dabble much in the prophecies, and strange work they make of them when they have a point to drive. The Seceders can even find their party, and the bond for renew- ing the covenant, prophecied of in Isa. xix. 18 ; and many can show from Isa. xlix. 23, that the kings of the Grentile nations were to have the same office and power in the spiritual Zion that David and his successors, who were anointed types of the Messiah, had in the earthly Zion. No wonder then that we find infant baptism, both as to its subjects and mode, deduced from the prophecies, by those who stickle for the national plan ; for the christening, as they call it, of the carnal seed, is the main pillar and sup- port of a national profession ; but to see the same argu- RESPECTING THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, 335 ments taken up by those who on every other occasion show their knowledge of the spirituality of Christ's kingdom, not only in distinction from the nations of this world, but also from the nation of Old Israel, is indeed very amazing and unaccountable. But not to insist upon this, I shall deliver my thoughts upon the prophecies relative to this subject, in the following order : — I. Premise a few general things, necessary to be attended to, in order to understand the prophecies. II. Shew who are meant by the children spoken of in the prophets, and in what respect they are called children. III. Explain whose children they are ; or who are their fathers, and in what sense they are so called. 1. First then, I would premise, that though these promises point at gospel times, and ultimately respect the true Israel ; yet they are delivered in a figurative style, and clothed in a language suited to the typical or earthly economy, i. c, the state of things i;nder the new covenant, is held forth in these prophecies by expressions alluding to the earthly typical state of things under the old cove- nant.— Thus the promise made to Abraham, — " A father of many nations have I made thee," Glen. xvii. 5, would naturally lead us to think that Abraham was to be the natural father of these many nations, especially when we read it in connection with ver. 6, and find from the history that many nations really sprang from him. But when we look to the apostle's exj)lanation of that promise, Rom. iv. 13, 18, we see that the many nations ultimately in- tended in that promise include the uncircumcised Gentiles blessed in Christ, following the steps of Abraham's faith, and that Abraham was to be their father in that sense wherein he is the father of all true believers ; see also Rom. ix. 6-9, Gal. iii. 7-29, chap. iv. 21-31.— The promise made to David of setting up his seed after him, and perpetuating his throne and kingdom, 2 Sam. vii., 336 ILIiUSTEATION OP THE PROPHECIES would naturally be thought to mean that earthly throne and kingdom wherein David reigned, and that by his seed was only meant a race of kings descending from him, and successively filling his throne to the latest posterity ; and especially, too, as it cannot be denied that there is an evi- dent respect had to his earthly house in that very promise : But when we read Luke i. 32, 33, Acts ii. 30, chap. xiii. 23, 34, we find that the grand subject of this promise was the raising up his son the Messiah from the dead, to sit (not on the earthly throne of David, nor to rule in the earthly kingdom, nor over the fleshly Israel, but) on the heavenly throne, ruling over the true spiritual Israel. The promises made during Israel's captivity, such as Isa. lii. 11, chap. Ixi. 1-4, Jer. xxx. 18-24, Ezek, xxxvi. 24-38, chap, xxxvii. 2-26, chap, xlvii. 22, 23, Zach. iv. and vi. chapters, had we no other explication of them, we should be ready, from the eccasion on which they were made, and the style in which they are spoken, to apply them only to the restoration of old Israel from captivity, the building of the second temple, and the re-establishment of them and their fleshly seed in their ancient possession, together with their peace, prosperity, and safety therein, under their own rulers and governors : And we should be confirmed in this view from what we read of the begun accomplishment thereof in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah ; to which events, it must be owned, these promises do also literally refer : But when we see how these promises are explained and applied in the New Testament, such as Luke iv. 18, 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18, Matt. xxi. 5, then we are led to under- stand thtVt the restoration of Israel from captivity, &c., was typical of the great deliverance by Jesus Christ ; and that the promises delivered upon occasion of, and in a language accommodated to, the temporal deliverance, had a further reference, and were only fully accomplished in the spiritual. — Again, the promise of the new Covenant, Jer. xxxi. 31-35, by attending to the words in their HESPECTING THE SEED OP ABRAHAM. 337 literal sense, wo should be led to think that this covenant was only to be made with old Israel and Judah, for it is expressly promised to be made with the house of Israel and Judah, ver. 31 ; it is connected with various pro- mises concerning their restoration from captivity (read the chapter throughout) ; and what is very remarkable, that earthly nation whom God brought out of Egypt, and with whom he made a covenant at Sinai, are called the fathers of the children with whom this new covenant was to be made, ver. 32. But when we consider how the apostle explains this promise, Heb. viiL and chap. x. 16, 17, and what he says of the subjects of it, Gral. iii. 8, 9, 26-29, chap. iv. 22, to the end, then we find that it is the new covenant in Christ's blood, and that it is made with the spiritual Israel of all nations, whether of Jews or Gentiles. — The setting up of Christ's kingdom is re- presented by building the cities of Judah, Psalm Ixix. 35, building up Zion, Psalm cii. 16, building the city of Jerusalem upon her own heap, Jer. xxx. 18, and raising up the tabernacle of David, that was fallen, and building it as in the days of old, Amos. ix. 11. The heavenly in- heritance is promised under the figure of the land which the Lord gave unto Jacob his servant, wherein the fathers of old Israel had dwelt before the captivity ; and the perpetuity of that inheritance is set forth by the way in which the earthly inheritance was continued to the fleshly seed, viz., by descending successively to their children, and their children's children, Ezek. xxxvii. 25. Yea, the Messiah himself is set forth under the figure of David, ver. 24, and even when he is promised as David's son, his throne is called the throne of his father David, Isa. ix. 7, Luke i. 32, though it is well known he never sat upon David's earthly throne, nor did Christ's royal throne in heaven ever belong unto David. In short, though the person, offices, and kingdom of Christ are laid down in these prophetic writings with greater perspicuity than in 2 a 338 ILLUSTRATION^ OF THE PEOrHECIES the books of Moses, yet still they are covered with the veil of figures, and ceremonial and typical phrases. They describe spiritual blessings by images of civil peace and plenty ; the victory of Jesus Christ, by the treading of a wine press, in which the wine is the blood of slaughtered enemies, Isa. Ixii. 2, 3. Conversion is re- presented by going up to Jerusalem, in opposition to the apostacy of the. ten tribes, who worshipped the calf in Bethel and Dan ; and gospel worship is represented by incense and a pure offering, Mai. i. 11, and by the cele- bration of the Jewish festivals. Prom these hints it is plain that the prophecies in general will not admit of a strict and literal interpretation, when applying them to the affairs of the New Testament ; for this would lead us into the very error of the Jews and Judaizing professors, who minded earthly things, and affected a worldly kingdom or establishment. Hence the necessity of attending diligently, and adhering strictly, to the apostles' explication of the prophecies, as well as types of the Old Testament ; for, as they were able minis- ters of the New Testament, so they had the infallible inspiration of the Spirit of Truth, whereby they were suf- ficiently qualified to explain and apply the prophetic word according to its true intent and meaning. We can- not go at first hand to the prophecies, in order to explain the New Testament by them ; but, on the contrary, we must enter the prophecies with the New Testament key, by which they are opened to us either by express quota- tions, the history of facts, or by doctrine. 2. As the language and style of the typical economy runs through the whole of these prophecies, we must not take the epithets children, seed, or offspring, in a literal sense, when applying them to the subjects of Christ's kingdom, any more than we can take the other things that respect them in a literal sense ; for this would leave us without any certain or uniform rule of explication by the RESPECTING THE SEED OF ABRAHAM". 339 analogy of type and antitype. The word children, literally and strictly taken, is expressive only of the product of natural generation, and every other sense in which this term is used, is by a figure borrowed from this. If, then, we understand this epithet literally of the natural offspring, we confine these promises to Jewish children, or set aside the distinction of spiritual and fleshly children ; for, if the spiritual seed are called children in the prophecies in relation to their natural parents, or as springing from them, wherein do they differ, as children, from their type, or indeed from any other children, seeing, according to this, the foundation of this term (or the reason af their being called children), is precisely the same in both ? "We cannot say that there is any thing more spiritual in the natural birth of one child than another ; for that which is horn of the flesh is flesh, John iii. 6. To express this, if possible, still shorter and clearer — They must be called children in the prophecies either in a fleshly or spiritual sense : — If in a fleshly sense, then the type and antitype are children in the same sense, and there is no distinction pointed out by that epithet betwixt them and any others. But if it be allowed (and allowed it must be, as I shall shew), that they are called children in the prophecies on another account than their fleshly birth, i. e., in a spiritual sense, then all the arguments for the natural seed of believers, drawn from the epithets children, seed, of spring, fall at once to the ground, as these epithets are not expressive of any thing whereby they are connected with their natural parents, under the New Testament, more than with others, but of a spiritual i-elation and birth, typified by that of the fleshly seed of Old Israel, from which the prophetic phraseology is borrowed. 3. The typical people had a concern in these promises in their literal sense, and so by their being delivered in a language suitable to that earthly state of things, they were adapted to comfort them under their national dis- 340 ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROPHECIES tresses, as well as to direct the faith of the time Israel among them to the great salvation by Christ. The promise made unto David concerning his house and throne, had a respect to the typical as well as spiritual kingdom, and so we find that people taking hold of God's promise to David, and pleading it under their national distresses, when David's crown was profaned and cast to the ground, Psalm Ixxxis. 3-51. The various promises made during the captivity have mostly a literal sense, and were made to comfoii; the typical people under that most afflicting dispensation of the captivity. Thus the building the cities of Judah, causing the desolate places to be inhabited ; building the city upon her own heap ; sowing them with the seed of men and beasts ; giving them the land wherein their fathers had dwelt, for a possession to them and their children's chikken, &c., &c., respected literally the temporal deliverance, and the consequent earthly blessings, which were actually bestowed i^pon them and their children. This is plainly accounting for the style of the prophecies. Let us now see upon what the prophetic manner of speaking respecting the children and their connection with their parents is founded. In that temporal economy the children were really con- nected with their parents in the temporal deliverances and earthly blessings. They are included with their parents in the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham and his fleshly seed. In that covenant, God promises Abraham a fleshly seed, and that he would multiply him exceedingly, Gen. xvii. 2, and further promises, " I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee and unto thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, and I will be their God," verse 7, 8. This promise is the foundation of the whole typical economy. In pursuance KESMCTING THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. 341 thereof, God multiplied Abraham's fleshly seed into a nation, redeemed them out of Egypt, entered into a cove- nant with them at Sinai, and brought them into the possession of the earthly inheritance : in all which the children were connected with the parents, and sharers with them of the earthly blessings. — And, indeed, it could not be otherwise consistently with the nature of that cove- nant : For how could a covenant be made with Abraham's fleshly seed without taking in the children who were equally his seed with their parents ? Deut. sxix. 10-14. How could Abraham's natural posterity be multiplied into a great nation but by the fleshly birth ? The case differs with the spiritual seed ; for they are gathered from all nations, and are of no peculiar race ; but the fleshly seed must spring from Abraham's loins, else the promise would not be accomplished, and therefore the fleshly birth was included in the promise of multiplying him. How could the promise, which was not accomplished till upwards of four hundred years after it was made, if it had not a respect to the successive generations of infants as well as adults ? For instance, how could the promise of giving Abraham's fleshly seed the land of Canaan for an ever- lasting possession be ever fulfilled, if it had not a respect to the adults of that generation that went up out of Egypt, seeing they all died in the wilderness ?. But it is clear that Grod's promise respected Abraham's seed in their suc- cessive generations. Gen. xvii. 7, and the promise was per- formed by various steps, at distant and successive periods, to different generations of that peculiar race of people. One generation goes down into Egypt ; another dwells there in servitude ; a third are brought out of Egypt, but die in the wilderness ; and a fourth are brought into the pos- session of the promised inheritance ; then, one generation after another enjoy the good things thereof : In all which the children must of necessity have been connected with. the parents. The blessings being earthly good things,. 2 G 2 342 ILLUSTRATION OF THE PE0PHECIE3 they succeeded to their parents' possessions as their heirs, even as in the nations of this world : only with this dif- ference, that they were a seed promised to Abraham, separated from every other race of men, and held their in- heritance by a divine tenure, and under supernatural pro- tection. In all earthly things as these were, it behoved the children necessarily to share with their parents, whether in prosperity or adversity, deliverances or disasters, and hence the promises and threatenings respect them both, they being involved in one another's circum- stances, Deut. xxvii. 4, 11, 32, 41. When blessings were promised to that people which were to be of long continuance, the children are particularly mentioned ; for the life of man being but short and tran- sitory in this world, these earthly blessings could not be lengthened out to that nation, but by extending them from one generation to another, or to their children and chil- dren's children. Thus Moses prays, in the view of the shortness of human life, that the Lord would make his glory appear unto their children, Psalm xc. 16. The Psalmist, speaking of the perpetuity of God's mercy to them that fear him, notwithstanding the frailty and short- ness of man's life ; he explains how this mercy was to be lengthened out, viz., Grod's extending his righteousness unto children's children, Psalm ciii. 15-17. And this corresponds with the promise of shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love him, Exod. xx. 6, whilst on the other hand, he visited (under that economy), the ini- quity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them who hated him, verse 5. The cii. Psalm, which appears to have been penned near the latter end of the captivity (see verse 13), contains a very mournful complaint of the Lord's chastisement of that people, and also an expression of the joyful hope of speedy deliverance to the prisoners, and of God's having mercy upon, and building up Zion ; but as the generation EESPECTIIirG THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. 343 that were carried captive were then mostly gone, and the remainder of them could not expect to enjoy long the fruits of their restoration, therefore it is said, " This shall be written for the generation to come, and the people which shall be created shall praise the Lord," verse 18 — and again, " The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee," verse 28 — Jer. XXX. 18-22, is literally a promise of restoring the captivity of Israel, and of the consequent blessings they were to enjoy, and (for the reasons before noticed), their children are particularly mentioned, " Their children shall be as aforetime," i. e., they shall enjoy their ancient privileges and inheritance, even as before their captivity — " and their nobles shall be of themselves," i. e., they shall not be governed by foreigners, as in the time of their captivity, but " their governor shall proceed from the midst of them," i. e., from their own nation, and of their brethren. Ezek. xxxvii., literally taken, is also a promise of restoring Israel from captivity, see verse 21- 23. Here it is promised they shall dwell in that very land which God gave unto Jacob, wherein their fathers had dwelt ; and this promise respected not only that genera- tion, but to shew the duration of that blessing, it is added, that their children and their children's children should dwell therein for ever (verse 25), i. e., for a long while to come ; for in this limited sense are we to understand the words for ever and everlasting when applied to typical things, as might be shewn in a vast number of places. From these instances, it is plain that the typical people bad an interest in these promises literally taken, and that there was a foundation in that earthly constitution for the prophetic manner of speaking respecting the children. And as the spiritual seed are spoken of under the figure of the fleshly seed, the language must of necessity corres- pond with the figure ;. and so we must (under the direction of the New Testament), make proper allowances for what 344 ILLUSTRATION OF THE fROPHEClES was peculiar to each, in explaining the prophecies. This will appear the more necessary, if we consider, 4. That many things are said of the types which will not apply to their antitypes, and, on the contrary, of the antitypes which will not apply to their types ; for not only are they different in their radical and essential pro- perties (the types being jleshly, earthly, and temporal, and the antitypes spiritual, heavenly, and eternal), but there are many circumstances arising from, and connected with these differences, wherein we cannot trace any analogy betwixt them. The tjrpes in general, were but partial and inadequate representations even of what they did typify ; they were not the very image of the things, Heb. X. 1, and hence they were multiplied ; for what single type, for instance, could fully represent the different natures, offices, and characters that concentrated in the person of our Lord ? What one man could represent a priest offering up the sacrifice of himself, and afterwards entering into the holiest of all with his own blood ! The types were not only defective, but in many respects opposite to their antitypes. The sacrifices of beasts typified the sacrifice of Christ ; but what did the repetition of them typify ? certainly nothing respecting his sacrifice ; it only showed their insufficiency to take away sin, and that it was still called to remembrance ; for where remis- sion is obtained, there is no more offering for sin, Heb. x. 1-19. The fleshly seed of Abraham were also a type of his spiritual seed ; but their being a peculiar jleshly race, springing from Abraham by natural generation, did not typify any thing of the like nature under the gospel ; for the spiritual seed were not to be of any peculiar fleshly race, but of all nations, kindreds, and tongues. Rev. vii. 9, and their relation to Abraham, hirth, and peculiar privi- leges (as the spiritual seed), are not in any respect con- nected with their fleshly descent ; but are the spirit and truth of these carnal things in the fleshly seed. I might 1 RESPECTINa THE SEED OP ABRAHAM. 345 illustrate these obserrations from every one of the types, but your own judgment will anticipate what might be said, it being a clear point that the types have many peculiari- ties that cannot be transferred or applied to their antitypes. Before I quit this head I would observe, that there is something very fond and fanciful in squeezing mystical meanings out of every minufAce of the type : Thus some writers can show us what the bells and pomegranates on the high priest's robes typified in particular, though I question if we are warranted to be much more particular as to these minutice than the New Testament revelation directs us ; at least it would be unwarrantable to build doctrines of any couscquGnce upon such a fanciful founda- tion. It is enough in many of the types that they bear a general similitude to their antitypes, and in others, that the resemblance appear in some few things. But whatever may be in this, it is really dangerous either to transfer the letter of the types into the gospel economy, or to found doctrines upon such circumstances as were pecu- liar to them. Having premised these things, I proceed to the next general head proposed, which was to show II. Who are the children spoken of in the prophecies, and in what respect they are called children ? And 1. When we apply these prophecies to gospel times, we must of necessity take the New Testament explication of the seed, children, or offspring. Now those counted for the seed under the New Testament, are distinguished from the fleshly seed of Abraham by being children of the promise, E,om. ix. 8, Gal. iv. 28, i. e., they are the pro- duct of the spiritual promise made to Abraham of mak- ing him a father of many nations, and of blessing all nations in his seed, Christ, Gen. xvii. 5, chap. xxii. 18. There is no promise made to believers under the New Testament, that they shall have a seed either fleshly or spiritual, and therefore, as the offspring of believers, none 34:6 ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROPHECIES are the children of promise ; but the apostle says of all believers (be they sprung by natural generation of whom they may) — " Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise," Gral. iv. 28, and the type of this promise was that concerning the multiplication of Abra- ham's natural seed in the line of Isaac. 2. They are distinguished from the fleshly children by their birth. They are not born of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man ; that is, they have no right, power, or privilege to become the sons of Grod by such a birth as gave the fleshly seed that title, in a typical sense, under the law, or old covenant ; nor are they de- nominated the children of God by such a birth as is common to them with all mankind : But those who receive power to become the sons of God in a spiritual sense, are such only as are horyt of God, John i. 13, 1 John iv. 7, chap. V. 1, and this birth is effected, not by the flesh but by the Spirit, John iii. 5, 6, and is the product, not of eorx'uptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, even the word which by the gospel is preached, 1 Pet. i. 23, which is also their nourishment, chap. ii. 2. The type of this birth was the fleshly birth of old Israel. 3. As they are begotten of God's own will by the word of truth, James i. 18, so they are distinguished from the mere fleshly seed by their faith in that word, or in Christ, the subject of it. Thus our Lord describes those who are born again to be such as believe in the only begotten Son of God, John iii. 15, 16, and in chap. i. 12, they are described to be those who receive him, who believe in his name : John also connects the spiritual birth with believ- ing— " whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is bom of God," 1 John, chap. v. ver. 1, which exactly answers to what Paul says, Gal. iii. 26, " Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." And it is by the confes- sion of this faith that men can distinguish them. EESPECimG THE SEED OF ABKAHAM. 347 4. These children are not distinguished by their fleshly descent, or their being sprung from any peculiar line or race of men, as the typical children were ; but they are of all nations, kindreds, and languages. Rev. chap. v. 9, chap. vii. 9. According to the covenant made with Abra- ham, and the promises respecting his fleshly seed, the Lord separated old Israel from all other nations of the earth, as a peculiar people to himself : They were forbid to marry with strangers, and the children begot by such marriages, were (by the peculiar law of separation) counted unclean, and not a holy seed ; but this separation and the holiness connected with it was only a fleshly figure of the true separation and holiness, which is entirely of another king- dom, and which, when it took place, set aside the other as of no consequence or avail in the kingdom of Christ. There is therefore no more any separated fleshly race to propagate a holy seed by carnal generation. In vain would old Israel plead, " We have Abraham for our father," and still more vain and groundless would be the boast, " We are the children of a New Testament be- liever;" for we are expressly told, "that in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircum- cision, but a new creature," Gral. vi. 15, and " except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," John iii. 3. The Apostle disclaims all judgment of men's . state by their fleshly descent. " Henceforth," says he, "know we no man after the flesh;" that is, we esteem or dis- tinguish no man as a subject of the kingdom of heaven by his fleshly descent, be it of whom it may, though it should even be of Abraham, The word henceforth intimates that men were known formerly after the flesh, but that now such knowledge is at an end. He adds, " Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh" (that is, as a Jew or descendant of Abraham), " yet now henceforth know we him no more :" that is to say, in that relation, or as having any peculiar interest in him on that account, above the 348 ILLUSTKATIOK OF THE PROPHECIES Gentile nations. And in opposition to all claims formed on the fleshly relation even to Christ himself, he further adds, " Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature," 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. Specifying those who are the children of the promise and counted for the seed, he says, " Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, hut also of the Gentiles, Rom. ix. 24. This holy seed is com- posed of whosoever believeth in Christ, " for there is now no difference between the Jew and the Greek," Rom. x. 11, 12. And the same apostle tells the believing Gentile Galatians (whose parents must have been heathen infidels) " Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise." Prom all which it is demonstrably evident, that the spiritual seed are of no peculiar fleshly race under the new cove- nant ; but of all nations, according to the promise made to Abraham, Gen. xxii. 18, Gal. iii. 8, and that they cannot be known or distinguished from the world by their fleshly relation to believing parents, since believers may be the natural parents of infidels, as Abraham was of unbelieving Israel ; and infidels may be the natural fathers of believers, as the idolatrous Gentiles were of those who were first con- verted from among them by the gospel. In explaining the prophecies, then, we must carefully keep in our eye this New Testament account of the seed, children, or offspring. The last thing proposed was III. To shew whose children they are, or who are their fathers, and in what respects they are held forth as parents in the prophecies. First, They are the children of Abraham, as springing from the promise made to him respecting his spiritual seed. " Know ye therefore (says the apostle) that they who are KESPECTIIfa THE SEED OE ABRAHAM. 349 of faith, the same are the children of Abraham," Gral. iii^ 7. For understanding of which it may be useful to touch a little on the promises made to Abraham respecting his seed, with the apostolic explication of them. The promises made to Abraham were of two kinds, — 1. Temporal, typical, and earthly. 2. Spiritual, everlasting, and heavenly. The former of these contained the types of the latter, and so it behoved them first to be accom- plished. Each of these kinds of promises respected two things. 1. The seed themselves. 2. The blessings to be conferred upon them. 1. He was promised a fleshly seed to spring from his loins, Gren. xv. 5, these were the children or product of the temporal promise. The blessings promised to this seed were — (1) That radical blessing of being their God, Gen. xvii. 7, which must be understood in a typical and temporal sense, agreeably to the nature of the old covenant, seeing that he threw them off from that peculiar relation when the new covenant took place. — (2) With this blessing was connected the typical adoption, Exod. iv. 22, 23, Rom. ix. 4. — (3) Redemption from Egypt, Gen. xv. 14, thus they were a purchased people unto God, Exod. xv. 16, he gave Egypt for their ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for them, Isa. xliii. 3. — (4) The earthly inheritance, Gen. xv. 18, Exod. vi. 3, 9. This was connected with their adoption ; for if sons, then heirs. Even this inheritance was not conferred upon them, by virtue of their obedience to the law, but freely upon the footing of the promise made to Abraham, Deut. ix. 5, even as the heavenly inheritance is also con- ferred on the spiritual seed, Gal. iii. 18. 2. Abraham was promised a spiritual seed, Gen. xxii. 16, viz., Christ himself, Gal. iii. 16, and those of all nations that should be blessed in him. Gal. iii. 7-9, for thus the apostle explains the promise, — " A father of many 2 H 350 ILLUSTEATION OF THE r-EOPIIECIES nations have I made thee ;" compare Gen. xvii. 5 with Rom. iv. 16-18. These are the product or children of the spiritual promise, of which the former were a type. The blessings promised these children in his notable seed, Christ, are — (1) His being their God in the spirit and truth of that promise. Gen. xvii. 7, i. e., in a spiritual and eternal sense, as in the promise of the new covenant, Jer. xxxi. 33. — (2) Redemption from the curse. This the apostle includes in the blessing of Abraham, Gal. iii. 7, 8, 13, 14, so they are a purchased or redeemed people to God, as old Israel was typically, 1 Pet. ii. 9. — (3) Justification. This is connected both in the promise, Jer. xxxi. 33, 34, and in the fulfilment, Rom, iii. 29, 30, with God's being their God ; and of this justification by faith Abraham was a prime pattern, Rom. iv. — (4) Adoption, Gal. iii. 26, chap. iv. 5, 6. This is included in the pro- mise of being their God, see Rom. ix. 26, and is the pe- culiar privilege of the children of promise, Rom. ix. 8, of this adoption that of the fleshly seed was but a figure. — Also the spirit of adoption, Rom. viii. 15, 16, Gal. iv. 6, and that in opposition to the fearful spirit of bondage or servitude. This spirit shows they are sons and heirs, Rom. viii. 16, and so is the earnest of the heavenly in- heritance, 2 Cor. i. 22, Eph. i. 13, as well as of the re- demption of their bodies in conformity to Christ the first born, Rom. viii. 11, which is also called the adoption, ver. 23, and this gift of the spirit is included in the blessing of Abraham, Gal. iii. 14. — (5) The resurrection of their bodies from the grave. This is implied in God's being their God in the sense he was so to Abraham, Luke xx. 37, 38, and is connected with their having the spirit, Rom. viii. 11, and is that adoption whereby they are God's be- gotten sons from the dead, bearing the image of the heavenly man, delivered from the bondage of corruption, Rom. viii. 23, 1 John iii. 1-3. — (6) The possession of the eternal inheritance, Rom. iv. 16, Gal. iii. 16-18, 29, Heb. RESPECTING THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. 351 ix. 15, 1 Peter i. 3, 4, of which Canaan was but a type. This inheritance was the hope of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and is also implied in God's being their God, see Heb. xi. 16. It is connected with their sonship, as being joint-heirs with Christ, Rom. viii. 16, 17, and with their having the spirit of adoption, the earnest of it, Eph. i. 13. — But to return again to the fleshly seed of Abraham : The Apostle speaks of Abraham's natural seed in a threefold view. — 1. Ishmael was the son of the bond woman, bom after the flesh and not by promise, not a child of Clod, nor an heir of the earthly inheritance, Rom. ix. 7, 8, Gal. iv. 23, 30. With him we may class Esau, Abraham's grand-child in the promised line, who pro- fanely despised and sold his birthright, forfeited the blessing, and was rejected. But there is this difi"erence betwixt the two. — Ishmael was of the bond woman and not an heir. — Esau was of the free woman, and an heir of the temporal inheritance by birth. — Ishmael was a type of the children of the flesh ; of their bondage under the old covenant (which was typified by his mother). Gal. iv. 25, of their persecuting the true seed, ver. 29, and of their being cast out of their father's house, ver. 30. But Esau was a type of apostatizing professors under the gospel ; their despising the heavenly inheritance, and of their being rejected, Heb. xii. 16, 17. From these the apostle shows that " they are not all Israel who are of Israel ; neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all chil- dren," Rom. ix. 5-14. 2. Another division of Abraham's natural seed is the children of the temporal promise. The first of these was Isaac, in whom Abraham's seed was to be called in dis- tinction from Ishmaelj Pvom. ix. 7, and who was conceived by a supernatural power (Abraham's body and Sarah's womb being dead, Rom. iv. 19), to intimate that divine power whereby the spiritual seed are regenerated, and which raised Christ from the dead. The second was Jacob, 352 ILLUSTKATION OF THE PROPHECIES who was also called Israel, from whom, in distinction from Esau, Abraham's seed are denominated, and springing in twelve tribes, M-ere multiplied into a nation. These were the heirs of the temporal promises, who were separated from the rest of the nations by the covenant of circum- cision, and the old covenant at Sinai, to be a peculiar people and holy nation unto Grod above all people, Exod. xix. 5, 6. To them " pertained the (typical) adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of Grod, and the promises ; and of them as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, Grod blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 4, 5. Of these again the apostle gives us different views. — Comparing them with Ishmael, he views them as children of promise, of the free woman, and heirs of the temporal inheritance, Eom. ix. 4-14. But on the other hand, comparing them with the spiritual seed, or children of the new covenant, he ranks them in the predicament of Ish- mael, and considers them as children of the bond woman (or old covenant), and, as such, not heirs of the heavenly inheritance, but born to slavery or bondage, and so cast out with their mother as Ishmael was, Glal. iv. 22-31. — Again, 3. He considers a remnant among them both as fleshly and spiritual seed. These are they who, he says " are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of their father Abraham, which he had, being yet uncircumcised," Rom. iv. 12. As children of the old covenant, and in bondage under the rudiments and ele- ments of the world, the}?^ differed nothing from servants ; and though, as believers of the promise of Christ, they were heirs of the eternal inheritance and lords of all, yet before Christ came they were at best but as children under tutors, and subjected to the severe pedagogy of the law, having much of the spirit of fear and bondage, Gal. iii. 23, 24, chap. iv. 1-4. From this state Christ came to RESPECTING THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. 353 deliver them, Cral. iii. 25, 26, chap. iv. 5, Heb. ii. 3 5. They were servants as disciples of Moses — they were typically free as representing the true children of Grod — and truly free sons and heirs as imitators of Abraham's faith. Now it is this last division of Abraham's fleshly seed, together with all those who arc called from among the G-entiles that compose the spiritual seed of Abraham, as I have already shown. But because the promises were made to the seed of Abraham, and it being not so clear how believing Gentiles were counted for his seed in these promises, as it was a mystery hid from ages and genera- tions, and in other ages was not known, Eph. iii. 5, 9, Col. i. 26, 27 ; therefore the apostle insists largely upon that important point, and explains fully how they stand in this relation to Abraham. And 1. By calling them the children of the promise, Gral. iv. 28, he intimates that they are Abraham's children, as springing from the promise made to him of being the father of many nations. Gen. xvii. 5, compared with Rom. iv. 17, even as Isaac was the child of a promise. The word of promise constituted this relation betwixt Abraham and the Gentile nations, " I have made thee a father of many nations," and so he says that Abraham is the father of us all before God, whom he believed in that promise, " that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, so shall thy seed be." And that we may be in no doubt about the seed included in the many nations, he describes them to be not that only which is of the law, but that also which is of the faith of Abraham ; and so they are also the children of Abraham's faith, he believing the promise that he might become their father. See Rom. iv. 13-19. 2. He is their father, as the prime example of justifi- cation by faith without the works of the law. He was jus- tified by faith in God's promise before he was circumcised, 2 H 2 354 ILLUSTRATION OP THE PROPHECIES that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed to them also. And being justified, he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of his being justified by the faith which he had before it, that he might be the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circum- cision only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had, yet being uncircumcised, Rom. iv. 10-12. That is, in short, that he might be the father (or prime pattern) of justification by faith, both to the believing Jews and Gentiles ; and so his faith is set before us for our imitation, verse 18, 25. 3. He is their father as being the father of the notable seed Christ, according to the flesh ; and they being Christ's seed, Isa. liii. 10, and also his brethren, adopted and connected with him as the first born, Heb. ii. 11, 18, must of consequence be Abraham's seed; and in this sense the apostle expressly asserts them to be so ; " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," Gal. iii. 29. Thus I have given a sketch of the New Testament doctrine concei'ning Abraham's seed ; how they are so called, and of what they consist. The purport of the whole is to show, that the seed, the children, the of spring, mentioned in the prophecies, stand in that relation to Abraham, and not to their natural parents ; that is, they are not called a seed, children, or offspring, as springing from their fleshly parents, but in relation to Abraham, who is the father of all believers in the sense already explained. Their natural parents are not their fathers as spiritual children, but, if they are also believers, they are their brethren, they being equally the children of Abra- ham. To Abraham and his seed (and not to the natural seed of believers as such), were the promises made ; first to Christ, and in him to all his adopted brethren of Jews and Gentiles. So that the fleshly relation of parent and KESPECTING THE SEED OF ABEAHAM. 355 child, is of no account here ;. as they are both children in the sense of the prophecies, if they are "believers ; brethren of Christ and of one another, and fellow heirs of the heavenly inheritance. This will farther appear if we consider, Secondly, That the seed whom the promises respect are the children of Zion, Isa. xlix. 14-24, an epithet given to the gospel church, Heb. xii. 22, and that in allusion to the earthly Zion ; and this mount Zion is opposed to mount Sinai in Arabia, where the old covenant was made with the typical people, Heb. xii. 18, and where the earthly church was erected. The old covenant made at Sinai, was typified in Abraham's family by Hagar the bond woman, with whom Abraham begat Ishmael, and this covenant, though it brought forth children to Abraham, yet, like Hagar, it brought them forth to bondage, G-al. iv. 24. The gospel church, related unto Glod by the new covenant, is also called Jerusalem, in allusion to the earthly Jerusalem where the tribes of God assembled, and in distinction therefrom is called the Jerusalem which is above, the heavetili/ Jerusalem, Gal. iv. 26, Heb. xii. 22. This Zion, this Jerusalem, is represented as the mother of Grod's childi-en, and was typified by Sarah the free woman, Abraham's wife, the mother of Isaac, the child of promise ; and so with respect to her state, she is free in distinction from Hagar, who typified the old covenant, and the earthly Jerusalem which was in bondage ; and hence her children are also free, and heirs in distinction from the children of the former, Gral. iv. 24, 25. Thus the apostle says, " But Jerusalem which is above is free, which, is the mother of us all," verse 26. — " Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise," verse 28. — " So then, brethren, we are not childi-en of the bond womaUj but of the free," verse 31. This Jerusalem is Christ's spouse or bride, her Maker is her husband, Eph. v. 25-27, 32. — Rev. xxi. 2, 9, 10, and to her and her children the promises are made 356 ILLUSTRATION OP THE PROPHECIES in the prophecies. This will clearly appear from the prophecies themselves ; but I shall instance only in two passages, viz., Isa. xlix. 14, 24, and chap. liv. 1-9, both of which are quoted by the apostle, and applied to gospel times, see 2 Cor. vi. 16, and Gral. iv. 27. For the under- standing of which I would premise. That the children of the earthly typical Zion or Jeru- salem, were all the fleshly seed of Abraham, the whole of the nation of Israel who were related to Grod by the old covenant. — The children of the true Zion or heavenly Jerusalem were then only a small remnant among these, who believed the promise of Christ, and waited for the consolation of Israel. These, in comparison of the rest, were like Lot in Sodom, Isa. i. 9, and of them the Lord takes particular notice, Mai. iii. 16, 17. When our Lord came into the world, few of that nation appeared to be the true children of Zion ; he came unto his own, and his own received him not, few of them believed the gospel report, to few of them was the arm of the Lord revealed, Isa. liii. 1, Rom. x. 16. Though the number of Israel was as the sand of the sea, it was but a remnant of them that were saved, Rom. ix. 27-29. Such was the state of Israel in the apostle's time, that he compares it to the universal defection in the days of Elias, Rom. xi. 3-5. And as they rejected the Messiah, so the Lord cast them off from being his people, threw them out of a diurch state, and dissolved the typical covenant, whereby they were related to him. The Spirit of Grod, in the view of this, represents Zion as complaining of her desolate, childless, and forsaken situation, Isa. xlix. 14, " But Zion said, the Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me." To this a most comfortable answer is given from verse 15 to 20. Then the Lord proceeds to comfort her, with regard to her children : " The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other (that is, after the Jews should be cast off), shall say again in KESPECTING THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. 357 thy ears, the place is too strait for me ; give place to me that I may dwell," verse 20. This is a promise of the great increase of her children. At this unexpected and numerous progeny, Zion is represented as wondering ; and indeed the New Testament declares what difficulty there was about this, and how much surprised the believing Jews were, when they saw them begotten to Zion (Acts x. 28, 45, chap. xi. 18) ; and therefore there is a question about it in the prophecy, as a mysterious and puzzling thing to Zion : " Then shalt thou say in thine heart, who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro ? and who hath brought up these ? Behold I was left alone, these, where had they been ?" verse 21. To this it is answered, " Thus saith the Lord God, behold I will lift up my hand to the Grentiles, and set up my standard to the people ; and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathex'S, and their queens their nursing mothers, &c., verse 22, 23, q. d., I will cause the gospel to be proclaimed unto the Gentile nations, and will beget children unto thee, from among them, by the word of truth ; and as to their natural birth, bringing-up, and earthly privileges (which were of such consequence to thy former children), be not concerned about these ; for I will cause the heathen to perform these offices to thy children, and make the kingdoms of the earth as so many nurseries to rear them up, and their kings and queens to be- nursing fathers and nursing mothers to them, in common with their other subjects. In Isaiah liv. 1, 8, the church is comforted with the promise of a numerous offspring. We need be at no loss to understand what church is here meant ; for the apostle quotes the first verse, and applies it to the Jerusalem which is above, and the mother of us all, Gal. iv. 26, 27, which was typified by Sarah the free woman. And as when Sarah 353 ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROPHECIES was for a long time barren, till she was past age, and her womb dead, God promised that she should have a son, that she should be blessed, and be the mother of nations. Gen. xvii. 16, so her antitype here is addressed, "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear ; break forth into singing and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child ; for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord," ver, 1, that is, however desolate, forsaken, and barren thou mayst at present appear to be by the infidelity and rejection of the fleshly seed of Abraham ; yet thou shalt bring forth a much more nume- rous offspring than the earthly Jerusalem, married to me by the old covenant : therefore she is commanded, ver. 2, to enlarge the place of her tent, &c., to make room for her numerous family. And that she might not doubt of this wonderful increase of her children, on account of her widowhood, it is said to her, ver. 5, " Thy Maker is thy husband (the Lord of hosts is his name), and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called," and that in opposition to his being the God of the Jews only, Rom. iii. 29. So that it is the Lord, the church's husband, that begets these children to Jerusalem, by the word of truth (James i. 18), and so it is said, ver. 13, of this chapter, " All thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children," which is the same promise with that in Jer. xxxi. 34, made to the children of the new covenant, even the children which were to spring from the marriage of Jerusalem above with the Lord of hosts; for with regard to the fleshly children, springing from the temporal covenant, Zion was to lose these, Isaiah xlix. 20, 21, but Christ, the church's husband, in consequence of making his soul an offering for sin, is promised a seed, and to be satisfied in seeing the travail of his soul, even the mani/ who by the knowledge of him should be justified, Isaiah liii. 10, 11, and it is upon this foundation that Jerusalem is bid to sing and ( BESPECTING THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. 359 rejoice in the prospect of children. See the connection of the o3d and 54th chapters of Isaiah. From these scriptures it is clear, that the promises re- specting the children are made to Zion, and not to believers, as fleshly parents ; and that the seed mentioned through- out the prophecies, are not called children in relation to their natural parents, but in relation to Zion, the Jerusa- lem above, Christ's spouse. — It is also manifest, that Jeru- salem the true church, is not called a mother in respect of her bringing forth children by natural generation, as Hagar, and the earthly Jerusalem did ; but her maternal relation respects the children begotten by the incorruptible seed of the word, and born again, even the seed of Christ, Isaiah liii. 10, his children, Heb. ii. 13, the children of the living Grod, Rom. ix. 26. To these, and these only, she is a mother : but she has nothing to do with the jieshly birth ; even her own children can claim no relation to her upon that account, nor can they beget children to her by that means more than others. The children promised to her in the prophecies, were to be mostly of the heathen extraction according to the flesh ; with which heathens she had no connection ; and the history of the Acts of the Apostles shews us how these prophecies were accomplished, when " Grod visited the Gentiles to take out of them a peo- ple for his name ; for to this agree the words of the pro- phets," Acts XV. 14, 15, But many who are not satisfied with the New Testament explication of the prophecies on this point, may still object and say — " Though the prophecies do indeed respect the spiritual seed of Abraham, the children of the free woman, the Jerusalem which is above, yet it appears from many pas- sages of the prophetic writings, that a respect is also had unto the natural seed of these spiritual children. Thus it is said, Psal. Ixix. 36, ' The seed also of his servants shall inherit it.' So Psal. cii. 28, ' The children of thy servants 360 ILLUSTRATION" OF THE PROPHECIES shall continue ; and their seed shall be established before thee.' Also Bzek. xxxvii. 25 — 'and they shall dwell therein, even they and their children, and their children's children, for ever.' And Jer. xxx. 20, ' Their children also shall be as aforetime,' &c. From which it appears that the pro- mises are made not only to the children of Zion, but also to the children of these children ; that is, not only to be- lievers, but also to their natural seed." Now to this I answer, that there has enough been said already- in my observations upon the prophetic style and phraseology, and upon the foundation it had in the typical economy, to obviate this objection. — It certainly is not do- ing justice to the prophecies to overlook the New Testament explication of them, and perch upon such phrases as in their literal signification can only apply to the type. This is like wrapping ourselves up in the veil when it is done away in Christ, and when we may see with open face. However, in answer to the objection, I shall obsei-ve, That Thirdly, Old Israel, in scripture style, are called the fathers of the new covenant children (as I observed before), Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel^ and with the house of Judah [i. e., with the children, of Israel and Judah.) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt," &c. It is certain that this is a promise of the new covenant in Christ's blood, see Heb. viii., and chap. x. 15-17, and which was made with the believing Gentiles as well as Jews ; and it is certain that the covenant made when Israel was brought out of Egypt, was the old temporal covenant with the fleshly seed ; for we have the history of that transaction in the xix., xx., xxi., xxii., xxiii., and xxiv. chapters of Exodus ; and yet this old Israel, this fleshly seed, are called the fathers of those with whom the new covenant was made. They are likewise so called RESPECTme THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. 361 in the New Testament : The apostle proves at large, Heb. chap. iii. and iv., that the address in Psal. xcv. 7-9, respects the New Testament Church, to whom he applies it, — " To-day, if 3^e will hear my voice, harden not your hearts as in the provocation — when your fathers tempted me," &c., for none, I suppose, will affirm that the rest here spoken of by the apostle remained only for the children of old Israel, according to the flesh ; and yet we see old Israel in the wilderness are called the fathers of those for whom this rest remains after tlie seventh-day rest, and the earthly rest are set aside, which can be no other than the spiritual seed of Jews and Glentiles, who believing enter into rest, Heb. iv. 3, 9. Again, the apostle writing to the Gentile church at Corinth (1 Cor. x. 1) says, — "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud and passed through the sea," &c., where old Israel are called the fathers not only of Paiil, who was a Jew, but also of the believing Corinthians, who were Gentiles. Now it is plain they were not fathers by natural generation, to the greater part of those called their children — How then is that earthly nation called the fathers of the spiritual seed of all nations ? and in what respects can the children of the new covenant be called their children ? To this I answer (1) That old Israel are called the fathers of New Testament children, chiefly because of them, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, Rom. ix. 5, of whom springs the New Testa- ment children, his seed, Isa. liii. 10, 11, his children, Heb. ii. 13. Christ was a son of the Jewish church ; unto them he was in a peculiar manner a Child born, and a son given, Isa. ix. 6, but unto the New Testament church he is promised as a father (and so what in our version is rendered the everlasting father, is by the seventy trans- lated 0 'irar'fip fMsXXovrog aiovos), the father of the future age, or world to come, i. e., of the gospel economy, see ver. 6. So that what the apostle argues, Gal. iii. 29, — " If ye be 2 I 362 ILLUSTEAXION OF THE PROPHECIES Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed," -will in like manner hold here ; if tliey are Christ's children, then are they the children of ancient Israel, seeing Christ sprang from that nation as well as from Abraham ; and they may with as great propriety be called their children, as Christ's throne is called the throne of his father David, Isa. ix. 7, Luke i. 32. The apostle represents the believing Glentiles as naturalized and adopted children into the commonwealth of Israel, from which they were formerly strangers and aliens, Bph. ii. 12-21. He likewise represents them as branches of the wild olive tree, and grafted in among the natural branches (i. e., the believing Jews) into the good olive tree, and with them partaking of the root and fatness thereof, and standing thereon by faith, * Rom. xi. 17-25. Por these and other reasons old Israel are called the fathers of the New Testament children ; and so the prophecies delivered to them respecting their children and children's children do not respect the natural children of New Testa- ment believers, but believers themselves, whether of Jews or Gentiles, whether parents or children, they being all children of old Israel in the prophetic style, according to the sense explained. Or, in other words, these promises are not made to New Testament believers, as fathers, but to old Israel, and that because Christ was to spring from them, who is the father of the New Testament children. Lastly, I would observe. That the prophecies were actually accomplished to the natural children of that ancient people even in their spiritual sense. Peter, addressing the Jews, says, " Ye are the children of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers — Unto you first, God, having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of * The twelve apostles of our Lord, who were children of Old Israel, may be considered as the fathers or patriarchs of the Christian Church, 1 Cor. iv. 15, Rev. xxi. 12, 14, and so this church may be called the childi-en's children of that people. KESPECTIKG THE SEED OF ABKAHAM. 3G3 you from his iniquities," Acts iii. 25, 26. And Paul, addressing the Jews at Antioch, before he turned to the Gentiles there, says, " We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again," &c.. Acts xiii. 32, 33. The promises had a primary respect unto their natural posterity, and so it behoved them to have their first accomplishment among them. Christ's mission was first to them, and hence he says to the woman of Canaan, " I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," Matt. xv. 24. Among them alone he exercised his personal ministry upon earth, and, during that ministry, he prohibits his apostles from going into the way of the Gentiles, Matt. x. 5, 6, and even after his resurrection, when he extends their commission to all nations, they were commanded to preach the gospel first unto the Jews, Luke xxiv. 47, and this the apostle says was necessavi/, Acts xiii. 46. Thus " Jesus Christ was made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the jyromises made unto the fathers :" Rom. xv. 8. Among them did Christ first set up his kingdom after his resurrection ; among them he had the " first fruits of his new creatures, begotten by the word of truth," James i. 18, and from them did the word of God sound out unto the nations, begetting children to the faith. Thus far, then, the promises made unto old Israel in the prophecies were accomplished to their natural children or descendants; which will at least partly vindicate the truth of God in these promises made to the fathers, and show how they were accomplished to their child7-e7ia,nd children's children! Now, all the senses that have been given with respect to the parentage of the children mentioned in the prophecies, perfectly agi'ee and harmonize one with another. — I. They are Abraham's children as springing from the promise made to him. — 2. Of consequence they must be 364 ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROPHECIES the children of the Jerusalem above, the free woman, Sarah's antitype. — 3. As they are Christ's, they must of consequence be the children of old Israel, from whom Christ came, as well as the children of Abraham ; and it behoved those of them, who were Jews by birth, to be their children, both in a natural and spiritual sense. But none of these senses will favour the point contended for ; for in all the prophecies there is no promise made to New Testament believers as natural parents, or in relation to a natural seed springing from them ; but both parents and children, if they are of the true Israel, are Abraham's seed, and the children of the promise made to Christ of seeing his seed, Isaiah liii. 10 ; they are both the children which Grod hath given him, Heb. ii. 13. As Jer. XXX. 20 is much insisted on to show that the infants of New Testament believers are to be baptized, even as those of old Israel were circumcised, I shall, to what has already been said, add another hint for explaining it. I have already observed, that many of the prophecies, and particularly those respecting the children, were delivered during the captivity, and have a literal respect to the deliverance of old Israel from that calamity, and to their peace and prosperity in their ancient inheritance. I have also hinted in general that this tempoi'al deliverance was a type of the great salvation by Christ, which he intimates himself in opening up his mission from Isaiah Ixi. 1, see Luke iv. 18-22. But it also appears, from comparing the book of the Revelations with the visions and prophecies of the Old Testament to which it alludes, that the captivity of that typical church in Babylon was a type of the captivity of the church of Christ during the reign of Antichrist. We cannot doubt that Babylon was a type of the mystical Babylon, the mother of harlots, see Rev. xvii., and that her fall was also a type of the downfall of the other, see Isa. xiii., chap. xxi. ix., chap, xlvii., Jer. li. 6-59, compared with Rev. xiv. 8-10, RESPECTING THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. 365 chapters xviii. and xix. — The woman, or true church, is represented as flying from the face of the dragon into the wilderness, Rev. xii. 13-17, where she is nourished for a time ; even as Elijah did from the face of wicked Jezebel, where he was also miraculously fed, 1 Kings xix., which represents a period of the church, wherein the true followers of the Lamb were to be as obscure and indiscernible as the 7000, who had not bowed the knee to Baal, were in the days of Elijah, ver. 18. The two witnesses are said to prophesy in sack- cloth, Rev. xi. 3, that is, in the garments of their captivity, for it alludes to Joshua's filthy garments, Zech. iii. 3, 4. They are called the two olive trees, and the two candle- sticks standing before the God of the earth, ver. 4, in which there is a plain reference to Zech. iv. 3, 11, 14, where the success of Zcrrubbabel in building the second temple is set forth. These witnesses have power to inflict judgments on the wicked, " They have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will," even as Moses and Aaron did in Egypt. Again, " if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devourcth their enemies. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophesy," ver. 5, 6, even as Elijah inflicted these punishments during his prophesy, 1 Kings xvii. 1, 2 Kings i. 2-8. The state of Christ's people during this prophesying of the witnesses, must of consequence be similar to the state of Israel in Egypt, to that of the 7000, who did not bow to Baal, in the time of Jezebel, and to that of the captive Jews, when their temple and the wall of their city lay in rubbish, that is, a state of bondage, obscurity, and captivity, and not in that separated visible church state and order instituted for them by Christ. If, then, we consider the captivity of old Israel in Babylon, as a type of the captivity of Christ's people, under the reign of Antichrist, the mystical Babylon, then 2 K 366 ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROPHECIES, &c. the prophecies, concerning the restoration of the typical people, may be explained of this spiritual restoration of Christ's people from the power of Antichrist. And so when it is said, Jer. xxx. 20, " Their children shall be as aforetime," &c. (that is, the children of Jacob's tent, see ver. 18), it cannot signify that the infant seed of New Testament believers shall be as the infant seed of old Israel (for they were not so aforetime) ; but it means that the spiritual children of Israel's tents, or the dwelling- places of Mount Zion, shall be as they themselves were aforetime, viz., in the days of the apostles, when delivered from the tyranny and usurpation of Antichrist, they shall enjoy the primitive doctrine, order, and ordinances, and when there shall be a revival of the ancient brotherly love, and patient following of Christ, in opposition to this present world, in the hopes of conformity to him in J^is glory. I am, dear Sir, Yours in the truth, ARCHd. M'LEAN. A REPLY R FULLER'S APPENDIX TO HIS BOOK ON THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION A REPLY MR FULLER'S APPENDIX. &c INTRODUCTION. Mr AjfDREw Fuller, in an Appendix to a new-modelled edition of his book, entituled " The Grospel Wox'thy of all Acceptation," has attempted to refute what I have advanced on Faith, in my treatise on the Commission of Christ, and in a pamphlet, entituled " The belief of the G-ospel, saving Faith." One reason which he assigns for offering his sentiments on this subject is, that " Mr M'Lean, in a second edition of the Commission of Christ, has published several pages of animadversions on what I have advanced on the subject, and has charged me with very serious consequences." * Yet these several pages happen to be obly two notes at the bottom of the pages, wherein Mr Fuller's name is not once mentioned. Nor is there the least reference in them to any thing which Mr Fuller had published, that might lead the reader to think I had him in view. He seems to think that it was not very proper in me to animadvert publicly on what he had written only in two private letters. Had I exposed any of his private opinions, communicated to me in confidence, and mentioned his name, I confess it would have been very indelicate ; but * Page 159. 2 K 2 370 INTRODUCTION". as neither of these is the case, and as it is Mr Fuller himself who has informed the puhlic that these notes refer to his sentiments, I see not the least cause of complaint. He observes, that " if such conduct were proper, some people may be tempted to think, that it is rather dangerous to correspond with authors." * What danger he may apprehend from corresponding with me, I know not, as I am altogether unconscious of having ever attempted to expose or misrepresent him either publicly or privately. "Whether Mr Fuller has been equally cautious on this head, with regard to me and my connections, he best knows. He complains that his " sentiments are very partially stated, and things introduced so much out of their connec- tion, that it is impossible for the reader to form any judgment concerning them." f I am certain, however, that this complaint is gToundless. Every material idea in his letters relating to the subject is, in these two notes, expressed in his own words, and distinguished by inverted commas ; and nothing is so introduced out of its connection as in the least degree to obscure or alter the sense. The publication of his letters would clearly evince this ; but there is no occasion, for if any one will take the trouble of comparing his words quoted in these two notes, with his Appendix, he will find the sentiment to be the same in both. At my advanced period of life, J I could wish to have been excused from entering the field of controversy, and especially with Mr Fuller, who is much my superior in polemical talents, which he has exercised of late years to good purpose both against Socinians and Deists. But it sometimes happens that men of distinguished abilities do not always know where to stop in their polemical career. Success in some things has urged them on to attempt * Page 160. t I^jid- { The author, at the time of vriting this reply, was more thaa seventy years old. INTRODUCTION'. 371 others, wherein they have done little service to the cause of truth ; and such, in my humble opinion, is Mr Fuller's present attempt. As he seems to consider the simple belief of the gospel to be nothing more than mere speculation, which has no necessary connection with, nor influence upon true holiness of heart, I can easily see how a concern for the interests of vital religion may have led him to make faith the effect of a previous holy disposition, and to include in its nature the exercise of the will and affections ; but I cannot so easily account for his misrepresentations of my senti- ments, and the strange conclusions he draws from them. Those who know nothing of my writings but through the medium of his Appendix, must consider them as striking at the root of all true religion, or at best as a mere jumble of inconsistencies. This lays mc under the necessity of making some reply, not only to wipe off these misrepresen- tations, but also, if possible, to throw some further light on the point in debate. The first thing that presents itself is the question which Mr Fuller prefixes to his Appendix, and which I shall here make QUESTION I. Whether the existence of a holy disposition of heart he necessary to believing ? This holy disposition he terms a divine principle — the moral state or disposition of the soul — a change of heart — a change of the bias of the heart towards God.* He maintains that this principle must exist ■prior to, or before believing, and in order to it; and he frequently repre- sents faith as arising out of it, influenced by it, and par- taking of \i.'\ I never considered this previous principle to be any part of the difference betwixt Mr Fuller and me ; nor did I observe that he held any such sentiment, * Page 127, 129, 170. t Page 171-176. 372 or A SUPPOSED holt PEIKCIPLB my attention being entirely confined to wliat he says on the nature of faith itself. I might therefore justly excuse myself from entering upon the question which he prefixes to his Appendix, because, although the affirmative were admitted, it will not prove that faith is anything else than simple belief ; and because the question betwixt us does not respect what is previous to faith, but simply what faith itself is. But as Mr Fuller has brought forward this previous holy disposition of heart, and laid it as the funda- mental principle of his scheme, it will be proper to examine it a little. After much reasoning he comes at last to state the question thus : — " That there is a Divine influence upon the soul which is necessary to spiritual perception and belief, as being the cause of them, those with whom I am now reasoning will admit. The only question is, in what order these things are caused ? Whether the Holy Spirit causes the mind, while carnal, to discern and believe spiritual things, and thereby render it spiritual ; or whether he imparts a' holy susceptibility and relish for the truth, in consequence of which we discern its glory and embrace it ? The latter appears to me to be the truth." * But this is a very unfair state of the question, so far as it relates to the opinion of his opponents ; for he repre- sents them as maintaining that the Holy Spirit causes the mind, while carnal, or before it is spiritually illuminated, to discern and believe spiritual things; and then he sets him- self to argue against this contradiction of his own framing, as a thing impossible even with God himself, because im- possible in its own nature, and that the Holy Spirit declares it to be so, 2 Cor. ii. 14.f "Were I to state Mr Fuller's sentiment thus, — " The Holy Spirit imparts to the mind, while carnal, a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth," would he not justly complain that I had misrepresented his view, and that he did not mean that the mind could * Page 204, 205, t Page 205, 206. PREVIOUS TO FAITU, 373 possess any holy susceptibility or relish for the truth while it was in a carnal state ; but only that the Holy Spirit, by the very act of impartiug this holy susceptibility and relish for the truth, removed the carnality of the mind? But then this explanation applies equally to the other side of the ques- tion ; and surely it appears at least as consistent with the nature of things, and as easy to conceive that the Holy Spirit should, in the first instance, communicate the light of truth to a dark carnal mind, and thereby render it spiritual, as that he should, prior to that, impart to it a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth. It would indeed be highly presumptuous in me to affirm of this last what Mr Fuller does of the former, viz., that it is im- possible with God ; but I must be allowed to say that to me it is altogether inconceivable how the human mind can have a holy relish for the truth before it has any percep- tion of it. A conviction of sin, and a fear of its awful consequences, may, indeed, dispose a person to listen to and relish anything which may give him hope ; but till his mind is in some measure enlig'itened in the knowledge of Christ, this cannot be termed a holy susceptibility, much less a holy relish for the truth, or a change of heart. In Buch circumstances it is only the effect of that natural self-love or desire of happiness which is common to all man- kind, and which, though it may subserve his relish for the truth as soon as he perceives it, must, till then, lead him to seek relief or ease to his mind from some other quarter. The principle upon which Mr Fuller establishes this holy disposition previous to faith seems to be this : — That the understanding, or perceptive faculty in man, is directed and governed by his will and inclinations. The most of his ai-guments are evidently founded on this hypothesis. But must it not be owned that, so far as this is the case, it is an irregular exercise of his faculties, arising from the moral disorder of his lapsed nature, whereby his judgment, reason, and conscience, are 374: OF A SUPPOSED HOLT PKI^'CIPLE weakened, pei'verted, and blinded, so as to be subjected to his will and corrupt inclinations ? * And shall we sup- pose that, in regeneration, the Holy Spirit acts according to this order, by first performing some physical operation upon the blind will to give it a new bias or inclination, and thus make way for the introduction of light into the understanding ? This is evidently Mr Fuller's opinion, for he says, — " God does not cause the natural man to receive spiritual things ;" that he considers as impossible, " but he removes the obstructing film by imparting a spiritual relish for those things." This obstructing film he explains to be " the obstinacy and aversion of the heart," and thinks that the first operation of the Spirit is his " im- parting a spiritual relish for those things," which the mind does not as yet perceive. "Thus," he says, " it is that spiritual things are spiritually discerned." f Whether I take these words by themselves, or in connection with the whole paragraph, I can make no other sense of them but this, that spiritual things are * Dr Owen ascribes this to the disorder introduced into the soul by the fall; his words are,—" The rise of this is the dis- order that is brought upon all its faculties by sin. God created them all in a perfect harmony and union. The mind and reason were in perfect subjection and subordination to God and his will. The will answered, in its choice of good, the discovery made of it by the mind ; the aiFections constantly and evenly followed the understanding and will. The minds subjection to God was the spring of the orderly and harmonious motion of the soul, and all the wheels of it. That being disturbed by sin, the rest of the faculties move cross and contrary one to another. The will chooseth not the good which the mind discovers ; the affections delight not in that which the will chooseth, but all jar and inter- fere, cross and rebel against each other. This we have got by our falling from God. Hence sometimes the will leads, the judgment follows ; yea, commonly the affections which should attend upon all get the sovereignty, and draw the whole soul after them."— On the Nature and Power of Indwelling Sin. Chap. iii. t Page 205, 20G. PREVIOUS TO FAITn. 375 spiritually discerned by a spiritual relish for we know not what ; for he does not admit that there is any previous communication of spiritual light to the understanding ; on the contrary, he denies this to be possible even with God himself. He observes, that "though holiness is frequently ascribed in the Scriptures to a spiritual perception of the truth, yet that spiritual perception itself, in the first instance, is ascribed to the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the HEART." And for this he cites Acts xvi. 4, 2 Cor. iv. 6, 1 John ii. 20, 27. * Spiritual perception is without doubt the effect of the Holy Spirit's influence upon the heart ; but the reader must observe, that Mr Fuller here uses the word heart to signify the will and affections, as distinguished from the under- standing and perceiving faculty ; so that his meaning is, that the Holy Spirit does not, in the first instance, impart a spiritual perception of the truth, and so make persons to relish or love it ; but that he makes them first to relish or love it, and then to perceive or understand it. But, on this subject, the word of God never mentions the word heart, in Mr Fuller's partial sense of it, but always as including the understanding, as well as the will and affections, f and the former as the avenue to the latter. * Page 206. t " The lieart in the Scripture is variously used. Sometimes for the mind and understanding ; sometimes for tiie will ; some- times for the affections ; sometimes for the conscience; sometimes for the luliole soul. Generally it denotes the whole soul of man, and all the faculties of it, not absolutely, but as they are all one principle of moral operations, as they all concur in our doing good or evil. The mind, as it enquireth, discerneth, and judgeth what is to be done, what refused : the will, as it chooseth or refuseth, and avoids : the affections, as they like or dislike, cleave to, or have an aversion from that which is proposed to them : the conscience, as it warns and determines. All these together are called the hcart.^' — Oiven on the Nature and Power of Indwelling Sin. Chap. iii. 576 OP A STJTPOSED HOLY PRIlfCIPLE It has indeed become common -with us to confine the metaphorical use of the word heart to the affections and dispositions ; but in Scripture the heart is said to know, to understand, to study, to discern, to devise, to meditate, to ponder, to consider, to reason, to indite, to doubt, to believe, to be wise, &c. In short, every exercise which we consider as belonging to the intellectual faculty, is in Scripture ascribed to the heart. See Deut. iv. 39, Psalm xlv. 1, and xlix. 3, Prov, x. 8, chap. xv. 28, chap. xvi. 9, chap. xix. 21, Bccl, viii. 5, Jer. xxiv. 7, Matt. xiii. 15, Mark ii. 6, 8, chap. xi. 23, Luke ii. 19, 35. The Scripture passages which Mr Fuller refers to, prove this, and are decidedly against him. The Lord's opening the heart of Lydia, was his opening her mind, in the first instance, to perceive in some measure the sense and excellency of what was spoken, so as to make her attend to it with judgment and relish. It is equivalent to what the Lord did to his disciples : — " Then opened he their UNDERSTAKDixa (vouc mind), that they might understand the Scriptures," Luke xxiv. 45. And if we can believe the disciples themselves, it was by his opening the Scrip- tures to their understanding (which is the same thing), that their affections were moved : — " Did not our hearts BUEN WITHIN us while he talked with us by the way, and while he opeiced to us the scriptubes," verse 32. To open the understanding or mind, is a clear and common expression, but to op>en the will or affections, seems not intelligible, and is never used. Again, when the apostle Bays, " God hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of Grod in the face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. iv. 6, he certainly does not mean that God had first shined in their will and affections, for these are not the perceptive powers of the heart, which are adapted to receive light in the first instance, but the understanding or judgment. Accordingh', this shining of the divine glory in the hearts of these eminent ministers of Christ, PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 377 is represented as giving them the light (rrig yvuffiug) of THE KNOWLEDaE of it ; and he also shows that it was in, beholding this glory of the Lord, that they were changed into the same image, chap. iii. 18. The spiritual light communicated by the Spirit to their understanding, worked effectually upon their will and affections, and changed their souls into the divine image. With respect to the anointing mentioned 1 John ii. 20, 27, I cannot conceive how it favours Mr Fuller's hypothesis. It is represented as a preservative from the false doctrine of seducers, and cannot be those blind and euthiisiastical impressions and emotions which some honour with the name of a divine unction ; for, as it taught and made them know all things, it must have been by enlightening their judgment, and seems to have been a portion or degree of that which Christ promised to his disciples, and by which they were to be guided into all truth, John xiv. 26, and xvi. 13, 14. To shew that the will acts prior to the understanding, and independently of it, he says, " Whatever may be said of particular volitions being caused by ideas received into the mind, original biasses are not so ;" and in a note below affirms, that " President Edwards speaks with great caution on the will being determined by the under- standing." * Yet the citation shows that President Edwards uses no other caution on this point than to explain what he means by the understanding, viz., not only reason or judgment, but also perception or appre- hension, f And this explanation was necessary, because the will is not always determined by what right reason or judgment would dictate, but is often governed by erroneous perceptions and apprehensions. But be the acts of the understanding right or wrong, still they are its acts, and must ever precede and influence the acts of the will, unless we can suppose that the will acts without any previous * Page 207. t Enquiry on the Will, Part 1, Sect. 2. 2l 378 OF A SUPPOSED UOLT PUINCIPLE inducement, motive, cause, or ground of its choice, wWch President Edwards absolutely denies. * But it is said that original biasses are not caused by ideas received into the mind. It may be so for any thing I know. Adam was possessed of an original holy bias, yet this, in order of nature, might arise from the discovery he had of G-od. Had his will been wholly governed by this bias, without any direction or influence from ideas in his mind, I know not wherein it would have differed from a blind instinct or propensity, being devoid of any rational motive, end, or aim, as to him. Again, if this holy bias had no dependance on any light in his judgment, how came he to lose it, and receive a contrary bias, through the influence of those false ideas which Satan instilled into his mind, and which is the origin of that evil bias which is to be found in all his posterity ? But whether original biasses are caused by ideas received into the mind or not, it has no concern with the question under consideration, unless it could be shown that regeneration is an original bias, and that it exists before any spiritual light is communicated to the mind. Mr Fuller asserts that "every thing which proves spiritual perception and faith to be holy exercises, proves that a change of heart must of necessity precede them, as no holy exercise can have place while the heart is under * In the same Section lie says, " By motive, I mean the whole of that which moves, excites, or iiiyites the mind to volition, whether that be one thing singly, or many things conjunctly. Whatever is a motive in this sense, must ! ^e something that is extant in the viciu or appxhension of the muler standing or perceiving faculty. Nothing can induce or invite the mind to will or act any thing any farther than it is perceived, or in some way or other in the mind's view ; for what is wholly unperceived, and perfectly out of the mind's view, cannot affect the mind at all. It is most evident, that nothing is in the mind, or reaches it, or takes any hold of it, any otherwise than as it is perceived or thought of."—~ Enquiry on the Will, Part I., Sect. 2. See also Part II., Sect. 8-10. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 379 tlie dominion of carnality." * That spiritual perception and belief are /loZy, is freely admitted ; and I have no objection to their being termed exercises, if nothing more is meant than simply perceiving and believing. But how does this " prove that a change of heart must necessarily precede them ?" Why, Mr Fuller informs us, that " no holi/ exercise," conseq^uently no spiritual perception or belief, " can have place while the heart is under the dominion of carnality." True ; contraries cannot have dominion in the same heart, and at the same instant ; but for the same reason, no change of heart can actually have place ivhile it is under the dominion of carnality. Here both sides of the question stand upon equal ground. But as it will be allowed that God can change the heart, the question is, Whether does this change begin with a removal of the darkness and unbelief of the mind, or whether is the heart actually changed previous to this, and while it is yet in a state of spiritual darkness and unbelief? The former is my sentiment, the latter Mr Fuller's. " It is thus (he says) I apprehend that God reveals the truth to us by his Spirit, in order to our discerning and believing it." f That is, he reveals the truth to us, by changing our hearts before we perceive and believe it. In this method he thinks it was revealed unto Peter, Matt. xvi. 17 — unto babes. Matt. xi. 25 — unto the apostles, 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10, 12-14. 'I But all these passages are greatly misapplied, when brought to prove, either that the heart is actually changed while yet in a state of ignorance and unbelief, or that God cannot remove this ignorance and unbelief from the natural man, in the first instance, and so make him spiritually to discern spiritual things. The Scriptures expressly declare that the word of truth, or the incorruptible seed of the word, is the means or in- strument of regeneration. " Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth," James i. 18. " Being born again, * Page 207. t Page 208. J Page 209. 380 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE not of corruptiblo seed, but of incorruptible, by tbe word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever," 1 Peter i. 23. One would think that these plain texts should fully deter- mine the point in dispute ; for if it is with the word of truth that God of his own will begets or regenerates men ; if the word of God is the very seed of regeneration ; and if to be born of God, born of the Spirit (John i. 13, chap, iii. 5), and to be born of the incorruptible seed of the word, are expressions of the same import, then this birth must be effected by the Spirit's causing men to understand and believe the word in the first instance ; for it is certain that the word can have no saving influence upon the heart previous to this. Mr Fuller admits, that " we are as properly said to be born again by the word of God, as we are said to be born into the world by means of our parents."* If so, then we can have no existence as new creatures, previous to the instrumentality of the word, any more than we can have an existence as human creatures previous to the instrumentality of our parents. Yet he does not abide by this, but by means of an ima- ginary distinction endeavours to elude the force of the above texts, and introduce regeneration previous to, and altogether abstract from any influence of the word of God. He afiirms " That the term regeneration in the sacred writings is not always used in that strict sense in which we use it in theological discussion. Like every other term, it is sometimes used in a more strict, and sometimes in a more general sense." f Granting this were the case (as it really is not), how docs it detei'mine in which of these senses it is to be taken when ascribed to the word of God ? " Regeneration (he says) is sometimes expressive of that operation in which the soul is passive ; and in this sense stands distinguished from conversion, or actual turning to God by Jesus Christ." J This must be his strict sense of * Page 210. t Ibid. J Ibid. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 381 that term. But where does he ever find the term regene- ration used in this sense ? Perhaps in theological, or rather metaphysical discussion ; but I am confident it bears no such meaning in all the sacred writings.* Regenera- tion, strictly speaking, is not the operation or agency of the Holy Spirit, but the effect of it. It is not his worhing, but his workmanshij). It is a spiritual change produced on man, as to the sentiments and dispositions of his soul, whereby he is made, in some measure, to perceive divine things as they are, and to be affected towards them as he ought ; and therefore cannot, in the nature of things, actually take place while the soul is purely passive, or only physically acted upon, like insensible or unconscious matter. True indeed, the operation or agency of the Spirit must, in order of nature, precede regeneration, as a cause precedes its immediate effect ; but so must also the influ- ence of the word of Glod, to which it is likewise ascribed, because the Spirit operates upon the mind, in and by the word, which is the instrumental cause of regeneration ; so that in this matter the influence of the Spirit of truth, and of the word of truth, coalesce in one, and must not be sepa- rated. To regenerate men is to beget them to the faith ; and this faith, which is the gift of Grod, " cometh by hear- ing, and hearing by the word of Grod," Rom. x. 17, which is the incorruptible seed whereby they are born again, 1 * The term (^TaXiyyiviffia) regeneration occurs only twice in all the New Testament. We find it in Matt. xix. 28, where it signifies the resurrection; " Ye who have followed me," viz., in this world, " in the regeneration," i. e., at the resurrection, "when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones," &c. The only other place where the word occurs is Tit. iii. 5, where it signifies that spiritual puri- fication of which baptism is a figure. But as Mr Fuller under- stands it here in what he calls a large or general sense, and as in- cluding faith (page 211), he has not left himself a single instance in Scripture, where it can be understood in his strict sense, as above stated ; and indeed it is nowhere to be found in such a sense, but in metaphysical theology. 2 L 2 382 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PEIIfCIPLE Peter i. 23. Whatever influence of the Spirit, or exercise of the mind, may be supposed previous to this, it is no- where in Scripture called regeneration, nor hy any equiva.- lent term. In other words, the Scriptures nowhere de- clare that any unbeliever, while such, is actually regene- rated; and therefore Mr Fuller's strict sense oi the term regeneration has no foundation in the word of God, nor, indeed, in the nature of things. But he produces two texts for this strict sense of it, and observes, that " when the term (regeneration) is introduced as a cause of faith, or as that of which believing in Jesus is a proof (as it is in John i. 12, 13, and 1 John v, 4), we may be certain it stands distinguished from it."* Yet these texts hold forth no such distinction, far less the whole sentiment, viz., that regeneration is without the word, and previous to the perception or belief of it. In John i. 12, 13, we are told that those of the Jewish nation who be- lieved on the name of Jesus, " were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;" i, e., of the will of God, as opposed to the will of man, and is the same with what James declares, " Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth," James i. 18. The word of truth was first published to them, and God, by the sovereign influence of his Spirit concurring with that word, begat them to the faith of it, and so gave them power to become his sons, — " For we are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus," Gal. iii. 26. This is also the sense of John v. I, — " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God ;" not previous to this belief, but in producing it, as our Lord said to Peter when he confessed this faith, — " Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- jona; for flesh and blood hath not kevealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven," Alatt. xvi. 17. The first thing, therefore, in regeneration is the introduction of light into the judgment, whereby the soul is made to * Page 210. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 383 perceive and believe the truth and excellency of divine things, and consequently to be suitably affected towards them. The Scriptures frequently speak of the mental powers under the metaphors of bodily members, organs and senses, 6uch as eyes, ears, heart, bowels, reins, &c., even as it ascribes bodily parts to Clod himself. Hence many, in- stead of explaining these metaphors in a suitableness to the spirit of man, affix such gross notions to them, as are applicable only to the material part of him ; and as when the bodily organ (the eye for instance) is wanting or dis- tempered, it must first «be supplied or rectified by some physical operation before it can perform its office, so they imagine that some similar operation must be performed on the soul previous to the introduction of spii'itual light into the understanding. Thus Mr Fuller speaks of GodiS first removing the obstructing Jilm from the mental eye by im- parting a spiritual relish for divine things.* But we know that a bodily taste or relish will not remove a film from the natural eye, and it is not easy to conceive how a spiritual relish for lue know not ivliat (were it possible that such a relish could exist) will remove the film from the mental eye. He represents this spiritual relish where- by the heart is changed and turned towards God previous to the knowledge of him, as some new sense or faculty created in the soul, in which the intellect has little or no concern. He compares it to a delicate sense of propriety, in which the mind judges, as it were, instinctively from a feeling of what is proper, and says, " It is by this unction from the Holy One, that we perceive the glory of the divine character, the evil of sin, and the lovely fitness of the Saviour ; neither of which can be properly known by mere intellect, any more than the sweetness of honey, or the bitterness of wormwood, can be ascertained by the Bight of the eye." f But if this spiritual relish precedes * Page 206. t Page 212. 384: OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRITfCIPLE the exercise of intellect, or the mind's perception of an object (which is the case supposed), then it is certain it can have no object, consequently cannot be a spiritual relish. We may, indeed, feci and relish objects of sense without seeing them with our eyes, such as the hardness of a stone by the touch, and the sweetness of honey by the taste ; but spiritual objects cannot be felt or relished by the soul, while the judgment has no spiritual perception or knowledge of them. Therefore, to affirm that an unction from the Holy One makes us " perceive the glory of the divine character, the evil of sin, and the lovely fitness of the Saviour," without enlightening the judgment, in the first instance, appears to me altogether unintelligible, and contrary to the plain declarations of the Scriptures, viz., that Clod of his own will begets men to the faith, with the word of truth, and that they are born again of the incorruptible seed of the word. So much for Mr Fuller's strict sense of regeneration. With regard to his large sense of the term, viz., as including faith, he says, " E.egeneratiou, taken in this large sense of the term, is undoubtedly hi/ the word of God. It is by means of this that a sinner is first con- vinced of sin, and by this, as exhibiting mercy through Jesus Christ, is kept from despair. It is by this only that he can become acquainted with the character of the Being he has offended, the nature and demerit of sin, and the way in which he must be saved from it. These important truths, viewed with the eye of an enlightened conscience, frequently produce great effects upon the soul, even pre- vious to its yielding itself up to Christ. And the impartation of spiritual life, or a susceptibility of heart to receive the truth, may generally, if not always accom- fany the representation of truth to the mind. It was while Paul was speaking, that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia. It is also allowed, that when the word is received into the soul, and finds place there, it worketh PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 385 effectually, and becomes a principle of holy action, a well of water, springing up to everlasting life." * If by an enlightened conscience, and a susceptibility of heart, to receive the truth, he does not mean any thing previous to a representation of truth to the mind, I can most heartily subscribe to this view of regeneration, as being agreeable to the word of God. But, then, I can by no means reconcile it with his strict sense of regeneration, unless I could suppose that a person is regenerated before his first conviction of sin, and previous to his being acquainted with the character of the Being he has offended, the nature and demerit of sin, and the way in which he must be saved from it ; all which, he admits, come by means of the word. He gives the sum of what he pleads for in these words : *' All I contend for is, That it is not by means of a spiri- tual perception or belief of the gospel that the heart is, for the first time, efcctually influenced towards God : for spiritual perception and belief are represented as the effects and not the causes of such influence." f If he means that the influence of the Spirit of God is the cause of spiritual perception and belief, we are agreed ; but if he means, as I suppose he does, that the heart is effectually influenced towards God previous to any true knowledge of him, or to any spiritual perception and belief of the truth, or to any influencing motive whatever being pre- sented to the view of the mind, such a sentiment appears to me not only unscriptural, but altogether irrational and absurd. He says, " A spiritual perception of the glory of divine things is not the first operation of God upon the mind," ^ To avoid ambiguity, it must be noticed, that the word operation is sometimes used to express the effect, at other times the cause. If ho means that spiritual perception is not the first effect produced on the mind, then the efi"ect * Page 211. t Page 211, 212. J Page 212. 386 OP A SUPPOSED HOLT PRINCIPLE prior to this must be entirely of a mechanical or physical nature ; for it cannot be a moral effect, where no ideas are communicated, nor any object brought to the view of the mind. But if by operation he intends that divine energy or influence which is the cause of regeneration, it is freely granted that this must, in order of nature (though not of time) precede that spiritual perception which is the immediate effect of it ; but so must also the word of God, which is the means of that effect. As to the operation of the Spirit, whereby the truth is introduced into the mind, so as to produce its proper effects, we can no more explain the manner of it than we can explain that creating ope- ration whereby God commanded the light to shine out of darkness, or that by which he quickens the dead, to both of which it is compared, 2 Cor. iv. 6, Eph. ii. 1. But we may safely aiSrm that there is not any holi/ susceptibility or relish for the truth subsisting in the human heart previous to the influence of the word. Indeed there ap- pears to be no occasion for this ; for the word of God, through the effectual operation of the Spirit, is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, Heb. iv. 12. It finds its way into the most unsusceptible and untoward mind, and breaks the stoutest and most obdurate heart, — " Is not my word like as a fire, saith the Lord ; and like a hammer that breakoth a rock in pieces ?" Jer. xxiii. 29. It storms the heart in its strongest holds, whereby it seeks to fortify itself against the truth, — " For the weapons of our warfare (says the apostle) are not carnal, but wightt THROUGH God, to the pulling down of strongholds : Cast- ing down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ," 2 Cor. X. 4, 5. Such passages do not admit the supposition that the heart is possessed of any principle of grace previous to the influence of the word by the Spirit. If a holy disposition of heart be previous to faith, it I'REVIOtrS TO FAITET. 387 mtisfc "be without it, and so cannot he pleasing to God ; for without faith it is impossible to please him, Heb. xi. 6, It must be prior to actual union with Christ, and while the mind is without divine illumination, conviction, or any spiritual motive, consequently is no part of that regenera- tion which is by the incorruptible seed of the word, 1 Peter i. 23, nor of that sanctification through the truth which Christ prays for, John xvii. 17. This previous holy prin- ciple he describes as an " eiFectual change of the bias of the heart towards God," as if the bias of a person's wiU and affections could be turned towards an object in whom he does not believe, and of whose true character, as re- vealed in the gospel, he is supposed as yet to have no just conception. This also makes the doctrine of reconciliation needless in order to reconcile the heart to God." Further, if men are regenerated and possessed of holy dispositions before they believe, then they must be godly unbelievers, a character unknown in the word of God ; and should they die in that state, they must be saved without faith, for no regenerated holy person shall perish. Mr Fuller is aware of this plain consequence, and endeavours to elude it. His words are : " If there be a priority (i. e., if regeneration be before faith), in order of time, owing to the want of opportunity of knowing the truth, yet, where a person embraces Christ, so far as he has the means of knowing him, he is in effect a believer." * This answer appears to me exceedingly con- fused and incoherent. The point he strenuously contends for is, That regenera<;^on is before faith ; but here he speaks of it hypothetically, as if he were not sure of it, " If there be a priority in order of time;" and he makes this supposed priority to be only in case of the " want of opportunity of knowing the truth," which imports that none having that opportunity, are regenerated before they believe. ^ gain, such as "want an opportunity of * Page 214. 388 OF A SUPPOSED HOLT PEINCIPLB knowing the truth," are yet supposed to embrace Christ so far as they have the means of knowing him ;" as if they could hoth want an opportunity, and yet have the means of knowing him ; or as if they might know and embrace Christ, without knowing the truth which reveals him. Such, he says, " are in efect believers," an expres- sion which in this connection I do not understand. *' The Bereans (he observes) searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so ; therefore it is said, many of them believed. And, had they died while in this noble pursuit, they would not havebeeen treated as unbelievers." * Yet it is not said that all of them who searched the Scriptures believed, but many of them ; and there is not the least foundation to suppose that any of them who searched the Scriptures would have been saved without believing ; and to afl&rm that men will be saved short of believing, appears to me contrary to the uniform declara- tions of Scripture, and a very unsafe doctrine, however necessary it may be to support Mr Fuller's hypothesis. It is alleged that the honest and good heart, mentioned in the parable of the sower, Luke viii. 15, f represents persons as regenerated previous to their hearing the word. But such an interpretation is a striking instance, among many, of the abuse of Scripture metaphors, whereby doctrines are grounded on similitudes and parables alto- gether foreign to their design. Because it is a well known truth in husbandry, that if the soil is not good, either by nature or culture, before the seed is sown into it, it will not be productive ; therefore it is imagined, that it must also be a truth in theology, that the heart of man must be honest and good previous to his hearing the word, otherwise it can have no proper effect upon him. But this is far from being the design of that parable, which is to set forth the different reception and effects of the word among those who actually hear it. Some consider this * Page 214. t Page 174. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 389 parable as respecting the first publication of the gospel to Jews and proselytes, by our Lord and his apostles, when it found many previously possessed of honest and good hearts, who looked for redemption, and waited for the consolation of Israel, such as Nathanael, Joseph of Arima- thea, Cornelius, and many others ; but this honest and good heart was not begotten in them without the word, but by means of the Old Testament revelation, which they believed, and by the ministry of John the Baptist, whose office it was " to make ready a people prepared for the Lord," Luke i. 16, 17. But though this aifords a good answer, there is no oc- casion to confine the parable to the first publication of the gospel ; for we may easily trace the order of things by comparing the three Evangelists, and harmonizing them into one compound text. The first thing in order is the sowing of the seed, or publishing the word of the king- dom : A sower went forth to sow ; for how should men hear without a preacher ? Those to whom the word was published heard it. This was common to all the classes : they were all hearers. But then the good effects of hear- ing the word was confined to one class of them ; and these effects are threefold, and in the following order : — 1. Having heard the word, they understood it, Matt. xiii. 23, and received it, Mark iv. 20. The word of Grod, accom- panied by the influence of the Holy Spirit, enlightened their minds, removed their prejudices, and made them per- ceive the import, evidence, and excellency of what was de- clared, so that they understood and received it as the word of God, 1 Thess. ii. 13, as a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, 1 Tim. i. 15. Thus they are born again of the incorruptible seed of the word, 1 Peter i. 23, and thus Grod of his own sovereign will begets them to the faith with the word of truth, James i. 18, for faith cometh by hearing the word of Grod, Rom. x. 17, and now, and not till now, are they possessed of a principle of grace in th^ir 2 L 390 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINOTPLE hearts. — 2. Having heard, understood, and received the word, they, in an honest and good heart, kej^t it, Luke viii. 15, i. e., they retain and hold it fast, in opposition to their letting it slip, like the other classes of hearers : The seed of God remaineth in them, 1 John iii. 9, even that which they have heard, chap. ii. 24. — They continue in Christ's word, and Bis words abide in them, John viii. 31, chap. XV. 7, which is to continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and not be moved away from the hope of the gospel which they have heard, Col. i. 23. But that honest and good heart in which they keep {r.ariyfp\i6i) or retain the word, did not exist prior to their hearing and understand- ing it, but was evidently produced by that means, as was shown on the first particular. Paul traces the origin of love, a pure heart, and a good conscience (which constitute the honest and good heart) only back to faith unfeigned, which respects the word, 1 Tim. i. 5, for it is by faith that God purifies the heart. Acts xv. 9. — 3. The last thing in order is, they bring forth 'fruit with patience, and in various degrees, Luke viii. 15, Matt. xiii. 23. The word of God which they have heard, understood, and received, effectually worketh in them, 1 Thess. ii. 13, and bringeth forth fruit in them, since the day they heard and knew the grace of God in truth, Col. i. 6. This therefore is the order of things set forth in the explanation of the parable. It is by means of the word that the heart is made honest and good, though the nature of the similitude, which is taken from agriculture, does not permit it to illustrate that particular. Mr Fuller says, " A spiritual perception of the glory of divine things appears to be the first sensation of which the mind is conscious ; but it is not the first operation of God upon it." * If not, then this first operation of God makes no impression upon the rational mind of man. It com- municates no light to the judgment, no spiritual perception • * Page 212. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 391 of divine things, nor any sensation respecting them of which a thinking mind is conscious. In his opinion, the understanding cannot be spiritually enlightened, but in consequence of some holy disposition previously implanted in the heart by this first operation ; and then he admits that spiritual perception will follow as the first sensation of which the mind, already regenerated, is conscious. So that what he says of Mr Brine's previous principle, I think will, with equal justice, apply to his own ; it is " something different from what Grod requires of every intelligent creature ;" * for it is plain that the human intellect has no concern in it, and it is certain that Grod does not require blind dispositions of his intelligent creatures. He afiirms that the introduction of light into the mind in the first instance, is a thing altogether im- possible even with God himself, until, by some other ope- ration he has regenerated the soul, altered its moral state and disposition, given it a spiritual relish for divine things, and produced a change of heart, whereby it is effectually influenced towards him ; and all this previous to, and without any illumination of the mind, or instru- mentality of the word of Grod. f * Page 127. t Mr Fuller's sentiments on this subject seemed to be formed upon the scheme of Messrs Bellamy and Hopkins, two American divines, who tliough they have written many good things, have overstrained others beyond the sober scripture medium, in their opposition to Arminian and Antinoniian speculations. Mr Hop- kins in a sermon on John i. 13, after having asserted, that regeneration consists wholly in a change of the ivill or heart, and not in the intellect or faculty of understanding : and tliat in this operation the Spirit of God is the 07ily agent : he pi'oceeds to shew " That this change is wrought by the Spirit of God immediatehi. That is, it is not effected by any medium or means whatever. I would (says he) particularly observe here, that light and truth, or the word of God is not in any degree a means by which this change is effected. It is not wrought by light— Men are tirst regenerated in order to introduce light into the mind ; therefore they are not regenerated by light, or the truths of God"s word." He 392 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PEINCIPLE Thougli man is a fallen depraved creature, yet he is still possessed of intellectual and moral powers, however much impaired, otherwise he would not be a rational moral agent, susceptible of instruction, the subject of law, or the object of pi'aise or blame. In regeneration the Spirit of God does not create new powers or faculties, but rectifies those already in existence ; gives the lead to the legitimate directing powers, which were blinded and enslaved by corrupt dispositions, affections, and passions, and restores affirms, that natural men may see every thing in matters of religion but the moral beauty and excellence of divine things : That this moral beauty is not discerned by the understanding, nor can it possibly be made the object of it by an operation on the mind, or any supposed illumination whatever, any more than it is possible by any operation on a stone to bring it to the under- standing and discerning of a man, without giving it the faculty of understanding and reason. That therefore men are not regenerated by the word but the heart ; (i. e., the will) must first be renewed by the immediate operation of the Spirit of God, giving it a good taste in order to prepare it to understand and receive the word. See HopJcins's Sermon on John i. 13, with the Appendix. See also Bellamy's True Religion Delineated, and his Essay on the Nature and Glory of the Gospel of Christ. To shew that men are born of God, there is certainly no occa- sion to reason against, or rather flatly to contradict express Scripture, by denying that God begets them with the Avord of truth, or that they are born again of the incorruptible seed of the word, for both are perfectly consistent. And though it is true that the natural man may speculate on the truths of the gospel, without discerning either their true evidence, or their moral beauty and excellence, so as to have a taste or relish for them, yet this will never prove it impossible that a good taste should be formed by a proper view of divine things in a spiritually enlight- ened judgment. To affirm that no enlightening influence of the Spirit of God upon the understanding can have any moi-e eflfect in forming a spiritual taste than if it were exeited upon a stone, is the language of unhallowed reasoning, which serves to exclude the understanding from being the subject of regeneration, as well as the word of God from being the means of it. In my opinion Mr Fuller would have been more profitably employed in consult- ing the scriptures upon this subject, than in adopting the senti- ments and reasonings of these authors. PREVIOUS TO FAJTH. 393 the soul to order and harmony. The leading faculties of the human mind, by which, when it acts regularly, all the rest are directed and governed, are the understanding or judgment, reason and conscience. These constitute his mental capacity to receive instruction, to perceive and distinguish truth from its opposite, to discern the fitness or unfitness of things, and the moral qualities of actions and objects. But notwithstanding these natural powers, such is the blindness and depravity of the human heart, that the natural or animal man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God revealed in the gospel ; for, judging of them by the preconceived principles, wisdom, and reasoning of a carnal mind, they appear foolishness to him ; neither can he know them till he is spiritually enlightened, he- cause they are spiritually discerned. Therefore I conceive that the first operation of the Spirit of God in regenera- tion is the introduction of spiritual light into the under- standing or judgment, which is the same with his opening the understanding to discern the things of the Spirit as revealed in the gospel in their true light ; for there is no medium between the introduction of spiritual light into the mind and the mind's spiritual perception of it. This spiritual perception of divine things is attended with a persuasion of their truth and reality, and an impression of their supreme excellence and importance, which gains them immediate access to the will and affections, exciting desire, relish, choice, and esteem. Thus the soul is regenerated agreeably to the regular order of its faculties ; but to maintain that the will and affections are changed previous to any discernment of spiritual things in the judgment, is to reverse that order, and is the same as to aflirm, that the soul relishes, chooses, and loves, without an object, that is, its relish, choice, and afi"ection, have no relation to any thing, consequently these exercises (could we suppose them to exist), can have nothing of the nature of virtue in them ; for it is an undoubted truth, that no 2m2 394 OF A SUPPOSED HOLT PKINCIPLE motion or exercise of the will and affections can be of a virtuous and holy nature, but as influenced by proper objects or motives. Let it further be observed, that the word of God is addressed to men's understanding, judgment, reason, and conscience, as the only channel through which its truths can have any influence upon their will and affections ; and all its doctrines, precepts, arguments, evidences, and mo- tives proceed upon that principle, as might be shown at lai'ge ; but I must draw to a conclusion of this part of the subject. I had said, that the truth is no sooner perceived and believed, than it takes possession of the will and affections, * upon which Mr Fuller observes, " This, I should think, is allowing that perception is distinct from believing, and necessarily precedes it." f In order of nature, indeed, we must have a perception of something, real or ima- ginary, before we can believe, for belief must respect some object in the mind's view ; but then we cannot perceive that object to be real or true, without believing it, because that very perception is believing it. It belongs, therefore, to Mr Fuller to show, how a spiritual perception of the glory of divine truth is distinct from believing it ; or, in other words, how such a perception of divine truth can exist without including in it a perception of its truth and reality. I am certain he cannot show this without reducing what he terms " a spiritual perception of the * The whole paragraph runs thus, " As to the effects of faith upon the heart, such is the important, interesting, and salutary nature of the saving truth testified in the gospel, with its suitable- ness and freeness for the chief of sinners, that it is no sooner /erceived, ere the will and affections can be changed, it does not follow that it must also be believed for this purpose ; for the very perception itself may change us into the same image ; and in virtue of it we may instantly, with our whole heart, set to our seal that God is true." f This appears to me a very strange statement. There is not a more self-evident axiom than this. That the human will and affections cannot be rationally affected, much less changed by any truth till it is in some measure believed or * Page 204. t Page 204. 396 OP A SUPPOSED HOLY PRlNCIPLl! realized in the mind ; yet Mr Fuller, instead of fairly yielding the point, or admitting that a belief of the truth is necessary to a change of the will and affections, will rather maintain an absolute absurdity, viz., That a mere perception of the truth, without believing it, will produce this change. And by the woi'ds in italic, he seems to ground this on 2 Cor. iii. 18, as if the apostle had said, " We all with open face, beholding as in a glass, the glory of the Lord," without believing it, " are changed into the same image." This requires no answer, and the matter having come to this issue, I may be excused from pursuing the argument on this head any further, and shall only observe, that Mr Fuller can take either side of this question as he finds occasion. In answering those who deny the belief of the gospel to be saving faith, and make it to consist in coming to Christ, receiving him, and relying upon him for acceptance, he says, " All this, in the order of things, follows upon believing the truth concerning him ; no less so, than coming to God follows a believing that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. We may therefore," mark the ex- pression, " be REGENERATED BY A PERCEPTION AND BELIEF OF THE TRUTH, and, as the immediate effect of it, come to Jesus, and rely upon him for salvation." * Here he agrees with my sentiments both as to the nature of faith, and its influence on regeneration, which is perfectly incon- sistent with all the arguments he uses against me on these particulars. What a pity it is that such distinguished talents as Mr Fuller possesses, should be employed in this manner ! I have now considered his chief arguments for a previous principle of grace in the heart, or regeneration before be- lieving, which he thinks necessary to the holy nature of faith ; and have shown, that whether he places this sup- posed principle before or after a perception of the truth, * Page 202, 203. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 397 it is equally without foundation, while he holds it to be previous to a belief of the truth. What I maintain in opposition to this sentiment is shortly this, That in re- generation the Holy Spirit, in the first instance, by his inexplicable energy gives the mind a believing or realizing perception of the truth as revealed in the word, and there- by operates on the will and affections, not only in the be- ginning of the change, but in all the subsequent progress of sanctification ; for men are not only born again of the incorruptible seed of the word, but are also sanctified through the truth, which is the word of God, John xvii. 17. We shall now take notice of his concluding reflections on the consequences of the principles he opposes, with respect to addressing the unconverted. He observes, — " First, If the necessity of repentance in order to for- giveness be given up, we shall not be in the practice of urging it on the unconverted." * I cannot conceive what ground Mr Fuller has to suppose that those whom he op- poses have given up the necessity of repentance in order to forgiveness. However negligent I may be in urging sinners to repentance, it has always been my firm belief that not only the unconverted, but even the converted themselves, need often to be called to repentance, and that in order to forgiveness. He has seen as much of my writings as fully refutes this misrepresentation, and there- fore it cannot pass for a mere mistake. I am afraid there will be occasion for some more remarks of this kind before we have done. He assigns the reasons why we must thus give up re- pentance in order to forgiveness, " We shall imagine it will be leading souls astray to press it before, and in order to believing ; and afterwards it will be thought unneces- sary, as all that is wanted will come of itself." f So that, according to him, we cannot consistently with our princi- * Page 214. t Page 214,215. 398 OF A SUPPOSEB HOLT PRINCIPLE pies press repentance either on the converted or uncon-« verted. Yet I find it perfectly consistent with my princi- ples to press repentance on all to whom the gospel is preached ; for though I know that none will truly repent but those who believe, yet the gospel doctrine of salvation, with men's need of it, being first declared, a reasonable foundation is laid for calling all who hear it to repentance, and to urge this by every argument and motive which the word of God afi"ords. But I own that, upon Mr Fuller's plan, I should be very much embarrassed in pi'essing true repentance on the un- converted. He had said before that " It does not come up to the Scripture representation to say, repentance is a fruit of faith ;" * and here he says repentance must be pressed upon the unconverted before, and in order to be- lieving. Now my difficulty lies here ; According to this order of things I am debarred, in urging repentance, from using any arguments or motives drawn from the gospel ; for it is certain that such motives cannot possibly have any influence without faith, or till they are first believed, and, according to him, they cannot be believed till men first truly repent ; for they must repent before, and in order to believing. So that this scheme renders the principles and motives of the gospel altogether useless as to their influence on repentance, and therefore can with no propriety be used for that purpose. From all this it plainly follows, that the gospel itself should not be preached to men till they repent. But is it not necessary that some principles should be believed previous to repentance, and as the means of pro- ducing it ? Yes, he admits, " that a conviction of the being and attributes of Grod must, in the order of nature, precede repentance ; because we cannot repent for off'ending a being of whose existence we doubt, or of whose character we have no just coucejjtion ; but th.e faith of the gospel is * Page 173. PEEVlOtrS TO FAITH. 399 represented in the New Testament as implijing repentance.^''* There is no dispute about whether the faith or belief of the gospel implies repentance, as its inseparable concomi- tant or immediate effect ; nay, I can admit that when faith first takes place in the mind it imports repentance, or a change of mind, as the word (uravoia signifies. It is a change from darkness to light ; from blindness, pre- judice, and unbelief, to a spiritual perception and convic- viction of the truth ; and it is by convincing men of the truth concerning Jesus that the Spirit convinceth them of sin, because they believe not in him. See John xvi. 9, compared with Acts ii. 36, 37. But the point he wishes to establish is this, that true repentance is previous to the belief of the gospel, and is produced by a conviction of the being of Gfod, and ?ijust conception of his character, which last he supposes may be obtained without the gospel. I freely admit that men have some natural notices of Grod and of his law in their conscience, sufficient to con- stitute them accountable creatures, to render their guilt inexcusable, and to make them susceptible of conviction ; and if they have access to the revealed law of Gfod, their knowledge of his character, of their duty, of their guilt, and consequently of their danger, must be greatly enlarged. This may awaken in some strong convictions of sin, and a fear of divine punishment, which, if it does not drive them into utter despair, may produce some outward refor- mation of life, and even some struggles against heart sins, in hopes of obtaining the favour of God by these things. Yet all this may be without any true love to Gfod and holiness, or any real hatred of sin itself, but only of its punishment. This is by some called legal repentance, be- cause produced only by the law ; and if this is that re- pentance which Mr Fuller pleads for, I have no objec- tion to his placing it before the belief of the gospel. All I contend for is, that it is not ij-we repentance, or what * Page 173. 400 01" A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE the Scripture calls repentance unto life, which, together with a humbling conviction of sin and its desert, neces- sarily implies an apprehension and belief of the mercy of God, through Christ, as revealed in the gospel. I may justly question, if ministers of the gospel are warranted to urge repentance on their hearers, as a prere- quisite to faith. There is no example of any such thing in the New Testament. All the calls to repentance stand connected with preaching the gospel, which contains the most powerful persuasives to it ; and there is no instance of any complying with these calls, but such as believed it. While, therefore, ministers call on sinners to repent, if they wish that this may have eflfect, they must also at the same time, after the example of the first preachers, call on them to believe the gospel, without which their minds are not principled for true repentance, whatever conviction of guilt and teiTor may be produced. Though repentance ought to be urged upon all who hear the gospel, and though none believe it, who do not repent, yet I strongly suspect that it would be leading souls astray, to press repentance upon them before, and in order to their believing the gospel. Should a preacher keep strictly to this order of things, and speak out plainly, the tenor and spirit of his address must be something to the following efi'ect : — " As for you, the unconverted part of my hearers, I have no authority to preach the gospel to you in your present state. To you the word of this salvation is not as yet sent. You are not prepared or qualified for it ; for you are nothing but mere sinners, and no sort of encouragement or hope is held out in all the book of Grod to any sinner as such considered. It is only to the penitent that the gospel is to be preached ; for to such only does it hold out its golden sceptre. * You have therefore nothing to do with the gospel in the first instance ; nor is it your immediate duty to believe it, nor even to * Gospel \rorthy of all acceptation. First edit. Pref. p. 8. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 401 take encouragement from it to repent, which supposes your believing it. Let me, therefore, in the first place, call your attention to a previous duty ; a duty which you must perform before, and in order to believing ; and that is, that you sincerely and heartily repent of all your sins ; and when you have performed this aright, from a principle of disinterested love to God, and a thorough hatred of sin, as such, you may then venture to believe the gospel testimony concerning Christ, and the way of salvation through him, and rely upon him accordingly." This ap- pears to me to destroy the freedom of the gospel ; for it brings the word of faith nigh to those only who view themselves as converted, and sets it at a distance not only from the stout-hearted, but also from the self-condemned, who can find nothing good in themselves, as a ground of encouragement ; and so it lays an insuperable bar in the way of faith, consequently prevents genuine repentance. A conviction of guilt and danger by the law, though it ought to be urged, will not by itself produce true repentance. It is by exhibiting the free grace and pardoning mercy of God, and the promise of the everlasting covenant, the sure mercies of David, that the wicked and unrighteous are called and encouraged to forsake their evil ways and thoughts, and to turn unto the Lord, Isa. Iv. 1-8. It was by the gospel which John the Baptist preached that any of his hearers were brought to real repentance. See Luke i. 76, 77, John i. 7, 15-18, 29, 34, chap. iii. 35, 36, Acts xix. 4. It was by the gospel which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost that three thousand souls were both con- victed and converted. Acts ii. It was by the ministry of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them that Paul and his fellow-labourers besought and prayed men, in Christ's stead, to be reconciled unto God, 2 Cor. V. 18-20. The truth is, these first messengers of Christ did not distrust the e£&cacy of the gospel but cou- 2n 402 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE sidered it as mighty througli God to pull down strong- holds, and as powerful hoth to wound and to heal. They viewed it as furnished both with tlie terrors of the Lord, to persuade men, ver. 11, and with the allurements of his love and grace to gain upon their hearts and reconcile them unto God. But Mr Fuller proceeds to another con- sequence. " Secondly, For the same reason that we give up the necessity of repentance, in order to forgiveness, we may give up all exhortations to things spiritually good, as means of salvation." * Though I do not agree with Mr Fuller, that repentance before helieving, and in order to it, is con- nected with forgiveness, for I know of no promise of for- giveness to an unbelieving penzVewi ; yet I have already shown that I hold the necessity of true repentance, in order to forgiveness, and have also hinted that Mr Fuller must know this. Let us now attend to his other consequence ; he says, — *' For the same reason we may give up all ex- hortations to things spiritually good, as means of salva- tion." This indeed is not a direct assertion that we do so : but mark what follows : — " Indeed Mr M'Lean seems prepared for this consequence. If I understand him, he does not approve of unconverted sinners being exhorted to anything spiritually good, any otherwise than as holding up to them the language of the law, for convincing them of sin. It is thus he answers the question, — Are unbelievers to be exhorted to obedience to God's commandments ? referring us to the answer of our Lord to the young ruler, which directed him to keep the commandments if he would enter into life." f Here he afSrms that I disapprove of unconverted sinners being exhorted to anything spiritually good ; and, to prove this charge, he refers his readers, at the bottom of the page, to a pamphlet entituled Simple Truth Vindicated, page 21, second edition, written about thirty-six years ago, by Mr John Barnard of London. * Page 215. f Page 215. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 403 But did any one inform Mr Fuller that I was the author of that pamphlet ? or can he show from any part of my writings that I hold the sentiment which he here, without the least evidence, imputes to me ? No, on the contrary ; he was possessed of full evidence that I hold no such senti- ment. To my certain knowledge he has seen and read my Essay on the Calls and Invitations of the Gospel, pub- lished first in the Missionary Magazine, Nos. II. III. IV. v., and afterwards more fully in a separate pamphlet. He knew this to be my performance, in which I combat the very sentiment he here attributes to me, and maintain that the word of Grod calls upon unconverted sinners to repent, believe, be converted, to forsake their evil ways and thoughts, and to return unto the Lord, and call upon him ; and have endeavoured to answer at some length the chief objections brought against this. I have also briefly touched on this subject in my Treatise on the Commission, p. 86-89, and in The Belief of the Gospel Saving Faith, p. 35-41, 56, first edit., which he has also seen. I am therefore utterly at a loss how to account for this mistake, and especially for his declining afterwards to rectify it publicly, though desired by his friend. But he proceeds upon this false ground, and says, — " It is easy to perceive that l^Ir M.'s scheme requires this construction of the exhortations of the Bible ; for if he allows that sinners are called to the exercise of anything spii'itually good, in order to their partaking of spiritual blessings, he must give up his favourite notion of God's justifying men while in a state of enmity against him." * I have nothing to do with the former part of this quota- tion, but only with what he calls mj favourite oiotion, viz., " That God justifies -men while in a state of enmity against him." But this is so far from being my favourite notion, that it never once entered into my heart. I indeed afiirm, upon the authority of the inspired apostle, that justifica- •■^ Page 215, 216. 404 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PEIXCIPLE tion is *' to him that worketh not, hut believeth on him that jusTiPiETH THE uxGODLY," Rom. iv. 5. Yet I never sup- posed that any from the moment of their thus believing, are in a state of enmity against God, or that God justifies them while in that state. So that this is altogether a misrepresentation ; but more of this afterwards. " Mr M'Lean (he says) tells us in the same page," (^. e., page 21 of Barnard's Simple Truth), " that there is no promise of life to the doing of any good thing except all the commandments be kept." * Though I have no con- cern in this, yet I must observe, that if Mr Barnard, by doing, means working, in order to obtain justification by the works of the law, he is certainly right in saying that no doing will answer this purpose except all the command- ments be kept; for " the law is not of faith," but its con- dition of life, as contrasted with that of the gospel is, " That the man who doeth those things shall live by them;" while it " curseth every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." Rom. X. 5, G-al. iii. 10, 12. But I must observe that Mr Fuller gives the very same view of our Lord's answer to the young ruler that Mr Barnard does ; his words are, " That to which the young ruler was directed was the producing of a righteousness adequate to the demands of the law, which was naturally impossible ; and our Lord's design was to show its impossibility, and thereby to convince him of the need of gospel mercy." f What our Lord directs the young ruler to do was, to keep the commandments, to sell what he had, and give to the poor, and to take up his cross and follow him. Now, if his doing these things was naturally impossible (as Mr Fuller affirms), then, accord- ing to his own reasoning, J the young ruler was under no obligation to do them, it was not his duty, and he was perfectly innocent in neglecting them. Having mentioned some Scripture calls to faith and re- * Page 216. t Page 158. J Page 115-124. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 405 pentance, he observes, — " That if Mr M'Lean was called to visit a dying sinner, he would be careful not to use any such language as this; or, if he did, it must be ironically, teaching him what he must do on his own self-justifying principles to gain eternal life. If he be serious, he has only to state to him what Christ has done upon the cross, and assure him that if he believes it he is happy." * I should reckon it a piece of wanton cruelty to speak ironi- cally to a dying sinner on the concerns of his soul : but I would tell him seriously that he could not be justified by the works of the law, because that required perfect sinless obedience ; and having shown him his guilty and lost condition, I would at the same time set before him the gospel remedy as the sole, the free, and immediate ground of hope for perishing sinners ; nor would I hesitate, from any notion of his being unqualified or unprepared for Christ, or destitute of a previous holy principle, " to state to him what he has done upon the cross, and assure him that if he believes it he is happy." Mr Fuller seems sensible that he has here gone rather too far, and therefore instantly checks himself. " Far be it from me," he says, " that I should disapprove of an exhi- bition of the Saviour as the only foundation of hope to a dying sinner, or plead for such directions ^s fall short of believing in him. In both these particulars I am persuaded Mr M'Lean is in the right ; and that all those counsels to sinners which are adapted only to turn their attention to the workings of their own hearts, to their prayers, or their tears, and not to the blood of the cross, are delusive and dangerous." f But if these are Mr Fuller's real and fixed sentiments, for what end did he write his Appendix ? Is not the most of it adapted to turn the attention of sinners to the workings of their own hearts instead of the blood of the cross ? Hereby they are taught, that they must be regenerated, and have their hearts turned effectu- * Page 217. t Page 217. 2 I.- 2 406 OF A SUPPOSED HOLT PPvINCIPLE ally towards Grod without the word, and before they are illuminated, or have a perception of the truth, and, at any rate, previous to their believing it. That they must truly repent before they believe in Christ, and in order to it. That justifying faith itself is a persuasion influenced by a previous moral state of the heart, and partaking of it ; a holy exercise of the soul, depending upon choice, imply- ing repentance, and including love and other holy affec- tions ; but God does not justify the ungodly, though, however godly they are, he does not impute it to them for righteousness, &c. Now as all these things respect the holy state, dispositions, affections, and exercises of the heart ; and as they are all stated as previous qualifications in the sinner, and placed in a conditional point of view between him and the Saviour ; so all the counsels and directions given to sinners concerning them in that view must have an infallible tendency to turn their attention, in the first instance, to the workings of their own hearts, and not to the work finished by Christ on the cross, con- sequently, as Mr Fuller admits, must be " delusive and dangerous." But then he asks, — " Does it follow that they are to be exhorted to nothing spiritually good, unless it be for their conviction ?" * — As I have given no occasion for such a question, so it lies not on me to answer it. I may, how- ever, observe that when the gospel is declared to sinners, a foundation is laid for exhorting them not only to faith and repentance, but to everything that is spiritually good in its own place and order. Yet I see no ground for ex- horting them to anything short of believing immediately, or which does not suppose it ; far less for directing them to seek after certain previous qualifications to fit them for Christ, or to warrant their believing on him. He imagines that " Mr M'Lean, to be consistent, must not seriously exhort a sinner to come of from those refuges * Page 217. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 407 of lies, to renounce all dependence on his prayers and tears, and to rely upon Christ alone, as necessary to justification, lest he make him a Pharisee."* From what has been already said, the reader will perceive that this requires no answer from me. Such exhortations are included in the exhortation to faith itself. But if he means them as ex- hortations to some holy exercises previous to faith, then he must suppose that a sinner will come off from his false refuges before he knows the true refuge ; and that he will renounce all dependence on his prayers and tears before he perceives any better foundation to depend on. If Christ is held forth as a free and immediate Saviour to the guilty, such exhortations are very proper, and likely to be under- stood ; but a preacher may so dwell upon the active exer- cises of the mind in coming off, renouncing, humbling one^s self, &c., as to counteract the very design of such exhor- tations. How free and gracious is our Lord's invitation, — " Come unto me all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest !" Yet some preachers have dis- covered such a variety of arduous exercises imported in the word come, as to lay very great obstacles in the sinner's way to Christ, and so to increase the burden of those who are heavy laden, instead of directing them immediately to the Saviour for rest to their souls. This is the tendency of all those exhortations and laboured directions how to perform what is called the great tvork of believint/ in order to be justified. And this is the natural eff'ect of the doc- trine which teaches sinners that they must be true peni- tents, and possessed of holy dispositions of heart previous to their believing; and that their belief cannot be genuine, unless it arise from this moral state of the heart, and par- take of it. Calls and exhortations to believe are both proper and necessary when men are told what to believe, and upon what grounds, without which all the preacher's vocifera- * Page 217. 408 OF A SUPPOSED HOLT PRINCIPLE tions are but empty and unmeaning noise : But the gospel is much perverted when faith is represented under the idea of acting or tvorking, and in this view urged upon sinners in order to their justification ; for this is the reverse of calling them to believe in the sufficiency of Christ's work to justify them, and so must necessarily draw their atten- tion off from that to seek after justification by some exer- tions or exercises of their own, of a very different nature from believing the gospel. Having considered Mr Fuller's doctrine respecting a principle of grace in the heart previous to faith, together with his concluding reflections, I proceed now to • QUESTION II. Whether justifying faith includes in its nature anything more than a Belief of the Gospel. In my Treatise on the Commission, p. 74-83, and in a Sermon entituled, " The Belief of the Gospel saving Faith," I think I have sufficiently shewn and proved from Scripture that justifying faith is neither more nor less than a belief of the gospel, or of God's testimony concerning his Son ; and have also taken notice of the principal objec- tions to this view of it. Therefore, instead of transcrib- ing what I have already advanced, I must refer the reader to these publications, where he will find my sentiments on this subject in their own proper order and connection. In the meantime, as Llr Puller has given a very just and scriptural account of faith in the first edition of his book on " The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation " (which I have perused of late with more attention than formerly), I cannot give a better view of my own sentiments on this subject than by transcribing his. " Faith (says he) appears always to carry in it the idea of a crediting some testimony where intuitive evidence cannot he obtained." This he confirms by what is said PKEVIOUS TO TAITH, 409 of the Thessalonians, " Our testimony among you was believed," 2 Thess. i. 10. — " And thinks that no better definition can be given of true faith tlian that which is given by the Holy Grhost himself in 2 Thess. ii. 13 — The BELIEF OF THE TRUTH," p. 10. In answering objections to this definition, he grants that true faith is the belief of scripture propositions, because to believe a proposition is to believe the thing or truth conveyed by it, p. 21. He admits that " believing, simply considered, is a mere natural act, but that believing sicch things as the gospel reveals must be a spiritual act." He also allows that it is a " rational act, excited by rational evidence," and thinks it is " no reproach to true faith to be so repre- sented." That, " if it be supported by evidence at all, it must be a rational act ;" and that " nothing deserves the name of faith but what is so supported," p. 25, 26. Further, he distinguishes true faith from " the actual outgoing of the soul towards Christ for salvation in a way of fleeing to him, receiving him, resting on him," &c. These things, he says, are " distinct from the belief of the truth as an inseparable effect is distinct from its cause." And even trusting in Christ he considers as an " immediate effect of believing what Grod says concerning him" — That " it does not appear, strictly speaking, to be faith, but its immediate effect — an inseparable attendant on it, but seems to be distinct from it," p. 22, 23. [Here, it must be owned, there is a sufficient niceness of distinction.] Lastly, he argues for this simple view of faith from the plainness of the Scriptures, and from the impossibility of understanding them, had the sacred writers used this term in an uncommon sense. " This view of faith (he says) seems to be plain and easy to be understood, and does not embarrass our minds with a number of words without ideas. G-reat and glorious as the matter contained in Scripture is, Protestants commonly maintain that it is set forth in language plain and intelligible — that the inspired 410 OF A SUPPOSED nOLY PRINCIPLE writers made use of terms in common use in the affairs of life adapted even to the understandings of the common people — and that they did not use these terms in any con- trary sense but in the same sense as they were used in the common affairs of life. If they had used them in a sense peculiar to themselves, then had they been unintelligible to their hearers. Then had the Jews been furnished with a sufficient answer to our Lord's reprehensive question, Wht/ do ye not understand my speech ? Yea, then must it have been a miracle for him or his apostles ever to be understood, or their writings, in any future ages. To apply this observation to the point in hand : It is well known that faith, in common speech, signifies the same as credence ; a credit of some report, declaration, or testi- mony where intuitive evidence is not to he obtained. Now, if true faith, as mentioned so frequently in the Scriptures, be to be understood according to this easy, obvious sense of the word, then the inspired writers acted in character ; but if they included a meaning in the terms faith, believe, believer, &c., peculiar to themselves, then whence does it appear that they spake and wrote intelligibly ?" p. 28, 29. I could not possibly express my own view of faith with greater accuracy or simplicity than Mr Fuller has done in the above extract ; and had he kept consistently to his own definition of it, and the arguments by which he sup- ports it, there would have been no difference between us on this subject. But notwithstanding his distinguishing faith from the outgoings of the soul towards Christ, in fleeing to him, receiving him, resting on, and trusting in him, &c., notwithstanding all he says of the term belief being so plain, obvious, intelligible, and easy to be under- stood, and his repeated acknowledgment that Christ and his apostles did not use it in any peculiar sense, but in the same sense in which it was used in the common affairs of life ; yet he says, " However, to avoid obscurity, I shall attempt more fully to explain the terms," p. 10. It PREVIOIJS TO FAITH. 411 seems, then, that the plain definition given by the Holy Grhost himself, viz., the belief of the teuth (than which, he owns, there cannot he a better), is^ after all, so obscure that it needs to be explained before we can under- stand the terms of it ! With regard to the term belief, he explains it to be a cordial reception of the truth ; and if by this he means nothing more than belief, it is far from being so plain an expression, or so suited to convey that idea, as the Scrip- ture term itself, which directly expresses it. Belief is a term which does not admit of a logical definition, because the act of the mind signified by it is perfectly simple, and of its own kind ; nor does it need to be defined, or even explained, because it is a common word, and well under- stood. But it is evident, that by a cordial reception he intends something more than belief, some exercise of the will and affections respecting the truth ; and it can admit of no dispute, that all who really believe the gospel as a faithfid or true saying, must also perceive it to be a good saying, worthy of all acceptation, and so receive it cor- dially : But the question is, Whether is this cordiality of reception what the Scripture means by the term belief, or the immediate effect of it ? for it is certain that it is neither the proper nor common meaning of that term, and it is as certain that the will and afi"ections cannot be moved by any truth till it is first perceived and believed. For this cordial reception he produces Philip's words to the eunuch. Acts viii. 37, " If thou believest with all THINE HEART, thou maycst," taking it for granted that the word heart there means the will and affections. But it has already been shown, that in Scripture the word heart is sometimes put for the intellectual, sometimes for the moral powers of the soul, and at other times for both, and therefore the sense can only be determined by the nature of the exercises ascribed to it ; so that when the heart is said to chuse, incline, love, desire, &c., we are 412 OP A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE certain that it is put for the will and affections ; but when it is said to perceive, know, understand, reason, consider, &c., then it must signify the intellect ; and this must also he meant by the heart when doubting or believing is as- cribed to it, these being exercises of the understanding or judgment, in relation to the truth or falsehood of things. When Joshua said to the children of Israel, " Ye know in all your hearts, and in all your souls that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you," Joshua xxiii. 14, he was not affirming anything respecting their will and affections, but that they had a clear experimental proof and full conviction of Grod's faithfulness to his promise. So Philip, by believing with all the heart, means just a sincere and hearty conviction of mind as to the truth of what he had declared concerning Jesus, And that the eunuch so understood him is plain from his reply, — " I believe That Jesus Christ is the Son of God;" where we see he expresses the truth which he believed by a proposition, * which would have been improper had he meant to express the exercise of his will and affections respecting it ; for it would not be language to say I consent, chuse, or love that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The same thing may be observed of the expression believing in or with the heart, Eom. x., 9, 10, where it relates to the proposition, " That God hath raised him from the dead," and is dis- tinguished from confessing ivith the mouth, and so must import a real inward conviction of the mind, as opposed to a mere verbal or insincere profession of belief. It must always be kept in view that there is no dispute about the immediate effects of faith on the will and affections, but simply about the nature of faith itself. * Belief is always expressed in language by a proposition ■wherein something is affirmed or denied, and -vdthout belief their could be neither affirmation or denial, nor any fomi of words to express either. — Dr Reid on the Intellectual Poivers of Man. Essay ii. p. 270. PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 413 The other term in the scripture definition is the truth. This Mr Fuller admits to be the gospel, p. 10, but when he comes afterwards to explain that truth, he obscures it to such a degi'ee that I can scarcely recognise the apostolic gospel in it. He first specifies some gospel truths, and states them as so many abstract disconnected particulars, keeping out of view their coherence, import, or design, such as, " that there was such a person as Jesus Christ — that he was born at Bethlehem — lived and wrought miracles in Judea — was crucified, buried, and raised again from the dead — that he ascended to glory, and will judge the world at the last day — that he is Grod and man, and bears the titles of king, priest, and prophet of his church — that there is an eternal election, a particular redemption, an effectual vocation, a final perseverance, &c., &c., &c." Having run over these particulars, and left us to guess the rest from his three et ceteras, he admits, " that these, 7io doubt, are truths, and great truths ;" but terms them general and external truths, and thinks " they may be believed where no saving faith is," p. 13. Now, though I must own that Mr Fuller's list of de- tached articles is far from giving a proper view of what the Scriptures emphatically call the truth ; yet I cannot help observing that his stating them in such a light not only tends to depreciate the particulars mentioned, but also that great truth with which they stand connected, and which is the subject and scope of the gospel testimony ; and thus lead his readers to conceive that the belief of the gospel will be of little service to them, and to imagine that there is some other truth of greater importance which de- mands a preferable regard. The grand foundation truth which the gospel testifies is, That Jesus is the Christ the Son of Clod, John i. 34, chap. xx. 31, Acts ix. 20, 22, chap, xviii. 5. All its supernatural evidence unites in at- testing this great truth, and all its doctrines are founded on, and derive their meaning, glory, and importance from 2o 4-14 WHETHER JTJSTIFYING FATTH it. This truth includes in it his character and also his work, as the Saviour of lost sinners, as that he died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was turied, and that he ros3 again the third day for our justi- fication, Rom. iv. 25, 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4. And whatever Mr Fuller may say about what he calls general and external truths, which may he helieved where no saving faith is, yet the word of God expressly assures us that those who "believe this truth are blessed, Matt. xvi. 17, have life through Christ's name, John xx. 31, have righteousness imputed to them, E,om. iv. 24, are born of God, and over- come the world, 1 John v. 1, 5, and shall be saved, Rom. X. 9, 1 Cor. XV. 2, so that the belief of this truth is saving faith. This is that truth which Paul terms " a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, viz., that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," and of such the chief, 1 Tim. i. 15. This is the apostolic testimony which the Thessalonians believed, 2 Thess. i. 10, and whose faith is therefore described to be a belief of the truth, chap. ii. 13. But it is evident that Mr Fuller does not consider this as the main thing intended by the term, for he explains it thus, — " By truth I mean (and I think the apostle means the same) to include with the fore-mentioned doctrines their qualities or properties, which make a great, and even an essential part of their truth," p. 13. It will admit of no doubt, that to believe the gospel is to believe (so far as we are enlightened) whatever it testifies, both relating to doctrines and their qualities. The doctrines themselves exhibit the qualities of what they reveal, and it appears to me a contradiction to suppose that a person may really understand and believe the doctrines of the gospel without some perception of their importance and excellence, though the greatest saint upon earth, even when possessed of the full assurance of faith, perceives the excellence of the truth only in part. But I am of opinion that the gospel IjrCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 415 doctrines are termed the truth, not on account of their qualities as good or had, nor only as exhibiting the substance of the legal shadows ; but chiefly because they are true as opposed to all falsehood or deceit, 2 Peter i. 16, 1 John ii. 21, 22, 27. The agreement of the gospel testimony with the reality of what it testifies is its truth or veracity ; and as it reveals the most important of all truths, and upon the highest authority, it being the testi- mony of Grod, who cannot lie, so it is by way of eminence termed the truth. Now, though a belief of this testimony includes a belief of the qualities or properties of what is testified, yet it is as truths or realities that they are the objects of faith ; and till they thus exist as truths in the mind, they can have no influence on the will and af- fections. But let us see what those truths or qualities are which Mr Fuller thinks are more especially the objects of saving faith. He specifies the following, viz. : — " The infinite excellency of God, the reasonableness, and goodness of his law, the exceeding sinfulness of sin in itself considered, means vile, dangerous and lost condition, the equity of Grod in sending them to hell, t\\e infinite loveliness of Christ, and excellency of his w?.y of salvation, the beauty of holiness, &c., &c., these are truths concerning which every wicked man is an infidel," p. 14, 15. These are indeed very important truths, and without some suitable convic- tion of them the gospel will not appear in its proper light, nor be duly esteemed ; yet, excepting two general ex- pressions, viz., the loveliness of Christ, and excellence of his way of salvation, 1 find nothing of what is properly called the gospel in them. These pax'ticulars may be learned in a good measure from the law, without any knowledge of the way of salvation ; for they are truths altogether independent of the gospel, and would have re- mained the same immutable truths though Jesus Christ had never come in the flesh. True indeed, the gospel 416 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH supposes these truths, the whole scheme of salvation infers them, and is calculated to give the clearest views and deepest impressions of them, and also to reconcile the mind to them ; yet I do not find that our Lord and his apostles, in preaching the gospel, ever dwell on these particulars as the direct and main subject of their testimony, or as that truth which they called upon men to believe unto their salvation. Peter declared the truth on the day of Pente- cost, Acts ii., and also to Cornelius and his house, chap. X., and so did Paul at Antioch in Pisidia, chap. xiii. These discourses are plain and simple, and in perfect unison with each other ; they were also countenanced of Grod, and attended with remarkable effects : yet in none of them is there any direct or explicit mention of what Mr Fuller chiefly considers as the truth. They seem wholly to con- sist of what he terms general and external truths, and which he says may be believed where no saving faith is. The apostles declared the testimony of Grod concerning his Son, and constantly connected salvation with the belief of it ; but Mr Fuller, though he does not exclude the main subject of their testimony, yet he gives it such epithets as tend to depreciate it, while he transfers salvation from it to the belief of some other truths or qualities which he considers as more peculiarly the objects of saving faith. Hitherto my remarks have been confined to the first edition of his book. He has left out of the second edition the greater part of that description of faith which I have extracted from the first ; yet it is with pleasure I observe, that in this last edition, his account of faith is exceedingly plain, simple, and scriptural. He says, " That the belief of the truth which God hath recorded in the Scriptures concerning Christ is saving faith, is evident from the fol- lowing passages ;" for which he cites Mark xvi. 16, John XX. 31, Luke viii. 12, Matt. xvi. 17, E-om. x. 9, 1 John V. 1, 5, John iii. 33, chap. v. 33, 34, 2 Thess. i. 10, chap, ii. 13. From these passages he observes, that a belief of INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 417 the gospel — of the word, of the gospel testimony — a belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God, &c., must he saving faith, because salvation is connected with that belief ; and he is so certain of this, that he further says, " If the foregoing passages do not prove the point, we may despair of learning any thing from the Scrip- tures." * And I may add, that if Mr Fuller does not perfectly agi'ee with me on this head, I despair of learning any thing from his words, for no words can more clearly express my view of the subject. In his Appendix, he enters upon this point, by pro- fessing his agreement with me : "I have the pleasure (says he) to agree with Mr M. in considering the belief of the gospel to be saving faith." f If this were really the case, .then the controversy would be at an end. But do we not differ as to the meaning of the word belief ? No ; we agree " that the inspired writers used this term in the same sense as it is used in the common affairs of life, and that it signifies the same as credence ; a credit of some report, declaration, or testimony, where intuitive evidence is not to be obtained." And do we agree also as to what is meant by the gospel ? Yes ; we agree in general, " that it is the truth which God hath recorded in the Scriptures concerning Christ ;" and certainly, we shall not differ about the excellent qualities of that truth, or the hearty reception it must meet with from all who really believe it. We cannot, therefore, differ on this subject, while both of us abide consistently by what we have expressly agreed to. Yet Mr Fuller will not abide by this, but strikes out a difference in these words : " Our disagreement on this subject is confined to the question, Wliat the belief of the gospel includes ?" J But how is it possible that we can disagree on this, if we are agreed as to what belief itself is ? We both admit that it is credence ; a credit of some * Page 16-18. t Page 160. Page 160. 2o2 418 WHETHER JUSTIPYIlfG FAITH report, declaration, or testimony ; and that the Scripture does not use that term in any uncommon sense. We not only agree in the sound of the term helief, but in the most pointed explanation (though it needs none) of its meaning, both by synonymous words, and by distinguishing it from every other exercise of the mind, however nearly allied to it, or inseparable from it. How, then, can we possibly disagree about what it includes ? It must be kept in view that the question under consideration does not respect the antecedents, concomitants, or effects of faith ; nor can Mr Fuller include these in it, without departing from his own pointed definition of it, and falling into the most glaring inconsistency. If, therefore, he is consistent with himself, the question must respect simply what the nature of faith itself includes. Now, with respect to this he says, * " I consider faith as credence, and nothing else" And if it is credence or belief, and nothing else, then it is certain that it can include nothing else in its nature. And with respect to its concomitants and effects, which are out of the present question, I do not know that we differ at all. But notwithstanding Mr Fuller's simple and scriptural definition of faith or belief ; his express declaration, that he understands the terra belief according to its ordinary use in the common affairs of life ; his nicely distinguishing it from all those exercises of the soul which are either its concomitants or immediate effects ; his professing to con- sider it as credence, and nothing else ; and his train of arguments in support of this simple view of it — I say, notwithstanding all this, it is evident he means no such thing ; but, on the contrary, labours in his Appendix to prove that belief is something else than credence ! He professes to have the pleasure of agreeing with me, that the belief of the gospel is saving faith. What pleasure he can have in this, I am not able to conceive, since he * In his letter to me, dated Nov. 25, 1794. INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 419 endeavours to show that it is only an agreement in the sound, but not in the sense of that proposition ; for he aflSirms that we disagree on the question, What the belief of the gospel includes ? and that " there is an important difference in the ideas which we attach to believing." * For my own part, I honestly declare, that I attach no unusual or double meaning to that word. I think it bears but one simple sense, which needs no explanation, because every body understands it ; nay, I attach no other idea to the word believing, than what Mr Fuller himself must necessarily attach to it, if he really means what he says, viz., that he understands it according to its ordinary use in the common affairs of life, to be a crediting some report, declaration, or testimony, or to be credence, and nothing else. If, therefore, there is an important difference between this and the idea which Mr Fuller attaches to believing, it must be a difference in his real meaning from the plain sense of his words, which belongs to him to reconcile. When I take into view what he advances on this sub- ject, I think Mr Scott's definition of faith would have suited his purpose better than his own. The belief of the truth, he says, is " a cordial consent to the testimony of God in his holy word ;" and faith in Christ in particular he defines, " a cordial consent to the testimony of Grod concerning his Son." f Had Mr Fuller fairly retracted his own definition, and adopted something like this, it would have been more consistent with his real sentiments ; but to state true faith as only belief or credence, and then endeavour to explain it into something else, appears to me a deviation both from simplicity and consistency. It is now time for me to take notice of his animadver- sions on what I have advanced on this subject in my Treatise on Christ's Commission, and in the sermon en- * Pref. p. viii. Note, t The warrant and nature of faith in Christ, p. 8. 4:20 WHETHER JUSTIFTIJiTG FAITH tituled, " The Belief of the Gospel Saving Faith." All I have said, or meant to say, in these publications on the nature of faith, centres in this single point, viz., That justifying faith is simply a belief of the gospel ; and, therefore, if ilr Fuller's animadversions are in point, they must go to a denial of that position. But instead of attacking this directly, he proceeds first to misrepresent my sentiments, and then to combat his own misrepresen- tations. He charges me with denying that there is anything holy in the nature of faith, or that it is a virtue or moral ex- cellence. * But if the reader will turn to the note he refers to, Commish-mi, p. 75, 76, he will find that the very reverse is the truth. Mr Fuller in his letter had said, that " if faith was a mere exercise of the understanding, it would contain no virtue." To this I replied, " that he must mean a believing exercise of the understanding ; and to affirm that this contains no virtue, when it has God or his word for its object, is rather too bold, considering how highly the Scripture speaks of it, representing it as the root or principle of all Chi'istian virtues, Gal. v. 6, 1 Tim. i. 5, as that which gives glory to God, Rom. iv. 20, and without wliich it is impossible to please him, Heb. xi. 6. Surely it is i-ight to believe all that God says." The reader may now judge which of us deny the simple belief of the gospel to be a virtue. But notwithstanding my express declaration, with the scripture grounds of it, he still persists in his accusation. And why ? Merely because I denied that the principle upon which he argued will hold good in all cases. Having affirmed that " if faith was a mere exercise of the under- standing, it would contain no virtue," he adds, " and if faith contained no virtue, unbelief could contain no sin." My answer to this was, " That though we should grant the unfounded assertion (viz., of Mr Fuller) that mere % Page 164, 165. INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 421 belief contains no virtue, it would not follow that " unbelief contains no sin ;" for such an argument pro- ceeds upon this principle, That if there is no virtue in a thing, there can be no sin in its opposite ; but this does not hold true in innumerable instances." I instanced in abstaining from many crimes which might be mentioned ; taking food when hungry ; believing the testimony of a friend, and I may add, the exercise of mere natural affection, in none of which is there any real moral virtue, yet the opposite of them would be very sinful and vicious. And to bring the matter to the point in hand, and shew the inconclusiveness of Mr Fuller's reasoning, I made the *' supposition that there was no more virtue contained in believing the witness of Ciod than in believing the wit- ness of men," yet even in that case, " it does not follow, that there would be no sin in unbelief, which is to make Grod a liar, 1 John v. 10. Now, it is this supposition which Mr Fuller says must be allowed to prove, that Mr M., notwithstanding what he has said to the contrary, does not consider faith as containing any virtue." * But, passing this impeachment of my honesty, let us state the matter shortly : Mr Fuller asserts " That if faith were a mere exercise of the understanding, it would contain no virtue ; and if faith contained no virtue, unbelief could contain no sin." I, on the other hand, maintain, That a believing exercise of the understanding (which alone can be properly termed faith), when it has Glod or his word for its object, does contain virtue ; but that even sup- posing Mr Fuller's assertion were true, that it did not contain virtue, yet his conclusion would not follow, viz., that unbelief could contain no sin ; because there are many things (some of which I specified), which have no real positive virtue or holiness in them, and yet their opposites would be very sinful. Now, as Mr Fuller denies that there is any virtue in believing God with the under- * Page 165. 422 WHETHER JtTSTlFYiNG FAITH standing (the only faculty with which we can believe any thing), he must, according to the principle of his argu- ment, also deny that there is any sin in disbelieving God with the understanding, or in holding him in our judgment as a liar. He cannot possibly avoid this shocking con- clusion, without giving up the general principle upon which his argument hinges, viz., That if there is no virtue in a thing, there can be no sin in its opposite. He attempts, however, to support this principle by running to the opposite extreme, and affirms, that the instances I mention as containing no virtue, such as taking food when hungry, believing the testimony of a friend, when we have every reason to do so, the exercise of natural affection, &c., are all virtuous and holy exercises. * But if they are, and if, as he affirms, " even our believing the testimony of a friend, when we have every reason to do so, be a virtuous and holy exercise," how comes it that the exercise of our understanding in believing the testi- mony of God contains no virtue ? Is this the only exercise which admits of no holiness in it, nor of sin in its opposite ? I hope Mr Fuller will rather give up his argument than stand to this plain consequence of it. But wherein consists that holiness which he ascribes to common eating, believing the testimony of a friend, the ex- ercise of natural affection, &c. ? Not surely in these natural exercises themselves ; for then wicked men, and, in some of them, even brute animals would exercise holiness. It must, therefoi'c, lie in something else, and he very properly places it in the aim of the moral agent, or his doing these things with an eye to the glory of God ; while he owns, " That there may indeed be no holiness in these things as performed by apostate creatures." f Now as holiness lies not in these exercises themselves, but in the pious aim of the agent, and as they are not universally, nor for the most part, psrformed with a holy aim ; so they sufficiently * Page 167, 1C8. t Page IG?. INCLUDES MORE THAIT BELIEF. 423 shew, that the general principle of Mr Fuller's argument does not hold good in innumerable instances, and that I was fully warranted to addu.ce some of these instances as containing no moral virtue, though their opposites are very sinful. But Mr Fuller is very tenacious of his argu- ment, and therefore hluntly replies, — " This I am per- suaded is not true." And how does he prove it to be false ? Why, by this argument, " If they were performed as Grod requires them to be (and as they should be in order to their being the proper opposites to the sins referred to) they would be holy exercises." * That is. If they were what in fact they generally are not, then they would be holy exercises ! Mr Fuller should recollect that the question here does not respect a matter of o^ight, or what things ought to be, but a matter of fact, or what they actually are, and what he himself allows them to be as they are performed by apostate creatures. But to return to the point, Mr Fuller, as was observed, affirms, " That if faith were a mere exercise of the under- standing, it would contain no virtue." The expression, " a mere exercise of the understanding," does not convey to me any distinct idea of faith. The understanding may be exercised in a variety of ways without belief. We may have a clear and speculative conception of many things which we do not consider as real or true. There is a wide difference between understanding the sense of a proposition, and believing the truth of it. Belief is a particular kind of exercise of the understanding, whereby it perceives and realizes the truth of things testified or promised upon proper evidence. Though the act of the mind which is termed belief must necessarily be of the same general nature in all cases, and though true faith is nothing more than belief; yet belief in all cases, and indeed in most cases, does not contain virtue. The following distinctions may serve to explain * Page 167. 424 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH this a little : — 1. When belief is the effect of mefe natural causes, there is no positive holiness in it ; but when pro- duced by the illumination of the Holy Spirit and word of God it must be holy, for the nature of the effect must cor- respond with its cause ; and Mr Fuller admits " that the special influences of the Holy Spirit are not required for that which has no holiness in it ;" * and " that whatever the Holy Spirit as a sanctifier produces, must resemble his own nature."! — 2. When belief is not grounded upon proper evidence, but is chiefly influenced by the will, in- clination, or a disposition to believe, it is not so properly termed belief as credulity, and does not contain virtue ; for the will has no more right to supersede or supply the place of evidence than it has to reject the clearest proofs ; and Mr Fuller acknowledges that " nothing deserves the name of faith but what is supported by evidence." First edit, p. 26. That belief also which is grounded merely on the evidence of sense, experience, or human testimony, is not divine faith, or peculiar to real Christians, but is merely natural and common to mankind. But when belief is grounded on proper evidence that Grod is the author of revelation, and credits that revelation because it is the word of him who cannot lie, but will make good all he hath said, however far transcending the ordinary course of things ; such a belief must be holy, for it is grounded on just views of the character of Grod, and gives him the glory of his power and faithfulness, Rom. iv. 20. — 3. When the objects of belief are only natural things, or the common affairs of this world, it has nothing spiritual in it ; but when it respects God, and the supernatural truths of his word, it must be a spiritual belief. Mr Fuller also admits, that " though believing, simply con- sidered, is a mere natural act, yet believing such things as the gospel reveals must be a spiritual act." First edit. p. 25, 26. — 4. With regard to its influence and effects, * Page 128. t Page 171- llfCLTJDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 425 as belief in general is the main-spring in the life of man, without which he could have no rational motive or end in his volitions, affections, or actions ; so the belief of divine revelation, and particularly of the gospel, on the authority of God is represented in Scripture as the main-spring in the life of a Christian, or as the root or principle of all Christian virtues, Acts xv. 9, Gral. v. 6, 1 Tim. i. 5, Heb. xi. 1, John V. 4, 5. Hence it is that the same moral influ- ence and effects upon the will, affections, and life which are ascribed to the word and Spirit of God, are also as- cribed to faith. Now Mr Fuller admits that " if faith is the root of holiness, it must be holy itself ; for the nature of the fruit corresponds with that of the root." * Thus it appears that the quality of belief depends much on the nature of its productive cause, grounds, objects, and effects. When these are not holy and spiritual, neither is belief ; but when they are, belief must be also holy and spiritual ; and with this Mr Puller seems to agree in every particular. I shall only add, — 5. That as without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. xi. 6, — as faith is highly commended in Scripture, Matt xv. 28, Rom. iv. 18-23, Heb. xi., — and as it has the promise of spiritual blessings (Mark xvi. 16, John iii. 15, 36, Acts x. 43, chap.'xiii. 89, chap. xvi. 31, Rom. X. 9), it must be spiritual and holy, or rather the radical principle of all spirituality and holiness. And here I adopt Mr Fuller's criterion of spirituality, viz., that " whatever has the promise of spiritual blessings, that is considered as a spiritual exercise." f The reader will now perceive with what justice Mr Fuller represents me as denying that faith contains any virtue, and as labouring to establish that principle. It was certainly very unfair in him, to catch at a mere supposi- tion, which I made for argument's sake, and to state it as my real sentiment, though he saw that I expressly opposed that sentiment. Nor was it fair in him to alter my intro- * Page 166. t Page 74. 2 p 426 -WHETHEE JUSTIFYING FAITH ductory words, viz., " But though we should grant the unfounded assertion that mere belief contains no virtue," &c., and to substitute the following : — " If mere belief contains no virtue," &c., * as if I had really admitted that it did not. But whatever holiness may be ascribed to faith, still I mantain that it is credence or belief, and nothing else ; and with respect to the efficacy ascribed to it in justifi- cation, that must be laid to the account of its object, its own intrinsic power, virtue, or holiness, being out of the cjuestion. It has already been shown that Mr Fuller, very incon- sistently, both admits and denies " that faith is credence and nothing else ;" and that not merely in some inadvertent and occasional expressions, but in a train of reasoning on both sides of the question. But the whole scope of his Appendix goes to deny that faith (be its cause, grounds, objects, or effects what they may), can be a holy principle, unless it arise from a previous moral state of the heart, and be produced by an act of the will. But though the gospel is of such a salutary and interesting nature, that no man can be believing it, if his will continues either averse or indifferent to it, yet belief is not an act of the will ; for could we suppose a man ever so much inclined to work himself up into a persuasion of its truth, yet he cannot give real credit to it till he perceive it to be the testimony of God. If he could, what is the use of all that accumulated divine evidence which attended and confirmed it at its first publication ? Was it not written and recorded for this express purpose, " that meri miglit believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might have life through his name ?" John XX. 31. It is this evidence which makes the command to believe reasonable, and which leaves those who believe not altogether without excuse, John xv. 22, 24. But I shall attend a little to the manner of his reasoning on this subject. * Page 1G4. INCLUDES MOEE THAN BELIEF. 427 His main arguments seem to be grounded on the follow- ing principle, viz., " I scarcely can conceive of a truth more self-evident than this, That God's commands extend ONLY to that which comes under the injluence of the will."* But the principle here laid down, is so far from being self-evident, that to me it does not appear evident iit all. That the commands of God extend both to the will and to that which comes under its influence, I freely admit ; but that they extend only to these, I deny ; for it is evident, particularly in the present case, that they extend ALSO to the belief of the revealed truths and motives by which the will itself is influenced. None of his commands whatever extend to blind volitions, enjoining consent to, or acquiescence in any thing which is supposed to be ■neither perceived nor believed in the judgment ; nor could any actings of the will in such a case, supposing them to exist, be of a holy nature, or acceptable to God. The first and great commandment of the law is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, which certainly respects the exercise of the will and affections, and that obedience which comes under their influence ; but it is equally evident, that this pre-supposes a belief " that God is," that he is holy, just, and good, " and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Without this belief, or previous to it, there cannot, in the nature of things, be any holy exercise of the will and affections towards God, nor any acceptable obedience to him, Heb. xi. 6. Every command of God, therefore, extends not only to the will, and what falls under its influence, but also to the belief of the motives he sets before us, to influence the will itself. And I cannot conceive of a truth more self-evident than this, that every holy motion of the will and affections towards God, always presupposes the mind's perception and belief of some manifestation which God hath made of himself. * Page 163. 428 WHETHEK JUSTIFYINGf FAITH The gospel exhibits the most glorious manifestation of the character of God, and of his good-will to guilty men ; but as that can have no influence on the will and affections till it is perceived and believed, so belief is the first and great commandment which accompanies the declaration of the gospel. Now, a command to believe, supposes some- thing spoken or revealed by God, and proposed as the matter or object of belief. VYithout this, belief would be an absolute impossibility, and so not a duty. A command to believe, also supposes strident evidence afforded, that what is declared or testified is a revelation from God, and therefore true. Without this, belief would be cre- dulity, a weakness of mind which exposes to all manner of imposition and deception, and cannot be commanded of God. But as God has sufficiently manifested himself to be the Author of revelation, so the command to believe that, is a command to believe his own word, with whom it is impossible to lie. In this case, unbelief is not merely the effect of ignorance, but of aversion of heart to the truth ; and so unbelievers are represented not only as blind, but as hating the light, and closing their eyes lest they should see it, John iii. 19, 20, Acts xxviii. 27. It is a treating of God himself as a liar, and so a sin of the first magnitude. But it does not follow from this, that faith must be influenced by a previous moral state of the heart, or produced by the active exercise of the will, any more than it follows, that its merit must be equal to the demerit of unbelief. Though, in believing, the will does not resist light and evidence, but gives place to it ; and though when the truth is believed, it heartily acquiesces in it, yet belief itself is not produced by the will, but by the word and Spirit of God enlightening the mind to perceive the truth and its evidence. It is of his oivn vAll, not ours, that God begets us to the faith with the word of truth, James i. 18. Every thing that is holy in the state of the heart, or exercise of the will and affections. INCLUDES MORE TUAJT BELIEF. 429 is the effect of the truth believed ; for faith purifies the heart, and worketh by love, but is itself the gift of God. In support of the above principle, he says, " Knowledge ■can be no further a duty, nor ignorance a sin, than as each is influenced by the moral state of the heart ; and the same is true of faith and unbelief." * But if faith "be no further a duty, than as influenced by the moral state of the heart," then it can be no man's duty to believe the testimony of God concerning his Son, till he is previously possessed of that moral state. Till then, neither the revelation of God's testimony with its evidence, his faithfulness in that testimony, nor his command to believe it, can, according to this, constitute faith a duty, nor unbelief a sin ? So that the obligation which makes it a duty to believe God, must be founded entirely on s^omQ previous good disposition wrought within ns, and not in any objective revelation, or command of God in his word. Again, if faith is not a duty, unless it arises from a previous moral state of the heart, then no man who adopts this opinion, will find himself warranted to believe, till he knows that the state of his heart is changed. This must be its unavoidable effect, so far as it operates, and, in my opinion, a very pernicious one. To say, that he " cannot possibly be conscious of this change, till he has believed," f is no answer at all to this. It is only saying, that in his first believing, he cannot possibly avoid presumption. Further, to assert that faith cannot be genuine, and so a duty, unless it arise from a previous moral state of the heart, is to take for granted the very point at issue, though the regular exercise of our faculties, the Scripture instances of conversion, the nature of the means to which that change is ascribed, &c., all militate against that assertion. It is contrary to the regular exercise of our faculties that the state of the heart should be changed previous to any illumination of the mind, or * Page 163. \ Ibid. 2p2 430 WHETHER JUSTIEYOG FAITH while the soul is in a state of total ignorauce and unbelief. It does not agree with the Scripture instances of conver- sion ; for in none of them do we read of any real change in the state of the heart previous to their hearing the word and its influence, though some might be less pre- judiced and more candid than others. Nor does it comport with the nature of the means with which the Spirit con- curs in producing that change, and to which it is always ascribed, viz., the word of Grod ; for it is obvious, that if the word is the means, it can have no influence in changing the state of the heart any farther than it is understood and believed. He thinks, " We might as well make a passive admis- sion of light into the eye, or of sound into the ear, duties, as a passive admission of truth into the mind." * But I see no reason why believing should be considered as a mere passive admission of truth into the mind. The truths of revelation are not like surrounding material objects which obtrude and act upon our bodily senses. They respect things spiritual and invisible, and are brought to the view of our minds merely by means of testimony, and therefore our belief of that testimony requires the mind's attention to, and consideration of, its import and evidence. The gospel report, indeed, comes to us unsoli- cited, and faith comes by hearing that report, and by the divine influence which accompanies it ; yet believing itself is the proper exercise of our own minds, and we are no otherwise passive in believing the testimony of Grod than we are in believing the testimony of men to which it is compared. But with regard to that previous moral state of the heart which, in Mr Fuller's opinion, makes faith a ditty, it is a thing wherein the mind is perfectly/ passive ; for, according to him, it is produced immediately by the Spirit operating upon the will without the word, or any truth communicated to the judgment, and in which the * Page 163. lifCLUBES MORE THAX BELIEF. 431 soul is not only passive, but of Tvhich it is altogether un- conscious ; * yet from this passiye and unconscious moral state of the heart, he supposes the duty and activity of faith to arise ; and this faith he describes to he a receiving the truth into the heart, or a voluntary acquiescence in it. But it is obvious to the common sense of mankind, that no truth can be accjuiesced in by the will, or received into the affections, till it is first perceived and believed. And this self-evident truth interferes with all Mr Fuller's arguments on this head. In the foregoing part of his book he asserts, " That if faith were wholly an intellectual and not a moral exercise, nothing more than rationality, or a capacity of understand- ing the nature of evidence, would be necessary to it. In this case it would not be a duti/, nor would unbelief be a sin, but a mere mistake of the judgment. Nor could there be any need of divine influence ; for the special influences of the Holy Spirit are not required for the production of that which has no holiness in it." f Here he plainly denies that it is a clutr/ to believe the divine testimony merely with the intellect, or that power of the mind termed the understanding, though it is by that alone we can perceive its import and evidence, and assent to its truth. Had he only denied that there can be any real belief of the gospel when it does not influence the will and affections, I should most heartily subscribe to it ; but to deny that a belief of the gospel with the under- standing is itself a dufif, is to deny that we are under any obligation to believe God ; nay, it is in effect to deny that it is our duty to acquiesce in, or love the truth ; for that depends entirely on a previous perception and belief of it, and can have no existence without this. He not only denies that believing God with the under- standing is a duti/, but adds, " nor in this case would unbelief be a sin, but a mere mistake of the judgment." * Page 135. t Page 128. 432 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH But this can only be true upon one or both of the following suppositions : Either that God has not given a clear revc" lation of the truth, and supported it with sufficient evidence ; or, if he has, That there is no moral turpitude in mental error. But both these suppositions are abso- lutely false ; and therefore unbelief in those who have access to hear the gospel, is not a raere mistake of the jicdgment, but a most heinous sin, and in this case alto- gether without excuse, as our Lord expressly declares, John XV. 22-25 ; so that, though faith is not the exercise of the will, but of a spiritually enlightened judgment whereby the will is moved ; yet unbelief arises not merely from ignorance, but also from the aversion of the will, whereby the judgment is blinded, and most unreasonably prejudiced against the truth. He affirms, that " aversion of heart is the onli/ obstruc- tion to faith ; — that the removal of that aversion is the Jcind of influence necessary to produce it — that the mere force of evidence, however clear, will not change the dis- position of the heart," and that " in this case, therefore, and this onZy, it requires the exceeding greatness of divine power to enable a sinner to believe." * Now, as he restricts the influences of the Holy Spirit entirely to the will, and speaks so diminutively of the understanding, denying that its exercise in believing the gospel is a duty, or of a holy nature, so as to require the influence of the Holy Spirit to produce it ; I think it plainly appears from all this, that he does not consider the understanding as the subject of any part of regeneration, or as capable of it ; or if he does, he must consider it as changed into something else than the understanding, something " more than rationality, or a capacity of understanding the nature of evidence," and its exercise into something else than a 2)e)'ception and belief of the truth. But the word of God speaks very differently on this Page 128. I INCLUDES IfOEE T^HAN EELIEl". 433 head. It represents the daj'Ajne^^, blindness, and ignorance of the mind with regard to spiritual things, as the source of men's alienation from the life of Grod, and of their re- bellion against him, Eph. iv, 18, 19, — as that by which Satan reigns in and maintains his power over the minds of men, Acts xxvi. 18, Eph. vi. 12, Col. i. 13 ; and under which he endeavours still to keep them, notwithstanding the publication of the gospel, by blinding their minds lest the light of it should shine into them, 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. On the other hand, the regeneration and conversion of sinners is represented as effected by means of light communicated to the understanding. It is described as the opening of their eyes by means of the gospel, turning them from dai'k- ness to light, and so from the power of Satan unto God, Acts xxvi. 18, — as a delivering them from the power of darkness, and translating them into the kingdom of Grod's dear Son, Col. i. 13. The new man is said to be renewed in knowledge, chap. iii. 10, and the spiritual man to dis- cern the things of the spirit as revealed in the gospel, 1 Cor. ii. 15, and hence it is termed spiritual understanding, Col. i. 9. Paul prays in behalf of the Ephesian believers for a further illumination of their understanding by the Spirit, — " That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him ; the eyes of your understanding being enlightened that ye may know," &.C., Eph. i. 17, 18. With regard to faith, it is plain that it has its seat in an enlightened understanding. Those on whom the word has its proper effect are they who hear and UNDERSTAND it, Matt. xiii. 23, and the highest degree of faith is termed " the full assurance of understanding," Col. ii. 2. Many other passages might be produced to the same purpose ; but these are sufficient to show that the understanding is the subject of regeneration as well as the will ; that the Holy Spirit exerts his special influence upon it, and that faith has its seat there. Further, as the word 434 WHETHEK JUSTIFYING FAITit is the means of regeneration and sanctification, it is plain that it must be understood and believed in the judgment previous to its influence upon the will. He observes that the mere force of evidence, however clear, will not change " the disposition of the heart." I admit that it will not, unless it be the evidence of some- thing which is exceedingly important, engaging, and inte- resting, appearing to the mind through the enlightening in- fluence of the Spirit. But does he mean to deny that the glorious gospel is mighty through Grod to pull down strong- holds, cast down reasonings, &c., and so to change the dis- position of the heart ? If so, then he must deny that men are regenerated and sanctified through the truth, or by the incorruptible seed of the word, John xvii. 17, 1 Peter i. 23. Christ says, — " No man can come unto me except the Father who has sent me draw him," John vi. 44. On this he observes, — " That the only bar to which our Lord refers lies in that 7'eluGtance or aversion which the drawing of the Father implies and removes." * That God removes the aversion of the will is freely granted ; but how, or in what order ? By an immediate influence upon it, previous to any communication of spiritual light to the judgment ? No ; for Christ in the following verse explains this draw- ing to be by divine teaching .•— " It is written in the pro- phets, And they shall be all taught of Clod. Every man therefore who hath heard and leaexed of the Father cometh unto me," ver. 45. It is evident therefore that there is a bar of ignorance to be removed as well as of aversion, and that the former must be removed in order to a removal of the latter. Peter addressing the Jews says, — " And now, brethren, I wot that theough igxoeance ye did it, as did also your rulers," Acts iii. 17, but Mr Fuller, upon his principle, would have told them that it was ONLY THRouGn AVEEsioN they did it, and that though * Page Go. INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 435 they KNEW, yet they crucified the Lord of G-lory. Paul gays, — " I obtained mercy because I did it ignokantly in UNBELIEF," 1 Tim. i. 13, but ]\fr Fuller would have told him that had he been duly convinced of his sin, he would have been sensible that he did it knoavingly, and that his unbelief was nothing but aversion. I shall now take notice of his arguments from Scripture to prove that faith is more than belief, as arising from, and partaking of, a moral state of the heart. He observes, — " First, That faith is a grace of the Holy Spirit, and from this infers that it must be of a spiritual and holy na- ture resembling its divine origin. * By a grace I suppose he means a fruit of the Spirit, and in this I fully agree with him ; for faith is the gift of G-od, and is given on the behalf of Christ, Eph. ii. 8, Phil, i. 29, and I have also inferred from this that it must be spiritual and holy (see before, p. 35). But yet we differ as to what faith itself is. I view it as the belief of a spiritually enlightened understanding; but he considers it as consisting chiefly of the consent or acquiescence of the will, and denies it to be holy in any other view. But he proceeds, — " Secondly, Faith is that in the exercise of which we give glory to God, Horn. iv. 20. — If faith be what Mr M'Lean acknowledges it to be, a duti/ and an exercise of obedience, its possessing such a tendency is easily con- ceived, but if it be a passive reception of the truth, on which the moral state of the heart has no influence, how can such a property be ascribed to it ?" ■\ I do consider it as an indispensable duti/ to believe all that God says, and look upon it as obedience, because he hath commanded it. As to the nature of faith itself, I have no other idea of it than that which the apostle gives of Abraham's faith in the passage referred to. Nothing can be plainer than that it was ' his believing Grod's * Page 171. t Page 172. i36 vmETHER JUSTIFYIKG- PAITH promise respecting his seed (Gren. xv. 4-7.) And not- withstanding he knew that its accomplishment was alto- gether above the power of nature, or any fitness in him- self, yet being the promise of a faithful and almighty Grod, he " against hope believed in hope, that he might be- come the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken. So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet did the deadness of Sarah's womb ; he staggered not at the promise of God through un- belief; but was STRONG IN EAiTH, giviug glory to God. And being fully persuaded, that what he had promised he was able also to perform," &c., verse 18-22. Thus, in believing God's promise, he gave him the glory of his power and faithfulness. This account of Abraham's faith is too plain to need any comment ; and what a con- trast does it form to the numerous and jarring descriptions of faith with which the world has since been pestered and puzzled ! The apostle intends it not only as a description, but commendation of Abraham's faith, as an example of ours, verse 23-25. Yet he says nothing of the previous moral state of Abraham's heart, whatever that was, nor of the actings of his will and affections, which now make the capital figure in modern definitions of faith. Nothing is mentioned but simply his believing God according to that which was spoken, and the strength of his belief. And, indeed, nothing could be more foreign, or even opposite to the apostle's purpose, than to dwell upon Abraham's virtuous and holy dispositions when setting him forth as an example of God's justifying the ungodly by faith without works. Another argument he uses is, " Thirdly, Faith is represented as depending uponchoice or the state of the heart towards God ;" for which he cites John xi. 40, chap, v; 44, Mark ix. 23. * *' Page 172. lirCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 437 As to John xi. 40, it contains our Lord's words to Martha respecting the resurrection of her brother, when she appeared to he staggered at the circumstance of his having been so long dead, and are intended to strengthen her faith : " Said I not unto thee, If thou wotjldest believe, thou shouldst see the glory of God ?" i. e, his miraculous power displayed. Mr Fuller here lays the stress upon the English auxiliary verb wouldest, to shew that her belief depend-ed upon her choice. Yet he knows that Martha was a believer in Christ already, verse 27 — that she believed her brother would be raised at the last day, verse 24, and not only so, but that Jesus could have prevented his death, or even now raise him up if he pleased, verse 21, 22. What, then, was the belief which now depended on her ivill ? "Was it a belief that Christ could or would then raise her brother ? And does Mr Fuller think that she did not choose to believe this, or that her doubt arose from aversion to it ? I should like to know how he accounts for that sloivness of heart which appeared in the disciples to believe the resurrection of their Lord, Mark xvi. 11, 14, Luke xxiv. 11, 25. Will he attribute it entirely to their disinclination, or aversion of heart to that joyful event ? The truth is, believers may have occasional doubts which do not arise from aversion of heart to the truth, but from remaining ignorance, or the absence of evidence from the mind ; but these doubts are not removed by an act of their will, but by a renewed per- ception of light and evidence in the judgment. Men frequently have doubts respecting things while they ear- nestly wish them to be true. With respect to John v. 44, " Hoiu can r/e believe who receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour which cometh from God only ?" they are Christ's words to the unbelieving Jews, and point out one great cause of their unbelief, viz., their love of human applause or honour, with their mutual exchange of it among themselves, 2 Q 438 WH£THER JtrSTIFYIKG FAITH whereby their consciences were fortified against conviction of sin, and their spiritual pride and self-righteousness supported ; so that, while this was the case, they could not believe on the Saviour of lost sinners. But Christ does not here insinuate that their believing depended on their choice, or that any will really seek the honour which cometh from God only, before they believe the way of acceptance with him. Another text is Mark ix. 23, " Jesus saith unto him, If thou CAKST believe, all things are possible to him that helieveth." On this he asks, " If believing had no de- pendence upon choice, or the state of the heart, How is it that our Saviour should suspend the healing of the child, upon the parents being able to exercise it ? Did he sus- pend his mercy upon the performance of a natural impos- sibility ; or upon something on which the state of the heart had no influence ?" * To this I answer, that belief is a natural impossibility in all cases where there is no infor- mation or evidence given ; for " how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard," Eom. x. 14, and though this had been the case with the parent of the child, yet Christ might justly suspend the cure till that natural impossibility was removed. But it is plain that he must have heard something of Christ's fame as to miraculous cures, and given some credit to it, otherwise he would not have applied. The disappointment he met with in his application to the disciples, might raise or increase his doubts if even the power of their master extended to that case ; and this seems to have been the state of his mind in addressing him thus, " If thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us." But it does not appear that this doubt arose from his want of will, or his not choosing to believe that Christ was able to cure his child ; for nothing would have given him greater pleasure than to be fully persuaded of this. Nor was his doubt removed by an act * Page 172. I^^CLUDES MOKE THAN BELIEF. 439 of his own tvill (though not against it), but by Christ's reply to him, assuring him of the sufficiency of his power, if he only gave credit to it, " If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." " Fourthly, Faith is frequently represented as implying repentance for sin, which is acknowledged on all hands to be a holy exercise," Mark i. 15, Matt. xxi. 32, 2 Tim. ii. 25.* There is no dispute about whether faith implies repent- •ance for sin. \t implies many things which it does not include in its nature. For instance, it implies both its necessary causes and inseparable effects ; but these are not faith itself. He observes, that " it does not come up to the Scripture representation to say, repentance is a fruit of faith ;" yet he owns, " that a conviction of the being and attributes of God, must, in the order of nature, precede repentance," i. e., even legal repentance ; and he also ad- mits, that whenever the Scriptures speak of repentance as followed by the remission of sins, " it will be allowed that faith is supposed ; for repentance without faith could not please God, nor have any connection with the promise of forgiveness." This, I think, is to admit that repentance unto life is a fruit of faith in Christ. But then he says, " faith without repentance would not be genuine." I grant it ; but neither would faith without works be genuine ; yet as faith and works are not the same, neither is faith and repentance, though they are more immediately con- nected. " Fifthly, Faith is often expressed by terms which indicate the exercise of affection. It is called receiving Christ, John i. 12 — receiving the love of the truth that we may he saved, 2 Thess. ii. 10. In true believers, Christ's words have place, which is more than a mere assent of the understanding, John viii. 37 — they, in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it^'' Luke viii. 15. f * Page 173. t Page 174. 440 WHETHER JUSTIFTIXG FAITH As to receiving Christ, Mr Fuller himself admits that it is " distinct from the belief of the truth as an inseparable effect is distinct from its cause," (see before, p. 408), and that " receiving him, in the order of things, follows upon believing the truth concerning him.'' * Yet I own that receiving the testimony of Grod concerning him, is the same as believing in him. All who truly believe the truth, receive the love of it, because they perceive and believe the loveliness of what it reveals ; but this does not prove that faith and love are the same. Christ's words have place in believers ; but how does this show that faith is more than an assent of the understanding ? Those who have heard and believed the word, keep for retain) it in an honest and good heart, as I have already shown (see p. 389, 390), but what is this to Mr Fuller's purpose ? None of these passages prove that faith is the exercise of affection, or that belief and love are the same, though in this case they are inseparable. " Sixthly, Belief is expressly said to be with the heart, Rom. X. 9, 10, with all the heart," Acts viii. 37. f I have answered this already (see p. 411, 412), and shall only here take notice of his explanation of these expres- sions : he says, " Doing any thing luith the heart, or ruith all the heart, are modes of speaking never used in Scrip- ture, I believe, for the mere purpose of expressing what is internal or mental, and which may pertain only to the understanding : they rather denote the quality of un- feignedness, a quality repeatedly ascribed to faith, 1 Tim. i. 5, 2 Tim. i. 5, and which marks an honesti/ of heart, which is essential to it." I have not the least objection to the positive part of this explanation ; for if a man does not believe unfeignedly, he does not, properly speak- ing, believe at all, but only professes it with his mouth hypocritically. But I am perfectly at a loss to conceive what more there is in an unfeigned (or avWoxg/rou, un-' * Page 203. t Page 175. INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 441 hypocritical) belief, than a real internal or mental belief with the understanding. I suspect it will require some- thing beyond metaphysics itself to explain this, though I own I am no adept in that science. " Seventhly, The want of faith is ascribed to mokal CAUSES, or to THE WANT OF A EIGHT DISPOSITION OF HEART," John V. 38-44, chap. viii. 45-47.* This is granted ; for when the outward light and evi- dence of the gospel is set before men, something more than simple ignorance must be the cause of their rejecting it, and so it is ascribed also to aversion ; but it does not follow from this, that anything more than that same light and evidence of the gos^Ql, properly perceived and under- stood, through the enlightening influence of the Spirit, is necessary to produce faith, and so to remove that aversion. " Lastly, Unbelief is not a mere error of the understand- ing, but a positive and practical rejection of the gospel," John viii. 45-47. f This argument is much the same with the last, and requires only the same answer ; but I may add, that though unbelief is not a mere error of the understanding, yet there is some very essential error of the understanding included in it, as the Scriptures abundantly testify ; and, therefore, to aiErm (as Mr Fuller constantly does), that unbelief " is owing only to the aversion of men's hearts, and nothing else" J is to contradict a great number of the plainest passages in the word of God, and to deny that any direct illumination of the understanding is necessary to produce faith. It is to affirm, that an unbeliever may have the same ideas and conviction of the evil and demerit of sin, and the same discernment and belief of the truth and excellency of the gospel that a believer has, and that the only difference lies in the will or disposition of the heart. Indeed, if Mr Fuller's sentiments and reasoning on this * Page 175, 176, t Page 176. % Page 177. 2q2 442 WHETHEE JUSTIFTING FAITH subject be just, there must be a great deal of improprieties in Scripture language, which cannot fail to mislead us. Peter and James inform us, that men are born again of the incorruptible seed of the word, 1 Pet. i. 23, James i. 18. But Mr Fuller tells ns, that, strictly speaking, this is not the case, for that they are born again of the Spirit without the word. * The Scripture frequently attributes unbelief to ignorance or not understanding the truth, as one cause of it in those who hear the gospel. Matt. xiii. 19, Acts iii. 17, Rom. x. 3, 1 Tim. i. 13. But Mr Fuller argues against this, as if it were a natural inability, like what arises from want of information or natural capacity, and so inconsistent with a moral one ; f and therefore ascribes unbelief entirely to aversion. Paul affirms, that faith is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God, Eph. ii. 8. But Mr Fuller affirms, that it " cannot with any propriety be termed the gift of God ; but he gives us that from which it immediately follows." J Now, if there are so many improprieties in the language of Scripture on this subject, " whence does it appear that the inspired writers wrote or spoke intelligibly ?" In my Treatise on the Commission of Christ, after having shown that true faith must be distinguished by its genuine effects on the heart and life, and having pointed out some of its immediate effects on the heart, I add, " But these effects of faith, or, which is the same, of the truth believed, ought not to be confounded with faith itself, as is commonly done. Though faith is the confidence of things hoped for, and also worketh by love ; yet it is neither hope nor love, for the apostle distingnisheth it from both : And now abideth faith, hope, love, these THREE, 1 Cor. xiii. 13. The same may be said of all its other effects upon the heart ; for whatever is more than belief is more than faith, and ought to go by another name," p. 82, 83. And in a note below, I take notice of * Page 210. t Page 120. I Page 209. IITCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 443 what Mr Fuller had said on this passage in his letter, viz., that " faith, hope, and love are three considered only in respect of their objects." But he denies that he " ever thought of affirming that they are three only in that view." * If not, why did he give this view as expressive of the sense of the passage ? Does the apostle affirm that they are three in different senses ? He says, " My argu- ment only required me to point out a sense in which they were distinct, provided they were not so in respect of their holy nature." f This, I am obliged to say, is a mere evasion. He knew I never disputed the holiness of their nature ; and he was also sensible that his argument required him to deny that they are distinct in themselves ; for to admit this would be to give up his argument, and therefore he places the distinction of faith, hope, and love in their objects : the object of faith being revealed truth — of hope, future good — and of love, the holy amiableness of God, and of whatever bears his image." In answer to this, I observed, " That the apostle is not speaking of the objects of faith, hope, and love, but of themselves ; and if they are not three as distinguished from each other, their objects can never make them three. The apostle says, the greatest of these is love ; but love is not greater than faith and hope in respect of its object, but in its own nature ; which shows that faith, hope, and love are different from each other, and properly termed three." Now, what reply does Mr Fuller make to this ? Only the following : " I see no solidity in Mr M'Lean's objection to an objective distinction," \ This is a very easy reply ; but I can excuse him for once, being confident that if a better had occurred to him, it would not be wanting. The whole drift of his reasoning on the nature of faith is to confound it with love, hope, and other fruits of the Spirit ; and though the apostle distinguishes them numerically as three, and expressly says that love is the * Page 199. t Ibid. J Ibid. 44:4 WHETHER JUSTirYING FAITH greatest of these three ; yet he professes to see nothing solid in my objection to a mere objective distinction, i. e., he sees no reason why it may not be admitted that love has a greater object than either faith or hope have ! But though this absurdity were admitted, it would not favour his cause ; for love could not have a greater object than faith has, unless it were distinct from it. Mr Fuller was sensible that he could not answer my objection to his view of this passage, and therefore has recourse to misrepresentation. " Mr M'Lean," he says, " thinks that faith, love, and hope are distinct as to their nature." — True ; but then he adds — " and that the excel- lency ascribed to love consists in its being holy ; whereas faith is not so." * Had he given this as an inference of his own from my view of faith, it might pass as a piece of reasoning, however unfair ; but to state it directly as my sentiment, or as what I think, is, I am sorry to say, a violation of truth, and altogether unworthy of Mr Fuller. He also affirms that " It has been farther objected," viz., to the holiness of faith, " that the reception of God's tes- timony is compared to a reception of a human testimony ; and as a disposition of heart, whether holy or unholy, is not necessary to the one, so neither is it to the other." f But this objection is entirely of Mr Fuller's own framing ; and he well knows that the note he alludes to [Commission, p. 75) contains no objection to the holiness of faith, as I have already abundantly shown. (See before, p. 420, 421.) Further, he amuses his readers with part of a private con- versation which passed between us at Kettering : " Mr M'Lean, when asked whether hope did not imply desire, and desire love ? answered. Yes, hope is a modification of love. It was replied. Then you have given up your argu- ment." X It may, perhaps, have been inaccurate to term * Page 199. f Ibid. J Page 199. Mr Fuller has WT-itten this to several of his cor- respondents both in England and Scotland : some of his letters INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIE?. 445 hope a modification of love, as it seems to throw down the apostolic distinction between them. All I meant was, that hope implies love ; and I might have added that despair, its very opposite, also implies love, without in the least giving up my argument. But let us bring the matter to the principles of common sense. An agreeable and inte- resting object, believed or realized in the mind as such, excites love or desire. A probable prospect of obtaining it is hope. The want of this is despair. But the actual enjoyment of the object, while it perfects love, admits of neither hope nor despair. Here the two following things are obvious, — 1. That the distinction in the above cases is not objective; for faith, love, desire, hope, and despair re- late only to one object. 2. That though both hope and despair imply love to that object, yet they are not the same as love, for love exists most perfectly without them. I cannot therefore give up my argument, that faith, love, and hope are three, considered in themselves, and that love is the greatest of these three, till I find a more solid reason for doing so than anything which Mr Puller has yet ad- vanced. Nay, I am confident that Mr Fuller must give up his argument before he can give any explanation of this passage that will bear examination. Though faith, hope, and love are all holy fruits of the Spirit, and inseparably connected in the hearts of true Christians while in this pilgrimage state ; yet love is the greatest of them both in respect of its nature and duration. I had seen befoi-e I took notice of it in the note, Commission, p. 82. My visit to Mr Fuller was not with a view to litigate points, but to cultivate intimacy and friendship. I therefore declined following out any dispute upon difierences which occurred in conversation ; but promised to write him my thoughts upon these things when I got home, which I accordingly did. If he thinks it dangerous to correspond with authors even when, names are concealed, it must be much more so to converse with those of them who wish to take advantage, and publish names. His pro- clamation of victory, however, is rather premature. 446 Whether justifying faith — 1. It is the greatest of them in respect of its nature, as being more like God, or bearing more of his moral image than either faith or hope. We are expressly and repeatedly told that " God is love," 1 John iv. 7, 8, 16, but it does not appear that either faith or hope can with any propriety be ascribed to the Divine Being ; for as his wisdom, know- ledge, and understanding are infinite, and extend immedi- ately to everything, he has no occasion to receive anything upon testimony ; and as he is possessed of perfect happi- ness in and of himself, and has everything that pleases him immediately in his power, so there is no room to hope or wish for anything beyond this. It is evident that faith and hope, however excellent, are peculiar to dependent and imperfect creatures, and are adapted to our present state, while as yet we have not the immediate sight and posses- sion of their objects. 2. Love is the greatest in respect of its duration. The state of things to which faith and hope are adapted will come to an end. Their objects are things not seen, and made known to us at present only by the divine testimony and pi'omise ; but when they become objects of sight and enjoyment there will be no more oc- casion for faith and hope ; " for what a man seeth why doth he yet hope for ?" Kom. viii. 24. They will then give place to the immediate vision and fruition of their objects. But love never faileth. That which supersedes faith and hope perfects love, which shall endure for ever in the glorified state. A time shall come when constant faith And patient hope shall die; One lost in certainty of sight, And one dissolv'd in joy. But love shall last when these no more Shall warm the pilgrim's hreast, Or open on his dying eyes His long expected rest : INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 447 Love's unextinguish'd ray shall burn Through death, unchang'd its frame : Its lamp shall triumph o'er the grave With uncorrupted flame. Thus it appears that faith, hope, and love are, in the strictest propriety of speech, termed three, and that the greatest of these is love. And therefore every attempt to confound faith and love, particularly on the point of a sinner's acceptance with Grod, is to pervert the Scripture doctrines of justification by faith alone. QUESTION III. Whether jxistifying faith respects God as thejustifier of the UNGODLY ? On this important question I shall, 1. Recite what I have already advanced in my Treatise on the Commission of Christ ; and then — 2. Examine Mr Fuller's sentiments on this subject. What I have advanced on this subject in the Commis- sion is contained in the following words : — " It will perhaps be asked. Why so nice in distinguish- ing here ? What harm can arise from including in the nature of faith such holy dispositions, affections, and exercises of heart as are confessedly inseparable from it ? In answer to this, let it be considered, " 1. That unless we carefully distinguish faith from its effects, particularly on the point of a shiner'' s accept- ance with God, the important doctrine of free justifica- tion hy faith alone will be materially affected. The Scriptures pointedly declare, That God justifies sinners " FEEELY BY HIS GEACE, through the EEDEMPTION that is in Jesus Christ," Rom. iii. 24, and that this justification is received " through faith in Christ's blood," ver. 25. Faith in this case is always distinguished from, and op- posed to the works of the law, Rom. iii. 26-28, chap. ix. 448 WHETHER JUSTIFYING TAITH EESPECTS GOD 32, Gal. ii. 16, chap. iii. 9-15, not merely of the cere- monial law which was peculiar to the Jews, but of that law by which is the knowledge of sin, Rom. iii. 20, which says, — " Thou shalt not covet," chap. vii. 7, and which requires not only outiuard good actions, but love and every good disposition of heart, both towards Grod and our neighbour. Matt, xxii, 37-41, so that the works of this law respect the heart as well as life. The distinction therefore between /ai^^ and works, on this subject, is not that which is between inward and outward conformity to the law ; for if faith is not in this case distinguished from, and opposed to our conformity to the law both outwardly and inwardly, it cannot be said that we are "justified by faith without the deeds of the law," Rom. iii. 28, or that God " justificth the ungodly," chap. iv. 5. Faith, indeed, as a principle of action, " worketh by love ;" but it is not as thus working that it is imputed for righteousness ; for it is expressly declared, that righteousness is imputed " to him thatwoEKETH NOT, but BELiEVETH ou him that justifieth the ungodly." " It is of eaith that it might be by grace," chap. iv. 16, and grace and works are in this case repre- sented as incompatible with each other, chap. xi. 6, for " to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of GRACE but of DEBT," chap. iv. 4. Now, when men include in the very nature of justifying faith such good dispositions, holy affections, and pious exercises of heart as the moral law requires, and so make them necessary (no matter under what consideration), to a sinner's acceptance with God, it perverts the apostle's doctrine upon this important subject, and makes justification to be, at least, " as it were by the works of the law." " 2. The effect of such doctrine upon the mind of an awakened sinner is obvious. He who conceives that, in order to his pardon and acceptance with God, he must first be possessed of such good dispositions and holy affections as are commonly included in the nature of faith. AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 4:i9 will find no immediate relief from the gospel, nor any thing in it which fully reaches his case while he views himself merely as a guilty sinner. Instead of believing on him that justifieth the ungodly, he believes, on the contrary, that he cannot be justified till he sustains an opposite character. Though Christ died for sinners — for the un- godly, yet he docs not believe that Christ's death will be of any benefit to him as a mere sinner, but as possessed of holy dispositions ; nor does he expect relief to his con- science purely and directly from the atonement, but through the medium of -a better opinion of his own heart or character. This sentiment, if he is really concerned about the salvation of his soul, must set him upon attempts to reform his heart, and to do something under the notion of acting faith, that he may be justified ; and all his endeavours, prayers, and religious exercises, will be directed to that end." — Commission of Christ, page 83-85. The reader has here before him the whole of that pas- sage which Mr Fuller so strenuously opposes, and loads with the most odious consequences. He will perceive that I am not here speaking of faith as it works by love, or as a principle of sanctification, or holiness of heart and life (which I had mentioned a little before), but merely as it relates to justification, or respects the ground of a sinner's acceptance with God ; so that whatever Mr Fuller opposes to it, must be restricted to that point, otherwise it is nothing to the purpose. The reader will also observe, that I am not here denying that faith itself is a holy principle, but I am opposing those who " include in the very nature of faith as justifying, such good dispositions, holy afi'ec- tions, and pious exercises of heart as the moral law requires, and so make them necessary to a sinner's accep- tance with God." This I consider as perverting the doctrine of justification hj faith alone. I had no parti- cular view to Mr Fuller in this, it being a thing too common with many ; but as he finds himself concerned 2k 450 -WHETHER JUSTIFYINO FAITH RESPECTS GOD to defend it, he ought to do it in plain and express terms, and deny that sinners are justified bj faith only, that there is any thing peculiar to faith in justification, or that it is any more calculated to exclude boasting, and to correspond with grace in this matter, than if we were justified by love, or the exercise of any other virtue. But instead of this, he involves the subject in a train of reasoning, wherein he sometimes appears to me both to admit and deny the same things alternately. What I have said of the efi"ects of this doctrine on the minds of awakened sinners is, I am confident, fully verified in the experience of all who have seriously come under its proper influence. An awakened sinner asks, " What must I do to be saved ?" and an apostle answers, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," showing him at the same time what he is to believe, and thus he is relieved and made happy, Acts xvi, 30-35. But a preacher of the doctrine I am opposing would have taught him another lesson. He might, indeed, in compliance with Scripture language, use the word believe ; but he would tell him that, in this case, it did not bear its usual sense, that it was not the assent of his understanding in giving credit to the testimony of the gospel, but a grace arising from a previous spiritual principle, and including in it a number of holy affections and dispositions of heart, all which he must exercise and set a working in order to his being justified ; and many directions will be given him how he is to perform this. But this is to destroy the freedom of the gospel, and to make the hope of a sinner turn upon his finding some virtuous exercises and disposi- tions in his own heart, instead of placing it directly in the work finished by the Son of God upon the cross. In opposition to this, I maintain that, whatever virtue or holiness may be supposed in the nature of faith itself, as it is not the ground of a sinner's justification in the sight of God, so neither does it enter into the consideration of AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY, 451 the person who is really believiug unto righteousness. He \uews himself not as exercising virtue, but only as a mere sinner, while he believes on him that justijleth the un- godly through the atonement. This view of the divine character, at which others startle so much, is to him most precious, as being the only view which suits his case, and which alone can give him hope. And though he must be conscious that he now perceives and believes the gospel ground of hope, and experiences relief from it, yet he can ascribe no holiness to himself on that account. His thoughts centre entirely in the object of his belief as all his salvation and all his desire. And if before this he has been seriously engaged in religious exercises to pacify his conscience and make his peace with Grod, he will now be so far from looking upon these as having prepared him for Christ, or contributed to his present relief, that he will consider them as having had a contrary tendency. Mr Fuller sometimes seems to agree with the above statement, at least in part. He admits, that " though faith, as a principle of action, worketh by love, yet it is not as thus working, that it is imputed for righteousness, — That justification by faith is opposed to justification by the works of the law, even those works which are internal as well as those which are external. — That faith is not supposed to justify us as a work, or holy exercise, or as being aviy part of that which is accounted unto us for righteousness ; but merely as that which unites to Christ, for the sake of whose righteousness alone we are accepted." * And with regard to the view which a sinner has of his own character when he believes in Jesus, he says, " He that believeth in Jesus Christ, must believe in him as he is revealed in the gospel ; and that is as the Saviour of sinners. It is only as a sinner, exposed to the righteous displeasure of God, that he must approach him. If he think of coming to him as a favourite of heaven, * Page 178, 182. 452 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD or as possessed of any good qualities which may recom- mend him before other sinners, he deceives his soul : such notions are the bar to believing." * — " He xvorketh not with respect to justification. — All his hopes of mercy are those of a sinner, an imgodly sinner." f Here Mr Fuller admits, that faith does not justify either as an internal or external ivork, or holy exercise, or as being any ^^a^-t of that which is imputed unto us for righteousness ; and did not other parts of his writings appear to clash with this, I should rest satisfied. But I own that I am not witliout a suspicion that ]\Ir Fuller here only means that faith does not justify as the procuring cause or meritorious ground of a sinner's justi- fication and acceptance with Grod ; and that while we hold this point, we may include as much virtue and holy exercise of the will and afi'ections in the nature of justi- fying faith as we please, without afi"ecting the point of justification, as that stands entirely upon another ground, viz., the righteousness of Christ. But it must be carefully observed, that the difi'erence between us does not respect the meritorious procuring cause of justification ; but the way in which we receive it. The Scriptures abundantly testify that we are justified by faith, which shows that faith has some concern in this matter ; and Mr Fuller admits, that justification is ascribed to faith " merely as that which unites to Christ, for the sake of whose righteousness alone we are accepted." Therefore, the only question between us is this, Does faith unite us to Christ, and so receive justification through his righteousness merely in crediting the divine testimony respecting the suflliciency of that righteousness alone to justify us? Or, Does it unite us to Christ and obtain justification through his righteousness by virtue of its being a moral excellency, and as including the holy exercise 'of the will and affections ? The former is my * Page 111. t Page 185, 186. AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 453 view of this matter ; the latter, if I am not greatly mis- taken, is Mr Fuller's. I hold that sinners are justified throughs Christ's righteousness by faith alone, or purely in believing that the righteousness of Christ which he finished on the cross, and which was declared to be ac- cepted by his resurrection from the dead, is alone sufficient for their pardon and acceptance with God, however guilty and unworthy they are. But in opposition to this, the whole strain of Mr Fuller's reasoning tends to show that sinners are not justified by faith alone, but by faith luork- ing by love, or including in it the holy exercise of the will and afi"ections ; and this addition to faith he makes to be that qualification in it on which the fitness or congruity of an interest in Christ's righteousness depends.* Withoutthis addition, he considers faith itself, whatever be its grounds or object, to be a mere empty unholy speculation, which requires no influence of the Spirit to produce it. f So that if what is properly termed faith has, in his opinion, any place at all in justification, it must be merely on account of the holy exercises and afi"ections which attend it. In the note (Commission, p. 76) I put the question, — " Of what use is it to contend for the moral excellence of faith, in 2Doi7it of justification ?" To this he answers, "1. That it is of importance that faith be considered as a duti/. 2. It is of importance that it be genuine, or such as will carry us to heaven, and not dead or unproductive ; and, 3. That unbelief be allowed to be a sin." + All this I admit is of very great importance, and might be a proper answer to a question relating to the marks of true faith ; to which might be added, that it is of importance that faith produce good works, without which it is dead, being alone. But as it is intended as a direct answer to my question on the use of the moral excellence of faith in point of justification, it must import that faith justifies as a duti/, and as it is a moral excellence, and productive or fruitful. * Page 183, 184. t Page 128. J Page 166. 2 K 2 454: WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH EESPECTS GOD In his letter he says, — " Though faith be a moral excel- lency, yet it is not on account of that excellency that justi- fication is ascribed to it ; for if we were justified by faith as a virtue, we might as well be justified by love, &c., either would be justification by our own righteousness.''^ He cannot, consistently with himself, mean anything by this, but that faith, as a virtue, is not the meritorious ground of our justification ; not that it does not as a virtue obtain justification through Christ's righteousness : For as he includes the exercise of the will and affections in the very nature of justifying faith, and confounds it so with love as to annihilate its distinctive character, we cannot in that case be justified by faith as distinguished from love ; and every attempt to distinguish them here, is at once to give up all the arguments whereby he has endeavoured to confound them. That he considers faith to justify as a virtue is further evident, from what he says in the same letter : — " May not faith include the acquiescence of the heart, and so be a moral excellency ; and may there not be a fitness in God's justifying those persons who thus acquiesce, without any foundation being laid for boasting ?" Here we see that he makes the moral excellency of faith to consist in the acquiescence of the heart, or the exercise of the will and affections, and places the fitness of God's justifying upon that ground. My answer to this was, — " That the distinction between this and being justified by faith as a virtue is too fine ; for if this fitness in God's justifying arises from the moral excellency of faith, we must un- doubtedly be justified by faith as a virtue, in some sense or other." And in the note {Commission, p. 76) I further observed, " That as this fitness in God's justifying is placed upon faith's being a moral excellency, it must be such a fitness as is between virtue and its reward ; and so this is only a round-about way of saying that we are justi- fied by faith as a virtue, which is above acknowledged to be justification by our own righteousness." AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 455 I am aware that there are diiFerent kinds of fitness. A person may have a natural fitness for a certain state, not because he is possessed of virtue, but merely because his qualifications and that state are naturally adapted or suited to each other. Again, a person may have a moral fitness for a state, when his virtue commends him to it, or when he is put into a good state, as a fit or suitable testi- mony of regard to the moral excellency of his qualifica- tions or acts. The last, I think, must be what Mr Fuller means by a fitness in God's justifying, because he grounds it upon the moral excellency of faith, or rather of its im- mediate effects. Yet he wishes to avoid the term moral fitness, and in another letter says, — " A fitness of luisdom, is the whole for which I contend." This, however, is no explanation of his meaning ; for a fitness of wisdom ap- plies both to a natural and moral fitness. But as he labours to prove that the virtuous exercises of the will and affections are included in the nature of justifying faith, in order to show that there is a fitness in God's justifying such as are thus virtuously exercised, what other kind of fitness can he possibly mean in such a con- nection, or according to the scope of his reasoning, but the fitness of justifying a virtuous character ? After all, I freely admit that there is a fitness in faith corresponding to the gospel method of salvation, but it is of a very different nature from what has been stated above. The salvation by Christ is communicated to men by means of the revelation concerning ib ; and faith alone is adapted to perceive the import, and realize the truth of that reve- lation, and so has a fitness to receive benefits conveyed by testimony, which no other fruit of the Spirit has. This office is equally peculiar to it as seeing is to the eye, or hearing to the ear, to both of which it is compared, Isa. xlv. 22, chap. Ixv. 1, chap. Iv. 3. Again, the great doc- trines of the gospel are supernatural truths, which cannot be known by intuition, experience, or the deductions of 456 WHETHER JUSTIPTIKG FAITH RESPECTS GOD reason from any known principles, but purely by revela- tion, 2 Cor. ii. 9, 10, and the only evidence of their truth, is the manifestation which God hath made of himself as the Author of that revelation. Now, faith is adapted to receive such truths upon the authority of God, without any other evidence ; and even when all we know of nature seems to contradict them. A striking instance of this we have in the faith of Abraham, which is set before us as an example of ours. He believed God's promise, that he should become the father of many nations ; and though both he and Sarah were past age, yet he took not that into consideration as any objection. God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were, had promisad it, and that was enough to him ; so that " against hope, he believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations ; accordiug to that which was spoken. So shall thy seed be. — And being fully persuaded that what he had promised, he was able also to perform, and therefore it was imputed to him for righte- ousness," E,om. iv. 17-23. In like manner, righteousness shall be imputed to us, " if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification," verse 24, 25. And if our faith is of the same kind with that of Abraham, it will surmount every discouragement aris- ing from the consideration of our natural unfitness to be justified ; it being the faith of the operation of God, that raised up Christ from the dead, for our justification, chap. X, 9, 10, Col. ii. 12. But the main thing to be considered on this head, is the peculiar and exclusive suitableness of faith to receive justification, and every other spiritual blessing purely of grace ; i. e., of mere free favour to the utterly worthless and undeserving. The declared design of God in the salvation of sinners, is the manifestation of his own glory, and especially the glory of his sovereign free grace. It is AS THE JUSTIPIER OP THE UNGODLY. 457 " that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory," Rom. ix. 23. — " That we should be to the praise of the glory of his grace," Eph. i. 6, 12, and " that he might show the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness towards us, through Christ Jesus," chap. ii. 7. The sovereignty and freedom of divine grace is not only dis- played and magnified in election and redemption in which men could not possibly have any hand ; but also in the application of this redemption, and particularly in justi- fication. It is chiefly on this head that the apostle insists so much on the freedom of divine grace, because it is in opposition to this that the self-righteous bias of the human heart operates most powerfully, leading men to seek for some virtuous qualifications in themselves, that may account for their being justified. But as Glod justifies sinners eeeely by his grace, through the KEDEMPTioisr that is in Jesus Christ, Rom. iii. 24, so faith alone is adapted to receive justification purely of grace ; and this the apostle clearly intimates, when he says, " Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace," Rom. iv. 16. Here we see that faith and grace are in perfect unison, and suited to each other. Faith magnifies grace, and ascribes all to it ; and grace admits nothing but faith, for both are opposed to works. Grace and faith will not mis or compound with works in this matter. Men must either be justified wholly of works, or wholly of grace through faith ; for thus the apostle states the opposition, " If by grace, then it is no more of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace ; otherwise work is no more work," Rom. xi. 6. From this it appears, that so far as one takes place, the other is annihilated ; so that if works of any kind, or upon any consideration whatever, have place in justification, grace and faith, according to Paul's idea of them, can have none. Justification, in that case, would 458 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 1)6 reckoned of works, not of faith ; of debt, not of grace, chap. iv. 4. And that this is the sense, is plain from what he opposes to it, " But to him that worketh not, but BELiETETH on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," verse 5. This is indeed a supernatural method of justification, very opposite to our natural notions, and self-righteous bias ; and therefore we need not wonder that it hath met with so much oppo- sition from the beginning, under the most pious and specious pretexts. Nothing but a supernatural faith, like that of Abraham, can answer to it, or receive it ; and that is the gift of God. I had said, that " when men include in the very nature of justifying faith, such good dispositions, holy affections, and pious exercises of heart, as the moral law requires, and so make them necessary (no matter under what con- sideration), to a sinner's acceptance with God, it perverts the apostle's doctrine on this important subject, and makes justification to be at least, as it were, by the works of the law." — Commission, p. 84. To this he answers, " That we may judge whether this assertion be well founded, it is necessary to examine the evidence on which it rests ; and this, if I mistake not, is confined to the phraseology of a single passage of Scrip- ture. If this passage (namely, E,om. iv. 4, 5) do not prove the point for which it is alleged, I know of no other that does ; and what is more, the whole tenor of Scripture teaches a doctrine directly opposite." * Why Mr Fuller mentions the phraseology/ of Rom. iv. 4, 5, I know not, unless it be to insinuate that it is in- cautiously or improperly expressed, and so not to be under- stood according to the most obvious and natural sense of the words ; though the apostle is there arguing upon the subject in the most close and pointed manner. And it is certain that it must undergo a very great change, both in * Page 184. AS THE JtJSTIFIER OP THE UNGODLY, 459 phraseology and sense, before it can please him, or be ac- commodated to his scheme. Yet, as Dr Owen says, " we must not forego this testimony of the Holy Ghost, let men be as angry as they please." But it seems the evidence on which I rest my assertion " is confined to this single passage of Scripture." Supposing this were the case, as it is not, would not a single passage, if it is plain, express, and agreeable to the scope, be sufficient evidence ? The truth is, in my assertion I had no particular view to this passage more than to many others, several of which I refer to at the bottom of p. 83, 84, and I may now add, that all the passages which prove — that there is none righteous, no not one, but that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God — that no flesh can be justified by the works of the law either internal or external — that justification is of free grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, and received by faith alone — that grace and faith in this matter are in direct opposition to works, debt, or any comparative ground of boasting — and, in short, every argument which the apostle uses on this head in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, all unite in proving, that sinners are justified by faith alone, and not by the works of the law. Consequently, this doctrine is perverted when sinners are told that they cannot be justified till they are previously possessed of such holy affections and virtuous dispositions of heart as the moral law (which is not of faith), requires. This is what I assert, and in opposition to it Mr Fuller asserts, " that the whole tenor of Scripture teaches a doctrine directly opposite to this ;" that is, it teaches that sinners are justified not only by faith, but also by holy affections and virtuous dispositions of heart ; or, in other words, by their holiness and con- formity to the law. It is evident, therefore, that the difference betwixt us is very wide, and, considering the nature of the subject, of vast importance. But he proceeds : — 460 WHETHER JUSTIFTING FAITH EESPECTS GOD " If by him that worketh not, and the ungodly whom Grod justifieth, be meant persons who at the time had never done any good thing in the sight of God, and who were actually under the dominion of enmity against him, Mr M.'s assertion will be granted him." * It is my opinion, that him that worketh not means persons who have never done any good works in the sight of God, or acceptable to him, previous to their believing and being justified; otherwise it would not be true that God justifieth the ungodly, nor would their believing on him as the justifier of such be true faith, but the belief of a falsehood. I have no notion that the apostle means any thing different, far less contrary, to what he plainly says, as if he meant that God justifies the godly, though he does it as if they were ungodly. Such a sense is not only an addition to the apostle's words, but flatly contra- dicts them. On the other hand, it never entered into my heart to imagine that him that worketh not, hut believeth, is descriptive of those who, from the first moment of their believing, " are actually under the dominion of enmity against God." On the contrary, it is my firm belief, that the persons here described are immediately reconciled to God by that which they now believe, and as soon as they believe. Therefore, my assertion respecting the perversion of the doctrine of justification, has nothing to do with the execrable sentiment upon which Mr Fuller wishes to found it ; but it is founded upon the following principles, which are intimately connected on this subject. — 1. That belief in its nature is different from the works of the law, whether these consist of holy affections and virtuous dispo- sitions of heart, or outward actions ; for the law is not of faith. — 2. That believing on him that justifieth the ungodly, is justifying faith ; for this faith is counted for righteousness. — 3. That such a belief is inconsistent with working in order to be justified ; and — 4. That * Page 185. AS THB JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLT. 461 every convicted sinner till he thus believes must necessarily work with a view to justification, for he can have no idea of obtaining it in any other way. If, therefore, Mr Fuller would disprove my assertion, he must either refute these principles, or show that the doctrine I oppose is consistent with them. ' But it will be proper to set before the reader at once Mr Fuller's view of Rom. iv. 4, 5, which amounts shortly to this : — That " hy him that worheth not, and the ungodly, whom God justificth, is not meant persons who, previous to their justification, and at the time, had never done any good thing in the sight of God, but were actually under the dominion of enmity against him ; for the apostle is speaking of believers. He that worketh not is at the same time said to believe ; but whenever this can be said of a man, it cannot with truth be affirmed of him, that he has done nothing good in the sight of God, or that he is under the dominion of enmity against him, and has actually wrought nothing for God. — Holiness maj precede justification as to time, and it may be necessary on some accounts, that it should precede it, and yet have no casual influence upon it. If antecedent holiness destroy the freeness of grace, I know of no solid reason why conse- quent holiness should not operate in the same way ; and then, in order to be justified by grace, it will be necessary to continue the enemies of God through life. But what- ever degree of holiness, previous to his justification, it may be necessary for him to possess — however much he may have wrought for God, and whatever good he may have done in his siglit ; yet he worketh not with respect to justification, but in all his dealings with God for ac- ceptance, comes not as righteous, but as ungodly. So that the character described by the apostle is not merely ap- plicable to a Christian at the first moment of his believing, but through the whole of life. We have to deal with 2s 462 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH EESPECTS OOD Christ for pardon and justification more than once ; and must always go to him as working not, but believing on him that justifieth the ungodly." And this sense of the pas- sage, he thinks, is decisively proved by " the examples which the apostle refers to for the illustration of his doc- trine, namely, Abraham and David," who were both holy men many years before they are said to be justified. * On this view of the passage I shall make a few remarks, and then give the sense in which I understand it. First, there are several things here stated which are not disputed by me, but agree well with my view of the passage : as — 1. It is not denied that the apostle is here speaking of believers. I have no notion that any are justified till they believe, though I consider their believing and justification to be coeval. — 2. Nor is it denied that believing is a good thing. It is an effect of the rege- nerating influence of the Spirit and word of God, and the principle of all holy affections and good dispositions, * Page 180, 185, 186, 187, 188. This is exactly Mr Hopkin's doctrine oi justification, and of the antecedent holiness necessary to it. According to him, a person must not only be convinced of his gnilt, and the just condemnation due to it, but he must have the true knowledge of God, and a new heart, a humble, penitent and contrite heart, to hate sin as such, and to love God and delight in his law ; and all this, not only j^vevious to his justifica- tion and in order to it, but even previous to his knowledge of the Mediator and faith in him. And he scruples not to affirm, that those " who have never been reconciled to God and his holy law in any other way, but hjfi-rst seeing and believing in the grace of of God through Christ, are yet ignorant of the true grace of God, and enemies to it." Tivo Discourses, page 24, 25, note. Mr Booth, in his Glad Tidings, has made some very just animadversions on this author's sentiments. Mr T. Scott has also made a few but very pertinent remarks on the distinguishing tenets of the American divines, and particularly alludes to Hopkins when he says, " they have certainly advanced positions which obscure the glory of the gospel, and embarrass the minds of enquirers v/ith many unscrip- tural distinctions." The Warrant and Natiire of Faith in Christ, pp. 3, 4. AS THE JUSTIFIEE OP THE UNGODLY. 463 though in justification it is distinguished from them ; and therefore, when I deny that holy dispositions or good works are required as necessary to justification, I surely do not mean to deny that faith itself is necessary to it. — 3. Far less do I affirm (as Mr Fuller would have me), that a person who believes is still " actually under the dominion of enmity against God ;" on the contrary, I maintain that what he believes instantly removes the enmity of his heart, and reconciles him to God, exciting love to him, and hatred of sin. — 4. It is admitted that he that believeth on him that justifieth the uugodly worketh not luith respect to justification, either at the first moment of his believing, or (if he continues in the faith) through his whole life after ; for that would be inconsistent with such a belief. — 5. It is also admitted that a believer needs pardon, not only for the sins of his past life when he first believes, but a con- tinued exercise of pardoning mercy for the sins he com- mits afterwards, during the whole course of his pilgrimage in this world. Hence believers are exhorted to repent of their sins, to confess them, and to come to the throne of grace that they may obtain mercy, which is promised to them through the atonement and intercession of Christ, Heb. iv. 16, 1 John i. 7, chap. ii. 1, 2. But I observe. Secondly, That Mr Fuller explains the term (adsjSrig) UNGODLY, in this passage, to mean only the godly, and none else ; for he represents them as persons who have laboured and wrought for God, and done good in his sight previous to their justification; and affirms that "holiness may precede justification as to time, and that it may be necessary on some accounts, that it should precede it." In short, he would have us to believe that the apostle uses this term in a sense quite opposite to its usual meaning, and such as will fitly apply to the most godly saint on earth ; for he maintains that " the character described by the apostle is not merely applicable to a Christian at the first moment of his believing, but through the whole of 464 WHETHER JUSTIFYING TAITH RESPECTS GOD life" I suppose he will admit there are some godly cha- racters in the world, and that he would not reckon them properly characterized by any author who should term them the ungodly, n^y, though he should add the opposite character to it, and call them ungodly godly persons, which comes nearer the character he has in view. Why then does he attribute such a glaring impropriety of speech to the inspired apostle, who is arguing closely upon the most important subject ? The word ungodly occurs in the Ncav Testament, I believe, seven or eight times, and the word ungodliness about six ; but neither of them are ever used to characterize persons actually converted, but the very reverse ; and therefore it would be strange beyond all example if the apostle had used it here in a sense alto- gether opposite to its usual acceptation. Mr Fuller, however, ventures to produce another passage where the word ungodly signifies the godly, viz., Rom. v. 6, — " Christ is said to have died for the ungodly. Did he then lay down his life only for those who at the time were actually his enemies ? If so, he did not die for any of the Old Testament saints ; nor for any of the godly who were then alive ; not even for his own apostles." * According to this, Christ could not have died only for the ungodly or his enemies, unless he had died before there were any saints upon earth ! But it is plain beyond all dispute, that the word ungodly in this passage has not the least reference to any as godly ; and though it may in- clude all the saints both before and at the time of Christ's death, yet it respects none of them as saints, but is ex- pressive of their former irregenerate state, wherein they are classed with all the rest of the ungodly for whom Christ died ; and so are strictly and properly termed such, as having been really ungodly, enemies, and children of wrath even as others. The apostle is writing to Chris- tians, among whom he includes himself, and, to set forth * Page 188. AS THE JUSTIFIER 01? THE UNGODLY. 465 the exceeding greatness of the love of God towards tliem, he brings to view their /ormer state and character, as being without strength, imgodljj, sinners, enemies ; and so he expresses himself not in the present but past tense, thus : — " When WE were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. — While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. — If when we were enemies, we were reconciled to G-od by the death of his Son, &c., ver. 6, 8, 10. This passage, therefore, makes nothing for Mr Fuller's purpose, but proves, on the contrary, that Christ died for such as, in the strictest sense, were un- godly, even as chap. iv. 5, proves that God is the justifier of such, and that justifying faith is a believing on him under that character. Thirdly, Mr Fuller thinks it makes no difference as to the freeness of grace in justification, whether holiness be required in order of time before it, or after it ; for he says, — " If antecedent holiness destroy the freeness of grace, I know of no solid reason why consequent holiness should not operate in the same way. — It is not the priority of time that makes any difference, but that of causation." So that, according to him, it makes no dif- ference whether holiness be required before justification or after it ; if holiness is not the cctuse of justification, grace is equally free in both cases. But Paul was of a very different mind, who, in setting forth the freeness of grace in election, redemption, and justification, lays a great deal of stress upon its priority in order of time to any holiness in us, and by this he deraonstrates that no holi- ness or works of ours can possibly be the cause. He re- presents election as prior not only to our existence, but to the creation of the world, to show that it is entirely of grace, and not of our works or holiness ; and illustrates the freedom and sovereignty of grace in it, by the distinc- tion made between Esau and Jacob while as yet they were not born, or had done any good or evil previous to 2 s 2 466 WnETHER JtTSTIFTING rAITH RESPECTS GOD the revelation of the Diviue purpose respecting them, Eph. i. 4, Rom. xi. 5, 6, chap. is. 11-14. With the flame view, he represents tlie death of Christ as prior to any holiness, at least either in himself or those he writes to ; and that it was when they were yet without strength, ungodly, sinners, and enemies, that he died for them, Rom. V. 6-11. With regard to justification, he takes pains to shew that Abraham was justified by faith in God's promise before he was possessed of that holiness, or had done any of those works which the Judaizers made neces- sary to it, and while he was only an uncircumcised Gen- tile, Rom. iv. 9-13. He also founds an argument upon the priority/ of the promise (which includes the Gentiles) to the giving of the law of Moses, to shew that the blessing freely promised is not obtained by men's holiness or works, but purely by faith, that it might be by grace, and so sure to all Abraham's spiritual seed, both of Jewa and Gentiles, Rom. iv. 13-17, Gal. iii. 8, 9, 17, 18. Further, he takes notice of the Lord's words in Isaiah, — " I was found of them that sought me not ; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me," Rom. x. 20, which exclude men's holiness not only as the cause, but as antecedent to the blessing here promised. And this corresponds with the Scripture instances of God's being found of, and made manifest to guilty sinners ; for what holiness had Mary Magdalene, Zaccheus, the thief on the cross, the three thousand converted on the day of Pente- cost, Saul the persecutor, the Philippian jailor, or, in short, any of all the idolatrous Gentiles, previous to their believing the gospel ? But I must further observe, that when holiness (under whatever consideration) is required of a sinner previous, or in order to his being justilicd, justification cannot ap- pear to him to be of fi-ee grace, through faith as opposed to works. He indeed may admit that any holiness in him cannot merit justification, and that in this respect he AS THE JUSTIFIEB OF THE UNGODLT. 46T can only loe justified through the righteousness of Christ ; but still he must look upon this antcceient holiness as comiug betwixt him and Christ, and as absolutely neces- sary to his obtaining an interest in Christ's righteousness and justification by it. He must necessarily view justifi- cation as suspended upon his possessing this antecedent holiness, and so consider it as the condition on which he is to be justidod; which must have the same effect upon his mind as if he were to be justified by the works of the law. And if he is really concerned about the salvation of his soul, this antecedent holiness will engage his attention first of all, and lead him. to strive and pray that he may possess it in order to his obtaining justification. So that while he has this view of the mutter, he must necessarily be following after righteousness, or seeking to obtain justification as it wera by the works of the law, or by a kind of antecedent holiuc.-s, which though it may go under another name, yet, when made necessary to his justifica- tion, differs nothing in its nature and tendency, for words cannot alter the nature of things. In short, while he con- siders this antecedent holiness as necessary to his justifi- cation, he can have no idea that God justifieth the ungodly ^ nor can he believe on him under that character. Fourthly, though Mr Fuller plci,ds for the necessity of holiness antecedent to justification (^when the sinner must be supposed without any actual union with Christ, and so in a state of condemnation, as all are till they are justified) ; yet he also maintains, that whatever previous holiness may be required of a sinner, and sought after by him as neces- sary to his being jusiitied, '• he workcth not ivith 7-espect to justification, but in ail his dealings with God for accep- tance, comes not as righteous but as uiigodlj/." But it) is most evident, that if an awakened sinner believes that he cannot be justified without antecedent holiness, he must of necessity work to obtain that holiness in order to his being justified, and so have a respect to justification 468 WHETHEE JUSTIPTIITG FAITH EESPECTS'GOD in his working. He may indeed apply to God while he views himself as an ungodly sinner, hut it is to obtain this previous holiness that he may be justified, and his aim in all his religious exercises and dealings with Grod must have this for its object ; because the very nature of such a principle precludes the idea that he can be justified as a mere sinner, or while he views himself as such, and so is inconsistent with his believing on him that justifietk the u7igodly. Fifthly, Mr Fuller imagines, that if men admit what he calls the grand principle on which the apostle rests the doctrine of justification by grace, viz., It is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them, Gal. iii. 10, and if they also admit, that the righteousness of Christ, and not their own personal holiness, is the procuring cause of justifica- tion, * this will suSciently guard the freeness of grace in justification, whatever antecedent holiness may be required of men, or sought after by them in order to obtain it. But I apprehend this is a very great mistake. True, indeed, such as are thoroughly convinced that they have actually incurred and justly deserve the curse of the divine law — that they cannot possibly deliver themselves from that curse by any supposed doing, exercise, or holiness of theirs, performed either in their own strength, or by any assistance whatever — that the only work by which redemption from this curse is procured, is already com- pletely finished without their concurrence, by Christ's being made a curse for the guilty, or bearing the punish- ment of sin in their stead. Gal. iii. 13 — that God has accepted this as a full satisfaction for sin, Heb. x. 14, 17, and demonstrated this by raising him again from the dead, and glorifying him at his own right hand, Rom. iv. 24, 25, Heb. i. 3, chap. x. 12. — I say, such as really believe this, must see that justification is entirely of God's frea * Page 179, 180. AS THE JUSTIPIEK OP THE UlTGODLT. 469 grace, through the redemption that is iu Jesus Christ ; for this is thtat very faith whereby they receive justification freely as guilty sinners, and have peace with God. This alone can make them cease from working in order to bo justified, and give them other motives and aims in all their consequent works and exercises, answerable to the freeness of that grace wherein they stand. But it is most certain, that men may admit that sinners have incurred the curse of the law, and are unable to deliver themselves from it, and tl.at the rigliteousness of Christ is the only 'procuring cause of justification, and yet, after all, oppose the Scripture view of free grace in justifying the ungodly. Few, indeed, will plead that man, strictly speaking, can merit any thing at the hand of his Maker, or give unto him an equivalent for his benefits, even although he were iunoueut and perfectly holy, far less when guilty. " If thou art righteous (says Elihu), what givest thou him ? or what rccei veth he at thy hand ?" Job XXXV. 7. Yet, by the help of some ingenious dis- tinctions, respecting moral fitness, congruity, and an established connection, natural or pactional, between virtue and its reward, a kind of qualified comparative merit has been strenuously pleaded for, whereby it is sup- posed that some sinners are better qualified to be justified by grace through the righteousness of Christ, than others- who have no such qualifications, but view themselves only as ungodly. It cannot be shown that the Judaizors ever formally denied that sinners have incurred tho curse of the law, and are unable to deliver themselves, or that Christ's righteous- ness is the only meritorious procuring cause of justifica- tion. They indeed tauglit the G entile converts, that except they were circumcised, and kept the law of Moses, they could not be saved, Acts xv. 1,5; but this does not prove that they avowedly made it the meritorious or procuring causa of their acceptance. They appear onlj 470 -WHETHER JUSTIFYUfa FAITH RESPECTS GOD to have added it to the faith of the gospel, as a necessarj appendage, without luhich they could not be justified by Christ's righteousness ; and no doubt their main plea for this addition would be its conduciveness to secure the interests of holiness, and to prevent the licentious tendency of Paul's doctrine on this head. In short, it does not appear that they gave any other place to the ivorks of the law in justification, than what is now given to that holiness which is supposed to be either prior to faith itself, or included in its nature as justifying. Yet they are repre- sented as subverting the souls of men, Acts xv. 24, for though they did not formally renounce the gospel of Christ, yet Paul charges them with perverting it to such a degree on the point of justification by pure grace through faith, as to change it into another gospel, see Glal. i. 6-10. It were easy to shov/, that the same opposition to the free grace of G-od in justifying the ungodly continues unto this day, and for the same reason, viz., to guard the interests of virtue and holiness. Nor is this opposition made only by those who deny the leading principles of the Christian faith ; but, I am sorry to say, by many who are the pro- fessed friends of the doctrine of grace. The ancient Judaizers spoke out plainly what they meant, namely, that men could not be justified by faith in the atonement of Christ without the addition of the works of the law. But the moderns are not so explicit. The luorks of the law is an obnoxious expression on this subject, and therefore they introduce their additions under the notion of acting faith, in which they include every virtuous and holy disposition of heart as necessary to justification. The former paid no regard to Paul's authority as an inspired apostle, but avowedly contradicted him ; but the latter admit the inspi- ration of the apostle, and contradict him only in their method of explaining his words. Both, however, agree in this, that God does not justify the ungodly. Sixthly, Mr Fuller affirms, " that the character described AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE tJNGODLY. 471 by the apostle," namely, the ungodly, " is not merely ap- plicable to a Christian at the moment of his believing, but through the whole of life. "We have to deal with Christ for pardon and justification more than once, and must always go to him as worlcwg not, hut believing on him that justijieth the ungodli/." Eut the apostle does not say, that the person who worketh not but believeth is ungodly, far less that such a character is applicable to a Christian through the whole of life. This is a glaring misconstruc- tion of the apostle's meaning, and contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. The apostle does not use the word ungodly to describe the existing character of an actual believer, but brings it under a description of his faith in God — he is one who " believeth on him that justifieththe ungodly." Should we search the Scriptures from the beginning to the end, we shall no where find the word ungodly used to describe the existing character of real believers in God, though it is twice used to describe their former state and character. It is, therefore, very strange that Mr Fuller should put such an unnatural sense upon the word in this passage, as it bears no where else in all the word of God ; and it is no less £o, that he should fix the character of vmgodly upon real believers through th^ whole of life after their justification, in order to prove that they were holy or godly prior to it ! In support of these contradictory notions, he finds it necessary to advance another strange sentiment, namely, " That we have to deal with Christ for justification more than once." I have reason to think that Mr Fuller's view of justification is pretty singular, and that he does not consider it as any specific act of God at all, but only the uniform declarations of the word of God (the statute book of heaven), as to what characters are exempted from the curse of the law, and entitled to everlasting life. Nor does he consider it as a blessing conferred at once : — " Justification," he says, " is not of so transient a nature 472 TTHETHER JUSTTFYING FAITH RESPECfTS GOD as to be begun and ended in an instant. — It is described in language wliich is expressive of its continuity. — It is God that justifieth ; who is he that condemneth ? — He that believeth on tlie Son hath eveilasting life. — Hence, also, believers in every stage of life deal with Christ for justification, desiring nothing more than that they may be found in him, not having their own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." * Now, if it is a truth, that justification is carried on through every stage of a believer's life, it will indeed fol- low that he must bear the character of ungodly unto the end, as he is not completely freed from condemnation, nor perfectly justified by the righteousness of Christ, any more than he is perfectly sanctified while in this world. But is this Paul's doctrine of justification ? Far from it. The passages be refers to are nothing to his purpose. I need not show this as to Rom. viii. 33, and John iii. 36, the reader will perceive it at once ; and as to Phil. iii. 8-15, Paul does not there represent himself as dealing with Christ for justification, as if he had not yet ob- tained mercy, or an acquittal from the sentence of condemnation, or as labouring to obtain that justification which is to him that worlceih vot^hvA believeth; but he is guarding the Philippians against the influence of the Jews or Judaizing teachers, by opposing his example to theirs in his setting at nought all his own legal righteous- ness in which he formerly boasted, and counting it but as loss and dung in comparison of the excellency of the know- ledge of Christ Jesus his Lord, and of his being found in him, having the righteousness which is of God by faith as opposed to works. "With this view he also sets his example before the Galatians (chap. ii. 18-21, chap, vi, 13, 14,) not as labouring for justification, but living by it. In * See Gaius's paper in the Protestant Dissenter's Magazine for April, 1799, p. 14&. AS THE JUSTIFIER OP THE UNGODLY. 473 like manner, he also sets before the Philippians how ear- nestly he pressed after conformity to Christ, and pursued the Christian race, that he might at last obtain the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, or the crown of righteousness and glory which fadeth not away, see 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8, 1 Pet. v. 4. Thus, being already justified by faith, he laboured that he might be accepted, approved, and rewarded at last as a faithful servant of Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. V. 9, 10. A proper view of this would remove any apparent difficulty in reconciling Paul and James on this subject : compare R-om. iii. 28 with James ii. 24. But I must not enter upon this at present. Had Mr Fuller only affirmed, that believers have the remains of a corrupt nature in them, and are daily sinning while in this world ; that they have constant cause to be humbled on that account before God, to confess their sins, and pray to their heavenly Father that they may obtain mercy through the atonement and intercession of Christ (Matt. vi. 12, 1 John i. 7-9, Heb. iv. 16) ; or had he affirmed, that pardon does not respect them as godly, but as guiltr/, and that, as such, they must always apply for it, I should have most heartily agreed to all this; but to affirm that believers are characterized in Scripture as ungodly through the whole of life, and that they are not completely justified at once when they believe in Christ, appears to me a very unscriptural view of this important subject. Our Lord says, " He that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto life," John v. 24. Paul declares, that " by him all that believe are justified from all things," Acts xiii. 39, and that " there is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus," Rom. viii. 1. Justification is a change of the sinner's state ; for hereby he passes from a state of guilt, condemnation, and death, into a state of pardon, acceptance, life and peace with God ; 2 T 474 WHETHER JUSTTFTING FAITH RESPECTS GOD and this change of state is always represented as taking place at once when men believe the gospel. A person must either be in a state of justification or condemnation, for there is no middle state ; and as the righteousness of Grod, which is by the faith of Christ, is unto all and upon all them that believe, so they must be perfectly justified from all things, and accepted in the Beloved, though the privileges and blessings pertaining to this justified state continue to be dispensed according to the believer's need. But I need not insist on this, as Mr Fuller, notwithstanding what he says above, admits " that we are introduced into this blessed state at the moment of our believing. From that instant we are no more under the law, but under grace. The curses of the former stand no longer against us, and the blessings of the latter become our portion." Lastly, He produces the examples to which the apostle refers for the illustration of his doctrine, viz., Abraham and David, which he thinks are decisive of the question. On the former he observes, that " if Abraham at the time he is said to have believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, had never done any good thing, and was actually the enemy of God, Mr M.'s position is established ; but if the contrary is true, it is overturned ;" and then he adduces Gen. xii. 1, and Heb. xi. 8, to prove that he was a believer several years before he is said to be justified, in Gen. xv. 6. If Abraham was a believer several years before he was justified, it will indeed serve to illustrate Mr Fuller's doctrine respecting the necessity of antecedent holiness ; but then it must be observed that the apostle does not produce this part of Abraham's example, or make the least mention of it for the illustration of his doctrine ; nor does it appear that it would have suited his purpose in arguing with Judaizers. Hence there is ground to suspect that the apostle's doctrine is not exactly the same with Mr Fuller's on this head. Indeed, if it can be AS THE JtlSTrriER OF THE U5"G0DLY. 475 shown, that the faith whereby Abraham was justified in- cluded a previous course of holiness for several years, I am apprehensive that it will not only overturn my position, which is a small matter, but also the whole scope of the apostle's reasoning on this subject. As Mr Fuller has misquoted my words, and also repre- sented me as maintaining that Abraham was justified while he was actually the enemy of God, the reader will observe, that the position which he combats is this, viz., •' When men include in the very nature of justifying faith such good dispositions, holy affections, and pious exercises of heart as the moral law requires, Ind so make them necessary to a sinner'' s acceptance with God, they pervert the apostle's doctrine upon this important subject. — Com- mission, p. 84. In this position, I suppose that sinners are justified by faith only, as opposed to works — that holy dispositions, affections, and exercises are internal works of the law, and effects of faith — that to include these in the nature of faith as it justifies, is to give the same place to them in justification as to faith itself, and so to pervert the apostle's doctrine, who, from the whole of his premises on the subject, draws this conclusion, " That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," Rom, iii. 28. Now, in opposition to this, Mr Fuller affirms, That the property of xuorking by love is not only an immediate and inseparable effect of faith, but belongs to its nature as justifying, and that as thus working it is necessary to justification. * That those who are described as working not, and as the ungodly, whom Glod justifieth, are really persons of an opposite character to what the words plainly express ; but that they are represented as ungodly, and as not working, because, however godly they are, and how- ever much they have wrought for God, during a series of years previous to their being justified, yet they work not * Page 183, 184. 476 WHETHER JUSTIFTI^TG FAITH RESPECTS GOD with respect to justification, but in all their dealings with God for acceptance, come not as righteous, but as ungodly. And this sense of the words, he thinks, is supported by that part of Abraham and David's example which the apostle has thought proper to omit. | Thus he overturns my position, by reversing the plain sense of the apostle's words, making the ungodly to be the godly, who have a humble opinion of their own character, and their working for God during a series of years previous to their justifi- cation, to be notwithstanding their not working with respect to it ! By the same rule of interpretation he might have told us that those who trust in their own righteousness for justification are godly, because they imagine themselves to be so, and in all their dealings with God for acceptance come not as sinners, but as godly ; and though they are real workers of iniquity, it may, how- ever, be truly affirmed of them that they work it not, be- cause they do not work it with a view of being either justi- fied or condemned for it. But it is time to return to the example of Abraham and David. Let it then be observed that the great apostle of the Gentiles is establishing the doctrine of free justifica- tion by faith without works ; and though his argument excludes all works of every kind in obedience to any law whatever, whether moral or positive, yet he has a particular view to the state of the controversy as carried on between him and the Jews or Judaizing teachers of his time. They maintained that except men were circumcised and kept the law of Moses, they could not be saved, Acts xv. 1, 5, Gal. vi. 12, 13. In opposition to this, he shows that some of the best and most respected characters among their ances- tors, and who had been remarkably distinguished as the favourites of Heaven, were not justified by circumcision or any works of theirs whatever, but purely by faith ; and for this he produceth the example of Abraham^ t Page 185, 187. AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 477 their venerable patriarch, and the testimony of David, who was a prophet, and one of the most eminent of their kings. With regard to Abraham, though he was no doubt justi- fied, or received into a state of favour with God when he called him at first, and made himself known to him, Gen. xii. 1, yet that passage of his history was not sufficiently explicit for the apostle's purpose ; for though it supposes, it does not expressly mention Abraham's faith or justifi- cation, but only his obedience to the divine call. Nor was it to his purpose to refer the Judaizers to that remarkable instance of his faith, in ofiering up his son Isaac, which was so highly approved of God, Gen. xxii. 10-19 ; for they could have replied that that was a work, and per- formed after he was circumcised and in covenant with God, and so did not support his position, but was rather a proof of their own doctrine. Therefore, to refute the Jewish argument, he must bring an express proof that Abraham was justified merely by faith, and that before God had formally made a covenant with him, and while he was yet an uncircumcised Gentile. * And to prove this he pro- duceth Gen. xv. 6, — " Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." This passage was directly in point, and fully to his purpose in all respects. The use he makes of it is chiefly to show — That Abraham was justified by faith alone, or believing God, and that not only in distinction from, but in opposition to all works of any kind, done in any view, or required under any con- sideration whatever, ver. 4-6, 16. — That he was thus justi- fied while an uncircumcised Gentile ; and that his circum- cision afterwards was a seal of his being previously justi- fied by faith, that in this he might be a pattern of the justification of all them that believe, though they be not * It appears to have been an opinion among the Jews that Abraham was not pure or accepted with God till after his circumcision (See Whitby on Kom. iv. 1,) and therefore it was necessary to produce an express Scripture testimony to the contrary. 2 T 2 478 WHETHER JUSTIPYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD circumcised, ver. 9-13, and to this purpose he applies at last all that he had said on the suVject, ver. 23-25. Thus he entirely overturned the argument of the Jews, who could not plead that Abraham was justified by any holi- ness or good works of his previous to his being circumcised, without giving up their plea for the necessity of circum- cision to justification. But it will perhaps be said, That though the apostle's argument is a sufficient refutation of the Jewish antecedent holiness, it does not exclude that antecedent holiness which Mr Fuller pleads for, because that was prior not only to Abraham's circumcision, but also to the time referred to Gen. XV. 6, when he is said to have righteousness imputed to him, and so is beyond the limits of the apostle's argu- ment with the Jews. Now to this I answer, 1. That it is evident from the whole of the apostle's doctrine on this important subject, that he not only ex- cludes circumcision and the holiness which the Jews sup- posed connected with it, from being antecedently necessary to justification ; but he also excludes all holiness or good works whatever, either ceremonial or moral, which can in any sense be denominated the works of the law, performed either by Jew or Gentile, with respect to justification, or in any other view, from being antecedently necessary to it. He lays the foundation of all that he says upon it by prov- ing that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, and in a state of guilt and condemnation, Ptom. iii. 9, 19, 23 ; and that they are without strength, enemies to God, and ungodly, chap. v. 6, 10. This cuts out every idea that men can possess any holiness, or perform any acceptable works previous to their deliverance from that state ; and to suppose they can is a flat contradiction to the Scriptiiral account of man's natural state. Further, he shows that sinners are justified /?-ce(y by God^s grace through the re- demption that is in Jesus Christ, E,om. iii, 24. Now, as justification supposes guilt, and respects the ungodly, so AS THE JUSTIFIER OP THE ITNGODLT. 479 its being of free grace and througli the redemption that is in Christ, sets aside every idea of antecedent holiness in the subjects of it, either as meriting it, or qualifying them for it ; and thus only can it exclude all boasting, ver. 27. Again, with regard to the way in which men actually re- ceive this blessing, he restricts that to faith alone, which he everywhere opposes to works on this subject, and de- clares, that " to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," Rom. iv. 5 ; and he represents this faith as corresponding with the freeness of that grace by which the blessing is conferred, ver. 16. Now, as it is by faith alone that men are justified and pass from death unto life ; as faith itself is the very beginning of spiritual life, and the principle of all holiness either in heart and conduct f so there can be no true holiness antecedent to it for a moment of time, far kss for a series of years. And if it was otherwise with Abraham and David, as Mr Fuller affirms, their case must have been very singular indeed, and their example altogether unfit to illustrate the apostle's doctrine respecting the justification of the ungodly. 2. Though the apostle cites Gen. xv. G, as sufficient to prove to the Jews, that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised ; yet he does not by that passage intend to show that Abraham was not justified till then. It is plain, beyond all dispute, that Abraham was a believer in Glod several years before this, even from the time that the God of glory first appeared to him. Acts vii. 2, 3, and called him to leave his country, his kindred, and father's house, Gen. xii. 1. The promises were then ori- ginally made to him, which were afterwards renewed at different times, respecting the land of Canaan, the multi- plication of his seed, and that all the families of the earth should be blessed in him, vei'se 2, 3. To these original promises the apostle refers, when he says the gospel was preached before to Abraham, and terms them the covenant 480 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD which was confirmed of God in Christ, four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Gal, iii. 8, 17 y and he explains the spiritual sense of these promises to be the heavenly inheritance, the promise of the Messiah, and of blessing the Gentile nations in him, Heb. xi. 10, 16, Gal. iii. 8, 16. .That Abraham believed God in these promises when first made to hira, there can be no doubt ; for the apostle, referring to this date, says, " By faith Abraham, when he v/as called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither he went," Heb. xi. 8, His obedience to the divine call, demonstrates his faith in God, and in the promises he had made to him, and made him yield himself up implicitly to his direction. Now, the Scriptures constantly declare, that all that believe are justified — that they have everlasting life — and shall not come into condemnation, but are passed from death unto life, Acts xiii. 39, John iii. 36, chap. v. 24. Therefore Abraham must undoubtedly have been justified when he first believed, and was converted from the idalatry of his father's house, to serve the living and true God, Josh, xxiv. 2. Mr Fuller himself admits, as was formerly noticed, " that we are introduced into that blessed state," viz., of justification, " at the moment of our believing." Prom that instant we are no more under the law, but under grace. The curses of the former stand no longer against us, and the blessings of the latter become our portion ;"* and therefore he cannot consistently deny that Abraham was justified from the first moment of his believing in God. And now, wl)at has become of Abra- ham's antecedent holiness, which Mr Fuller thinks decisive of the question ? Can he produce any of it previous to this period, when he first believed God, and was certainly justified? This, I am confident, he cannot do ; for it ap- pears that Abraham till then was an idolator ; so that God, in justifying him, in the striGtest sense, justijled theungodly. * The Protestant Dissenter's Magazine for April, 1799, p. 145. AS THE JUSTIFIER OF TUE U^TGODLT. 481 But though Abraham believed God, and was justified when he first received the promises, yet his faith and patience were afterwards to be tried, and his justification to be further manifested. The accomplishment of the promises which included his notable seed Christ, was to begin in his having an heir of his own body ; but this was delayed till he and Sarah were past age, and every natural ground of hope was cut oif. In these circumstances, the promise was renewed, Gen, xv. 1-5, when his faith in God who quickeneth the dead, triumphed over every diffi- culty ; so that, though he was justified before, on this occasion God manifested his acceptance of him as righteous purely by faith, without works, verse 6, which is recorded not for his sake only, but for us also, Rom. iv. 23, 24. After he had received the promised heir, his faith was put to a further trial, by the command to offer him up for a burnt-offering, Gen. xxii. 2. This he obeyed in intention, and the faith which now wrought with his works was his " accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead," Heb. xi. 19. On this occasion, he received the most signal testimony of the divine appro- bation, and another renewal of the promises ratified by an oath, verse 16-18. Thus it appears that Abraham, who was justified when he first believed, being freely forgiven all his past sins, and accepted into a state of favour with- God, was afterwards manifested to be in a justified state,, and approved of God upon the trial of his faith and obedience. With regard to the testimony of David, the apostle? quotes the two first verses of Psalm xxxii, " Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin," Ro^. iv. 7, 8. Now, though these words may include that continued forgiveness of sin which is the privilege of the people of God who are already in a justified state (see 1 John i. 8, 9, chap. ii. 1, 2, 12), and 482 WHETHER JUSTirTING FAITH RESPECTS GOD though David, in a subsequent part of that Psalm, speaks of his acknowledging his sin, and obtaining forgiveness, and likewise shows that this is the exercise and attainment of all the saints : " For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee, in a time when thou mayest be found," verse 5, 6. Yet it is evident that the apostle does not cite the beginning of this Psalm as descriptive of the blessedness of the man who has been the friend and servant of G-od for a series of years, * and in whom the Lord finds previous righteousness and good works, and so is justified by works and not by faith only, of which James speaks, chap. ii. 24 ; but he produceth it as a description of the blessedness of the man unto whom Grod iMPUTETH RiGHTEousiirEss WITHOUT WORKS, Consisting in having his sins freely forgiven, covered, and not imputed to him unto his condemnation, verse 6-8, which imports the imputation of righteousness to him. This is the only sense which agrees with the whole scope of the apostle's reasoning on the subject of justification ; for he is not treating of the blessedness of the godly who have been for a series of years in a justified state, but of the blessedness which comes upon the ungodly when they are introduced into that state upon their first believing. And now I leave it with the reader to judge, whether Mr Fuller has proved by the examples of Abraham and David, that antecedent holiness is necessary to the justifi- cation of the ungodly ; and if he has, whether these examples (as he applies them), do not equally prove, that men must be the friends and servants of God for a series of years l)efore they are justified ; for no singularity can be pleaded in the case of Abraham and David, nor any reason given why their justification should be delayed longer than other mens. As to what he says of the necessity of repentance in order to forgiveness, a principle which he thinks requires to be disowned before the position * Page 187. AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 483 maintained by me can be admitted, * I have answered that already, page 395-400. Let us now consider the sense of Rom. iv. 4, 5, — " Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." The apostle is here showing how guilty sinners receive or obtain the blessing of justification, or of pardon and acceptance into a state of favour with God. Two ways are mentioned, viz., xvorks and faith. As to the way of works, he had before proved that it is entirely shut up, and that it is impossible for any to be justified in that way, because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, chap. iii. 19, 20, 23 ; and that therefore men must be justified purely by grace through faith in Christ's blood, ver. 24-26. In the passage under consideration he shows that if justification were of works it could not be of grace, or of free favour to the guilty, but must be counted as a debt due to him for his work ; — " Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of geace, but of DEBT." Everybody knows that the reward of a man's work cannot be reckoned as a free gift, or matter of mere favour, but as a matter of debt due to him from his employer ; " for the workman is worthy of his hire." The reward may indeed far exceed the value of the work, or any benefit the employer receives from it ; and this must always be the case in all the works which the most perfect and innocent creature can perform in obedience to his Maker, for they cannot in the least profit him. " Is it gain to him that thou makest thy ways perfect — If thou be righteous what givest thou him ? or what receiveth he of thine hand ?" Job xxii. 3, chap. xxxv. 7. " Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again ?" Rom. xi. 35. In this view there never could have been any such thing as justification by works as a * Page 188, 484 "WHETHEE jrSTIFTIKG FAITH RESPECTS GOD debt ; even though Adam and the whole of his posterity had stood in innoeency, the reward must still have been of grace. Had this been the apostle's notion of grace, he could not have opposed it to works in justification ; for whether it were of works or of faith it would be still of grace or free favour. It is evident, however, that this is not the grace which the apostle has in view, for no Jew or Judaizer could deny that ; but the grace he speaks of is such as would be annihilated if works of any kind, or under any consideration whatever, were to have place in, or influence upon the justification of a sinner. In that case, he says, " the reward is not reckoned of geace, but of DEBT." .So that grace and works cannot mix here. They must both change their nature before they can unite either in the election or justification of sinners, Rom. xi. 6. In the next verse he opposes believing to working, and the free justification of the ungodly through faith, to a reward of debt. " But to him that worketh not, butbelieveth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for (s/; unto) righteousness." On these words I observe, 1. That him that worketh not is opposed to him that worketh in the foregoing verse. No hint is here given that he worketh for God in any respect more than with respect to justijication ; nor is there the least intimation of his being possessed of holiness for a series of years before this. The apostle expressly says, he worketh not, so that all arguments grounded on the contrary supposition are vain and nugatory, as being without the least shadow of support. Instead of working he is said to believe ; '• he worketh not, but believeth." On this I observe, 2. That working and believing are here directly op- posed to each other, and the former is altogether excluded in justification : It is " to him that worketh not, but believeth." But if believing were a work, as Mr Fuller AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 485 affirms, * the distinction and opposition would be lost ; and it would not be true that he luorketh not, or that he is justified by faith witliout works ; but only, that he is not justified by one kind of works, though he is by another. To say, that " though faith be a work, yet it does not justify as a work," is a distinction only necessary for those who, having converted faith into a work, wish to avoid saying that we are justified by a work. The apostle did not use any such unintelligible distinction, because he did not consider faith as a work, and therefore had no occasion for it. While he sets before us the work of Christ as the only procuring cause of justification, he does not scruple to say, " that faith was reckoned to Abraham for (or unto) righteousness," verse 9, and to show at large that this faith was his believing God, verse 18-23, and that it is " with the heart man believeth unto righteous- ness," chap. X. 10. In all this he uses no caution or distinction, as if he were apprehensive that he might be misunderstood, as pleading for justification by works. * In the Biblical Magazine for Jan., 1802, p. 34, Mr Fuller cites John vi. 29, to show that faith is expressly called a ivorh But it is plain that our Lord does not term believing in him the ivork of God with a view to represent faith as a woi'k, but merely to suit his answer to the words of the question put to him, from which this expression is taken. The Jews ask, " What shall we do, that we might work the works of God ? Jesus answered and said unto them, ' This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.' " Though Christ adopts their expression, yet he shows immediately that he did not mean tvorlcing by it, but believing on him. And they appear to have understood him in that sense ; for their next question is, " What sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee ?" ver. 30. Many instances can be produced of such accommodated use of terms, which are not to be taken in a strict or proper sense, far less as the gi'ound of an argument. In this very chapter our Lord takes occasion from their mentioning the manna to speak of himself as the true bread that came down from heaven, answerable to which he represents faith as eating his flesh and drinking his blood ; but would it be right to understand this of proper, eating and drink- ing? 2u 486 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD But if faith is really and properly a ■work, it unavoidably follows, that we are justified by a work, so far as faith is concerned in our justification. 3. Here we have a description of that faith whereby the sinner believes unto righteousness, or receives justifi- cation : " He worketh not but believeth on iiiir that jxJSTiFiETH THE UNGODLY." Enough has already been said on the nature of faith. His believing on him that justifieth the ungodly imports, (1.) The view he has of his oiun character and state, namely, that he is an ungodly sinner, an enemy of God, and a transgressor of his holy, just, and good law, both in the state of his mind and course of his life ; that he has incurred and justly deserves the infliction of its dreadful penalty ; that his case is altogether hopeless as to any thing he can do for his own relief, and that, but for the sovereign free mercy of God through Christ to the chief of sinners, he must perish for ever : Without some suitable convictions of this kind, he cannot believe on him that justifieth the ungodly ; because without this, he is not cut off from all hope in himself, or his own endeavours ; he does not see himself to be absolutely ungodly, or as needing to be justified under that humiliating character. Believing on him that justifieth the ungodly imports, (2.) The view he has of the character of God. This is what is chiefly intended. He believes on God as possessing the glorious character and prerogative of being the justifier of the ungodly. When Abraham believed God's promise, he saw no natural fitness in himself or in Sarah to have a son ; but he believed in the supernatural power of God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things that be not as though they were, verse 17. Even so, when a sinner believes unto righteousness, he sees no fitness in himself to be justified in the natural way of works, but in all respects the reverse ; yet he believes in the supernatural grace of God, whose prerogative it is to AS THE JUSTIFIER OP THE UNUODLY, 487 justify the ungodly such as he, through the obedience of another. This is his faith, which is more fully described afterwards to be a " believing on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification," verse 24, 25. Here we see that his faith is a believing on Grod as having substituted his own Son in the room of the guilty, delivered him up to death as an atonement for their sins, and raised him again from the dead for their justifica- tion, thereby demonstrating that he is fully satisfied and well pleased in the sacrifice of his beloved Son, and requires no more offering for sin. By the obedience of Christ unto death, he perceives the law magnified and honoured, sin expiated, justice fully satisfied, and pardon and eternal life procured for lost sinners ; so that he now sees how it is just in a holy and righteous Grod to justify the ungodly such as he is, purely through the worthiness of the Lamb that was slain. This, and this alone, gives peace to his guilty conscience and rest to his soul. This faith in its very nature is opjjosite to his working in order to be justified ; for it is a belief that all his works in that view are in vain and unavailable, Rom. iii. 20. It is a belief that all his works to that end are needless, because he sees that the work which justifies the ungodly is already completely finished and accepted without his concurrence, and that nothing can be added to it as the ground of acceptance, either in point of merit or moral fitness. Nay, it is a belief that all works per- formed in this view are exceedingly sinful, as frustrating the grace of Grod, and implying that Christ hath died in vain, Gral. ii. 21. Whoever, therefore, are working and labouring in order to be justified, have not yet believed on God as the justifier of the ungodly. Such a belief would have furnished them with other principles of action, and have made all their works and exercises turn upon a very different hinge. But we must remember that this faith is 488 WHETHER JUSTIFTIXG FAITH RESPECTS GOD a supernatural principle opposite to our natural bias and reasonings, and therefore requires the mighty power of God both to produce and sustain it. I observe, (4.) That believing on him that jiistifieth the ungodly, is here declared to be justifying faith. " To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the un- godly, HIS FAITH IS COUNTED FOR (or UUto) RIGHTEOUSNESS." Counting, reckoning, or imputing faith for righteousness, is not the apostle's usual style on this subject. He uses it only throughout this fourth chapter, where he is com- menting xxpon Gen. xv. 6, which leads him to adopt the phraseology of his text. But at the beginning of the next chapter he drops this phraseology, and expresseth the same thing in his usual manner by being justified hy faith ; so that to have faith counted for righteousness, is to be justified hy faith. But as the words have been variously explained, I shall here give the sense in which I understand them. Faith here does not mean the object of faith, as some explain it, but a man's believing. Abraham's faith, which was imputed to him unto righteousness, was his believing God, verse 3 — his believing in hope, verse 18 — his being strong in faith, verse 20, and fully persuaded, verse 21. It is opposed to unbelief, staggering, or being xveak in faith, verse 19, 20, and in this 5th verse it is described to be a person's believing on him that justifieth the ungodly. This sense is fixed down by the apostle when he says, " If thou Shalt BELIEVE IS THINE HEART — FOR WITH THE HEART HAN BELIEVETH uuto rightcousness," Rom. X. 9, 10. By righteousness here, many understand the righteous- ness of Christ. This is indeed the only meritorious or procuring cause of justification. It is by the righteousness of one, or one righteousness, that the free gift comes upon all men unto justification of life, chap. v. 18. It is by the obedience of one that many shall be made righteous, verse 19. God hath made him to be a sin-offering for us. AS THE JUSTIFIER OP THE UNGODLY. 489 that we might be made the righteousness of Clod in him, 2 Cor. V. 21. Hence he is said to be made of God unto us righteousness, 1 Cor. i. 30, and we are said to be jus- tified by his blood, Rom. v. 9. Yet I am of opinion that righteousness in the passage under consideration signifies the blessing of justification itself, which is received by faith in Christ's righteousness. This, I apprehend, is the sense of the word through the whole of this chapter, and many other places, such as Rom. ix. 30, chap. x. 4, 10, 2 Cor. iii. 9, chap. v. 21, Gal. ii. 21, chap. iii. 21. For to be justified through Christ's obedience is to be made or constituted righteous, Rom. v. 19, or to be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. But it will be asked in what sense is a man's faith counted to him for, or unto, righteousness or justification ? I cannot better illustrate this than by referring to what is said of the miraculous cures which Christ performed on the bodies of men. He asks some of those who applied, *' Believe ye that I am able to do this ?" Matt. ix. 28, and to another he says, " Only believe ; all things are pos- sible to him that believeth," Mark v. 36. It was certainly Christ's divine power alone that healed them ;. yet not without their believing that he was able to do it ; and when they believed that, his power was exerted in healing them according to their faith in it ; — " As thou hast believed, BO be it done unto thee," Matt. viii. 13. " According to your faith be it unto you," chap. ix. 29. And so he places their cure to the amount of their faith, or counts their faith to them unto healing : — " Thy faith hath saved thee," Luke xviii. 42. " Thy faith hath made thee whole,'* Matt. ix. 22. Christ's power was always the same whether they believed it or not \ but it was when it became the object of their belief that it effected their cure. Nothing could be more gratuitous and beyond the compass of human power than those merciful cures ; so that the manner in which they were conferred clearly illustrates 2u 2 490 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD the point in hand. Healing the diseased answers to justifying the ungodly. Christ's poiver effected the former ; his righteousness the latter ; yet it was by believing that his power and righteousness are alone sufficient for these purposes, that the benefit was obtained, and so it is as- cribed to faith. We may therefore run the parallel thus : To him that worked not for his cure, but believed on him that healed the diseased, his faith was counted for, or unto, healing ; so, in like manner, — " To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for, or unto, righteousness," i.e., justification : — " For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness," or to the obtaining of justification, Rom. x. 10. From the whole it appears to me, That God may as properly be said to justify the ungodly, as to pardon the guilty, reconcile enemies, heal the diseased, or quicken the dead ; for certainly the character of ungodly applies to that state wherein men are really such : and if justifica- tion be a taking them out of that state, how could it be better expressed than by justifying the ungodly ? Indeed none but the uagodly are capable of being justified in the apostle's sense of that word. For though faith is necessary to justification, yet as it is not the ground of it, but re- ceives it as a free gift, and as this reception cannot be shown to be prior to it in order of time ; so it does not constitute a godly character or state, previous to justifica- tion ; for there is no unjustified godly person, nor is any person in a godly state till he is justified. Therefore justi- fication must respect the imgodly, and the apostle's expres- sion is the most correct that could be devised. It also ap- pears that justifying faith implies the person's conviction that he himself is ungodly, and has incurred the curse ; for he believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, which he would not submit to but for such a conviction. Fur- ther, it is evident that by this faith he is justified, or re- ceives pardon and acceptance with God ; for it is said AS *HE JUSTIFIER OP THE tTHGOBLY. 491 his faith is counted for righteousness. Now, and not till now, his state is changed, and he is no longer ungodly, nor denominated such. That faith by which he is justi- fied is accompanied by true repentance, purifies his heart, works by love, and is productive of obedience ; and though sin, to his grief, still remains in him, of which he becomes more and more sensible as he grows in spirituality and the knowledge of himself, yet it shall not have dominion over him, for he is not under the law, but under grace. He lives by the faith of the Son of Grod, and Christ lives in him. None can believe in Christ for righteousness without a conviction of sin and its consequences, for they can see no need they have of him, nor any suitableness in him with- out this. But many may have strong convictions of sin awakened in them both by the word and providences of God ; their minds may be filled with fear and distress, and an earnest desire of deliverance at least from the punish- ment of sin, and perhaps from sin itself as the means of obtaining that. They may also be very busily engaged in establishing their own righteousness in a variety of ways, and among the rest in fitting and qualifying themselves to be justified by Christ's righteousness. Nay, they may be taught in theory to renounce all this labour, as if they were doing nothing, and to depend upon the merits of Christ alone for acceptance ; and so be engaged in doing and undoing, alternately working, and, as it were, humbly re- nouncing all their works ; while in all this exercise they have not the least notion that they can obtain justification by believing in the work and worthiness of the Son of God as alone sufficient to justify the ungodly. In the Commission, p. 84, 85, I mention the efi"ect which the doctrine I oppose must have upon the mind of an awakened sinner. " He who conceives that in order to his pardon and acceptance with God he must first be pos- sessed of such good dispositions and holy affections as are 492 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD commonly included in tlie nature of faith, will find no immediate relief from the gospel, nor anything in it which fully reaches his case,^ while he views himself merely as a guilty sinner — He does not believe that Christ's death will be of any benefit to him as a mere sinner," i. e, while he views himself only as such ; " nor does he expect relief to his conscience purely and directly from the atonement, but through the medium of a better opinion of his own heart and character. This sentiment, if he is really con- cerned about the salvation of his soul, must set him upon attempts to reform his heart, and to do something under the notion of acting faith," (but in reality to qualify him- self for Christ) "that he may be justified; and all his endeavours, prayers, and religious exercises will be directed to that end." Thus he is working with respect to justifi- cation, instead of believing on him that justifieth the un- godlyj purely through the work already finished by his beloved Son. Mr Fuller's method of answering this is, by entirely changing the case here supposed, and theu combating the creature of his own imagination. He first infers from it that I deny the necessity of re- pentance in order to forgiveness.* Yet the case supposed is that of an awakened sinner, convinced of guilt, dis- tressed in his mind on account of it, really concerned about the salvation of his soul, and no-t only earnestly desiring relief, but diligently labouring to obtain it, ac- cording to the directions gives him, by the exercise of holy affections and dispositions. All this I admit may be previous to faith in Christ, and forgiveness through him. And will Mr Fuller deny that this is the repentance he pleads for in order to forgiveness, and as previous to faith in Christ, and which he thinks " a conviction of the being and attributes of God " is sufficient to produce ? f Wherein then do we diflfer ? Not as to the existence of * Page 189. t Page 173, AS THE JUSTIFIER OP THE UNGODLY. 493 the thing, but ia our judgment of its quality. He sup- poses that this previous repentance is of a holy nature, including love to God. I do not ; for however much con- victions of sin and a sense of need may he necessary to make sinners prize the remedy, yet I have no idea that unbelievers, while such, have any holy affection or true love to God. Upon this he proceeds to deny that the case which I have supposed is consistent with itself. " It may be questioned," he says, " whether this account of things be consistent with itself ; or whether any mere sinner ever views himself merely as a guilty sinner ; for such views include a just sense of the evil of sin, and of his own utter unworthiness of the divine favour, which no mere sinner ever possessed." * This is that part of the scheme whereby persons, previous to their believing in Christ, are taught to extract comfort from their convictions ; and some are so extravagant as to imagine that, while in this situation, they have arrived at such a pitch of holy affection as to love God disinterestedly, or without any view to his mercy ; so that, according to this, the revela- tion of his grace in the gospel must tend to contaminate ■ their pure affection and mix it with selfishness ! This- conceit I consider to be the very pinnacle of self-righteous pride. I am far from thinking that Mr Fuller would carry matters to this extravagant height : No ; I hope' he is better acquainted with his own heart ; but yet I ap- prehend that his doctrine of antecedent holiness and of holy affection to God being included in convictions of sin previous to faith (consequently without any true ground of hope in his mercy) can stand upon no other principle but disinterested love., I am, however, of a very different opinion. I believe that a person may be so awakened and convicted in his conscience as to view himself merely as a guilty sinner, i. e., having no righteousness to recom- * Paso 190. 494 WHETHER JUSTIFTIXG FAITH RESPECTS GOD mend him to tlie favour of God ; and that under such conviction his sense of the evil of sin will not be confined to its punishment ; but his conscience, or moral sense will tell him that he deserves punishment at the hands of a righteous God. Yet, notwithstanding this conviction, if he knows not the ground of hope in the mercy of God, or the way of relief, he will neither truly fear nor love him ; but will either sink into despair, or, if any hope remains, it must be founded on his repentance and resolutions of amendment. And this last is the case which I have sup- posed, in which the awakened person is labouring to ac- quire holy affections and good dispositions that he may be justified. Now, because I do not admit that an awakened sinner, however strong his convictions of sin and its desert, and however earnestly he may desire relief, is possessed of true holiness previous to faith, therefore, Mr Fuller infers that the case which I have stated must be that of a hard-hearted enemy to true religion, who has not a grain of regard to God's name, nor concern for having offended him ; nor the least degree of attachment to the atonement of Christ on account of its securing his honour, and who wishes not to be saved from his sins, but to be saved in them. He also affirms that I suppose this hard-hearted sinner is to be relieved by the assurance of pardon and acceptance with God, and that this is to be derived directly horn, the atone- ment ; by which, he says, I mean that the mere sinner is pardoned without repentance, or any holy affection to Christ — That no mere sinner, in my sense of the term, ever derived relief as a mere sinner directly from the atone- ment ; but believing sinners only. That by my way of reasoning it should seem as though impenitent and un- humbled sinners not only derived their comfort in this way, but as if they were the only persons that did so." * By this, and a good deal more in the same spirit and * See Page 190-197. AS THE JUSTIFIER OP THE UNGODLY. 495 strain, he shows his zeal for the holiness of unbelievers, and at the same time beats off the self-condemned, who can find no holiness in themselves, from looking directly to the atonement for relief. I have not the least idea that a hard-hearted enemy of Grod, while such, can either receive or enjoy forgiveness ; but I distinguish between such a state of mind, and that of an awakened self-condemned sinner, and also between the latter and a real convert who believes the gospel, has tasted that the Lord is gracious, and is possessed of holy affections. For strong convictions of sin have often taken place, and been attended with various affections, emotions, and resolutions, which yet have not issued in repentance unto life, or a real change, and so cannot be properly termed lioly affections. Whether such convic- tions as issue in conversion differ in kind from the former, I will not take upon me to determine ; but I am certain of this, that it would be very unsafe to build up any in an opinion of their possessing holiness merely upon the ground of their convictions, while they come short of a real change, and do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. That conviction of sin and its desert, which is subservient to faith in Christ, will never lead a person to think that it is any part of his holiness ; for such a thought would be as opposite to the nature of his convic- tion as his feeling a disease would be to his thinking him- self whole. Mr Fuller ought not to have treated the case of the awakened sinner which I have stated above, and which deserves compassion, with such unfeeling contempt, and uncharitable invective ; for whether I consider him as possessed of real holiness or not, he certainly deserves no such treatment from any, much less from Mr Fuller, who ought to have recognized his case as the genuine effect of his own doctrine, and so have vindicated his holiness ; but instead of this, he gets rid of the case altogether, by 496 WHETHER JUSTIFYING JPAITH EESPECTS GOD changing it into that of a hard-hearted enemy to true religion ; and in this form he presents it to his readers, and combats it, as if I had either stated or approved of such a case ! But if he thinks the case which I have supposed not applicable, we shall take a real one, namely, that of the Philippian jailer, Acts xvi., in whom we may perceive a hard-hearted enemy to God and true religion — an awakened sinner — and a true convert ; and all this in the space of a few hours. Mr Fuller will certainly admit that he was a hard-hearted enemy to true religion, when he attempted to kill himself, verse 27. I suppose he will also admit, that he was a true convert when he rejoiced, believing in Glod, verse 34. It remains, then, to consider his intermediate case as an aiuakened sinner, when he " came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said. Sirs, What must I do to be saved ?" verse 29, 30. Their answer to this was plain, direct, and pertinent, without any double meaning or reserve : " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house," verse 31. But as they knew he could not believe till they told him what he was to believe, " they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house," verse 32. The effect was, he believed what they declared as the word of Grod, and was immediately relieved, and made happy by it ; for he found the gospel remedy perfectly suited to his case, and reaching him guilty as he stood ; so that he " rejoiced," or exulted, " believing in God." Let us now suppose that an answer had been given to this self-condemned jailer upon the principles which Mr Fuller has advanced. It must be something to the fol- lowing effect : — " You ask what you must do to be saved ; to this I answer in general, that if you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you shall be saved. But I must inform you. that there are many things requisite to your believing AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UJSTGODLT. 497 in a riglit manner. — You must first be regenerated without the word, and have your heart effectually changed, and its bias turned towards God, before you know anything of Christ. — You must also truly repent of all your sins, before you believe in him, and in order to it. And with respect to this repentance, you must observe, that it is not a mere conviction of sin, and a dread of its just punish- ment, such as you seem at present to possess ; but a holy affection towards Grod, being chiefly concerned for the dishonour you have done to his name, and reconciled to his justice, though he should send you to hell. — Then, with respect to your believing in Christ, you must not understand this in the common acceptation of that word, as if it meant simply your giving credit to the gospel testimony concerning him ; for that would be an unholy speculation, which would never carry you to heaven. There is an important difference between this and the ideas which you must attach to believing. It is a grace of the Spirit, influenced by the moral state of the heart, and partaking of it, and including in its nature the exercise of holy affections and good dispositions. For God does not justify the ungodly till they are possessed of such ante- cedent holiness as I have described, nor perhaps till they have been his friends and servants for a series of years." Such an answer as this must either have driven the poor trembling jailer into despair, or have set him upon that kind of perplexing labour which I have described in the former case ; but could never re- lieve his mind, or reconcile his heart to God, as the apostle's doctrine did. Mr Fuller thinks that his doctrine of antecedent holi- ness, and of ruorking for God, previous to justification, can have no bad effect, because " whatever necessity there may be for a writer, in vindication of the truth, to enu- merate these things, they are such as the subject of them thinks nothing of at the time, especially as the ground of 2 X 498 "WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD, &c. his acceptance with Grod." * But if the subject of these things thinks nothing of them at the time, it is not Mr Fuller's fault. He has done what he could to make him both think and act upon them, and that too with a view to be justified. And does he imagine that after all his pains, the thoughtlessness or inattention of his readers will be a proper antidote against the genuine influence of such doctrine ? Or does he indeed wish that this may be the case? To conclude : — As the clear and decisive reasoning of the apostle Paul has not put an end to this controversy, which has been agitated ever since, I am of opinion that it is of such a nature, that it can only be satisfyingly decided in the conscience and experience of such indivi- duals as are taught of Grod, and that it is part of that knowledge which no man can effectually teach his neighbour. * Page 185. Elgin : Priated by Robert Jeans, at the " Coui-ier -' Office. LETTER REV. R. S. CANDLISH, D.D. By ALEXANDER ANDERSON. Old Aberdeen, 21st May, 1852. Dear Sib, In your recently published Second Volume on Genesis, you have de- voted a section to the exposition of circumcision, in connection with the Abrahamic Covenant, and with Infant Baptism. Having been led, in the Providence of God, to ask leave at the bar of the General Assembly of 1848 to submit a proof from the Word of God of the unsoundness of the argument on this subject in the "Westminster Standards, which proposal you saw it your duty to meet by moving my separation from the ministry and membership of the Free Church— and the propriety of this course, on the princi- ples of your own constitution, I am now prepared to admit — I feel entitled and called upon thus publicly to remark upon the vindication which you have offered of that argument, and of your own views. The obvious objection to the argument for Infant Baptism from the analogy of circumcision has been clearly stated by yourself. P. 12. « * * The opponents of Infant Baptism reply, that circum- cision was appointed for the Jews as a nation, and was the sign of their privileges as a nation which, in principle, might be hereditary, and, in fact, were so. But grace, they say, is not hereditary, and baptism is the pledge (?) of grace. The infant child of a Jew was of course himself a Jew, and might fitly receive the pledge of his national distinction as a Jew; but the child of a Christian is not ne- cessarily a Christian." * * This answer, you say, " would be conclusive, so far as to set aside the argument from analogy, were it well-founded in point of fact.'' You reply, accordingly, by denying the fact assumed concerning cir- cumcision, as it was administered under the Abrahamic Covenant — that it was a national distinction, and hereditary in the Abrahamic family. I beg only to set against this a part of the terms of the Covenant with Abraham, of which circumcision was the token. Gen. xvii. 2, 7, 8, — " And I will make my Covenent between me and thee, and vrill multiply thee exceedingly. * * f= And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their gene- rations. * * * And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession ;" and the law of circumcision annexed to this Covenant, ver. 10-12 — " This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee. Every man child (male) among you shall be circumcised. * * * It shall be a token of the covenant between me and you ; he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child (male) in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger that is not of thy seed ;" to which it is added, that "in the self-same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son, and all the men of his house were circumcised with him." I simply ask, What language could be devised more elaborately to describe a national and hereditary distinction ? But in the face of these passages you defend your position that circumcision, under the Abrahamic Covenant, was not in its princi- ple either national or hereditary, by alleging — 1. That circumcision, as given to Abraham, was "not restricted to the Jewish nation in particular." — P. 10. The only shadow of proof which you offer in support of this statement only goes to show that it was not restricted to Abraham's posterity. But this is nothing to your purpose. Since you deny its being a national distinction, the question is, not about its being abso- lutely confined to Abraham's posterity, but to the Abrahamic and Israelitish family or nation. It surely cannot avail you as an evi- dence against this, to tell us that it embraced every servant born in his house, or "even," as you say, bought with money of the stranger. I enquire, Is circumcision here prescribed to any out cf the family of Abraham ? or is any case hinted at in which any male within the limits of that family was to be excluded from the operation of the law ? True, circumcision, being the token of a covenant given to Abraham as a true believer, became to him " a seal of the righteous- ness of the faith which he had." But is circumcision anywhere pre- scribed, even to his ovm descenda*its, as a seal to them personally, of the righteousness of a faith which they might or might not " have ?" ■ — especially, is it so prescribed to any, believers or others, not being of his household or race ? 2. That the Covenant with Abraham, of which circumcision was the token, was " 7iot temporal and national, but spiritual and uni- Tersal."— P. 10. I must say, this is an astonishing statement to have been made, with the terms of the Covenant, as they have been quoted, standing before you. Dr Wardlaw, not once questioning the existence in the Covenant of a " temporal" promise to the Israelitish " nation," has endeavoured to save your analogy by a plausibly defended assertion that the temporal promises were addressed to the fleshly seed, only on the supposition of their acquiring the character of a spiritual seed ; and that Abraham's posterity who entered Canaan inherited these promises in the capacity of a nation of true believers. He has not attempted to show that the generation who came out of Egypt, and perished in the wilderness, were redeemed from their earthly bondage under the same character, although such an argument would eeem to have been equally necessary, Israel's redemption from Egypt being a leading article in the Abrahamic Covenant. (See Gen. XV. 14, Exod. ii. 24, vi. 4-7.) You take a bolder course by denying that the promise in any way embraces the earthly inheritance, or that it has any reference to Abraham's fleshly seed as a nation. If the promise of the earthly Canaan to Abraham's posterity in Gen. xvii. has not a literal signification, then, it would seem, the reference to the fleshly seed, together with the command to give them the fleshly circumcision standing connected with it, must also in some way be reduced to a mere figure ; and so the foundation of your own argument for Infant Baptism is destroyed. Little less strange is your appeal to the Apostle's argument in Gal. iii. 13-17, in support of your position. That passage asserts the free grace and absolute unchangeableness of the Abrahamic Covenant. This principle is applicable alike to the spiritual promise, as it belongs to every individual of the believing or spiritual seed, and to the promise of the earthly inheritance, as it is addressed to the Abrahamic family and race. The argument of the Apostle has not the most remote bearing upon the question whether the Cove- nant with Abraham did or did not comprehend a temporal promise to the natural posterity, besides the spiritual promise to the spiritual seed, with which the Apostle is there dealing. Had you said that the Abrahamic Covenant was not merely earthly and national, your statement would have been unassailable. It is as certain that believers of all nations enjoy their spiritual inheritance in virtue of their relation to Abraham, through their union by faith to his one seed, which is Christ, as it is certain that Israel, after the flesh, were redeemed from Egypt, and introduced into the land of Canaan, " not for their righteousness," but in fulfilment of " the oath which God sware unto their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," (see Ps. cv. 8-11, 42-45), and on account of their fleshly kinsman- ship to that one promised seed. But the admission of the twofold constitution of the Covenant, you clearly see, would be fatal to your analogy. If the Covenant contains a fleshly as well as a spiritual department, then the administration of the fleshly token of the Covenant to the posterity of Abraham during the Old Testament period — allotted to the development of the earthly promise to the fleshly seed, — could furnish you v.ith no authority for a like adminis- tration to a fleshly seed — whether of Gentile or Jewish descent — un- der the dispensation of the New Covenant, which, as you do not deny, has expressly repealed all fleshly and hereditary distinctions in the House of God. Or, again, had you even said that the Covenant with Abraham was not merely temporal and outward in its peculiar reference to Abra- ham's literal posterity, you would have stated a truth which, although overlooked by some, would, I believe, have been Scriptural and im- portant. There is abundant evidence in the Word of God that his gracious purposes towards the family of Abraham n ere not exhausted by the national privileges of their past history. They were settled in Canaan in virtue of the literal promise in the Abrahamic Covenant, and under the ohligations of the " Old" or Sinai Covenant temporarily annexed to that Covenant of promise. A glorious season is approach- ing, when the " New" Covenant will be established with " the house of Israel and the house ofJudah, not according to the Covennnt which he made with their fathers," and when "all Israel shall be saved." Then will He be to them a God, and they shall be His people, and then will be fully vindicated His ancient promise to be " a God to Abraham and to his seed." Thus, although grace is in no case hereditary to indivi- duals, there does exist one family on the earth with T.hom a sure covenant of salvation has been established, reaching onward to the end of time. But neither would the statement of tliis doctrine have availed you, unless you could have shown both that the posterity of every believer have a like unchangeable interest in God's purposes of grace, and that a hereditary and family interest in the promise to Abraham, such as the nation of the Jews now possess, carries with it a right of membership in the spiritual Church of Christ, irrespectively of a personal interest in new covenant blessings. In fine, then, the great fact of the national and hereditary charac- ter of the sign of circumcision, as given to Abraham — which you have been the first, so far as I know, expressly to deny — ^stands forth before the whole world clear as day. If so, then, by your own show- ing, the objection founded upon it to your analogy is " conclusive" against the force of that analogy, and against the fundamental argu- ment for infant baptism as it is presented in the Westminster Stan- dards, and as generally held by Evangelical Divines. I beseech you, by your undoubted regard to the authority of God in his Word, and by your own great responsibilities as " a Master in Israel," to abandon these evident perversions of the Scriptures, even although it should in- volve your renunciation of your cherished practice, of giving the ap- pointed badge of " the children of God" to those who, you well know, as " born of the flesh," are only " the children of the flesh." Your at- tempt to prove that a carnal ordinance was divinely associated with a purely spiritual Covenant, in my judgment would go, not only to establish Infant Baptism, but to sanction in the spiritual Church of Christ the whole system of legal and fleshly administration of which Circumcision is taken in the Apostolic Scriptures as the very type and representative, and which it is one of their chief designs to over- throw. In regard to a plan of grace combining in such a variety of ways the fleshly and spiritual elements as the Abrahamic Covenant does, and in regard to an ordinance so vaguely apprehended in the popular creed as Baptism is — the very name " Sacrament " being one of which an intelligible explanation has scarcely yet appeared — there is room for endless mystification. This shows the danger of Christians refusing to take their direction simply from the plain rule of Baptism laid down in the New Testament. It is but too likely that my present attempt to testify for the truth on this subject, as I have been taught it, will be as barren of any direct result among my respected brethren in the Ministry of the Free Church as previous efi'orts directed to the same end. But considering the fi-equency of the assertion that the Free Church has well considered and under- stands the ground of her conclusions on this subject, the present seems too favourable an opportunity for challenging, in the face of the Christian public, the deliverance of one of her highest authori- ties on one of the few occasions on which they have seen it fit to speak out. I am, Dear Sir, Your faithful Servant, ALEX. ANDERSON. I I